Questions for Your Notre Dame Mormon

[BJRumph]

I have close friends who are Catholic and we share a common faith in Christ and desire to serve Him

Either you are, once again, ignorant or lying about your company’s teachings, or I have to inform you that you are already an apostate mormon. If so, then stop the tomfoolery and join RCIA already!

If the former, however, shame! deliberate obfuscation of the truth! I know the truthfulness of the matter, and I cannot let such a falsehood stand unanswered. Even on the solitary aspect regarding the “nature” of Christ resides an unreconcilable difference in doctrines taught! Any honest assessmet of what your religion says, and what the Church says will reveal such. Trying to hide that distinction is a heretical denial of faith for whichever religion you wish to choose.

Again, stand up for the Truth, if you really believe you have it, and stop hiding it. No one’s gonna fall for it here.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

ND, either you do not know what your church has historically taught (you must be very young), or you are deliberately deceiving us.

See the quotes from your own prophets and apostles here and here.
Please do not patronize us with platitudes. Those of us who spent years in the LDS Church as missionaries, teachers and priesthood leaders know better.

Besides, several LDS on this forum have expressed belief in this doctrine.

Paul

Paul,

None of these quotes espouse what you accuse the Church of teaching, a physical sexual relation and conception. None of these quotes is incompatible with what I have said.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

I suspect some of us critics were in the LDS Church longer than you’ve been alive. Don’t tell me I don’t have a clear understanding of what the LDS Church teaches – as a former missionary, married in the temple, and Elders Quorum President for five years, I’m sure I know exactly what the Mormon Church teaches. I’ve read all of the priesthood manuals back to the early 70s and taught from them. At BYU my job was to go through conference talks and BYU devotionals back to the mid-1800s and pull out important quotes from LDS General Authorities. I would say I’m pretty well informed. I’ve been through the “I don’t know that we teach that” stage which is simply a Mormon way of trying to cover up its controversial teachings. So I think you can come to me and find out exactly what the LDS Church teaches.

Paul and BJ,

While I don’t appreciate your antagonism, I can appreciate your zeal, but I ask you to please be civil. I am not here to debate or argue. I am simply here to answer questions and state generally, as best I can in the time I have, the beliefs of the LDS Church.

I agree that historical statements and purported statements of LDS leaders do not always fit neatly with the Church’s official doctrines. The Catholic Church, and any other organization with substantial history, has that common concern. It is simply an unavoidable consequence of human history.

And surely you would not want to apply your above reasoning to the Catholic Church. By your argument, I can accurately and finally learn what the Catholic Church actually believes by talking to a ex-Catholic (particularly one who feels victimized and betrayed by the Church?). Please be fair.

Again, I want this to be a positive and productive exchange. I am willing to do my part to keep the Spirit of Christ in this. Will you please do the same?

Thank you.

 

[Jerusha]

I am not an ex-Mormon. I will not try to explain to you why I finally found it necessary to study the subject. If you have ever read “In Mormon Circles”, by Coates, you may see some of the reasons.

The primary, and consistent flaw of Mormonism that I see, is the denial of original sin, when defined as the human propensity to view “us” as good, and “others” as evil. All of the other errors of Mormonism follow from that.

The inconsistencies within Mormon doctrines are a result of inconsistencies within the Book of Mormon, which, in return, is a result of the time in which it was written (1829). The BOM clearly and consistently reflects an '“Us” as good, “Others” as evil attitude. All other politically incorrect (in today’s terms) doctrines can be argued away with “I’m not sure we teach that anymore”. Even your evasive tactics when confronted with challenges on whether the BOM is sacred scripture are quite revealing.

the person, not the words.

 

[majick275]

Paul,

None of these quotes espouse what you accuse the Church of teaching, a physical sexual relation and conception. None of these quotes is incompatible with what I have said.

I’m going to have to disagree with you here. The accusation is NOT that the LDS church teaches today but that it HAD in the past and has certainly not denounced those teachings in the present. It just isn’t talked about. This seems to be common to many of the teacings of the early LDS church.

What you said was that the idea of a physical realtionship was preposterous. That certainly appears contradictory to those quotes as they emphasize in great detail that the conception and birth of Jesus was quite the same as it would be for any human.

The LDS church still teaches quite explicitly that Heavenly Father has a physical body that has been resurected and exalted/glorified/.etc. and that Jesus does is well. They teach that Jesus is the literal offspring of hevanly father in the flesh as well as the spirit, thus the “only begotten son” differentiation since LDS doctrine states that ALL of us as well as Satan and his minions are literal “spiritual” offspring of Heavenly Father. The process for spiritual conception and birth has never been clearly defined but the physical is obvious. (I wonder about the spiritual though since it is also taught by LDS that we have always existed, first as “intelligences” then as “spirit children”)

I would challenge your assertion 1 :

NotreDameMormon:

I agree that historical statements and purported statements of LDS leaders do not always fit neatly with the Church’s official doctrines. The Catholic Church, and any other organization with substantial history, has that common concern. It is simply an unavoidable consequence of human history.

LDS claim to have prophets, seers and revelators who speak just as if God himself were talking. (D&C, etc.) This is very different than Catholic theologians or even popes. I certainly don’t see it as unavoidable otherwise why prophets? further the Catholic church has the magisterium defined and curently documents the actual beliefs in the catechism. These beliefs are consistent with what was taught in the writngs of the ECF’s and have not changed ever. Compare and contrast witih different doctrines and practices allegedly revealed by prophets in the LDs church.

I also challenge assertion 2:

NotreDameMormon:

And surely you would not want to apply your above reasoning to the Catholic Church. By your argument, I can accurately and finally learn what the Catholic Church actually believes by talking to a ex-Catholic (particularly one who feels victimized and betrayed by the Church?). Please be fair.

We have the catechism so that there can be no valid dispute overr what the Catholic church teaches. There is no LDS equivalent and we have manyh well documented examples (from official LDS sources like the standard works) clearly demonstrating changes in what is taught and practiced. This combined with the multi stage doctrine of what is in the Temple makes it very difficult for the student of religion to nail down what is actual LDS doctrine vs. “congregational doctirne” vs. speculation. It appears ironic that one of the most popular books of all time in LDS bookstores (and the closest thing to a catechism equivalent) is Bruce R. Mconkie’s “Mormon Doctrine”. I say that because the LDS church has made it very clear the even though he was an apostle and thus a prophet, seer and revelator and even though it is and has been sold in mass to the LDS poulace it isn’t “official”.

Those of us who used to teach Gospel Doctrine and who have served in quorum presidencies and bishoprics shouldn’t be waved off as “disgruntled ex-mormons” either. We speak from valid experience. I know what I taught, was taught and believed and practiced and led others to practice as an LDS member. I can back that up with quotes from existing official LDS publications.

We might disagree over what these things mean but cetrainly not what is and has been officially taught and practiced.

I believe tha tI have discovered that the LDS teachings are false and not of God. I believe that God founded the Cathoic church and has always led it, never abandoning it… just as he said in the Bible. I pray that you will also come to a knowledge of the truth and receive the REAL fullness of the gospel.

 

[ChoirMom]

ND Mormon & RyanL

First, I would like to tell you how much I enjoy the respectful relationship you and RyanL have, it brings me peace and hope for this world. I appreciate both your kind manners and treatment of others. As a mother I understand the unending endeavor of teaching my children to speak respectfully to their siblings and others. Your mothers must be proud of you both.

“Love one another!” This demanding saying of the Lord tests our credibility as Christians. Jesus himself warns: “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35). John Paul II Sept 25

Second, I prefer not to debate, I prefer to sing – less contention and such…, hence I almost never post to forums. But, since you have already proven that you are not a wolf in sheep clothing, as I characterize. I would like to ask a few questions if you still have the desire and time.

Why and what exactly are “Works” in reference to being saved, in contrast to being saved by “Grace” alone?

Thank you,
Choir Mom

 

[BJRumph]

Fine, NDM, then ignore the “antagonism”, and substantively respond to the issues addressed in a forthright manner.

The Christology of the lds religion is irreconcilible with that of the Catholic Church. Hiding this easily researched fact can only be interpreted as deceit, especially if you actually possess the knowledge you claim in your opening post. The ignorance of others is your only sheild, and is indeed the subject of your prey. I am not so ignorant. I gave up nine years of my adult life supporting and even defending the lds church until I realized that in doing so I was actually denying the God of my Faith and Knowledge, which incedintally, is the one glorified and worshipped in the Catholic Church.

As Joseph Smith would say, (and did claim to say, though many want to ascribe the LoF to Rigdon); you cannot have a valid faith in God unless you have a proper knowledge of God, which definitively includes His nature and characteristics. As such, you have no real legitimate recourse to deny the teachings of your church regarding God, even in an effort to evangelisize to Catholics, as to do so denies the very faith you are claiming to represent.

Frankly, my “antagonism” for the lds resides in two factors, only one of which is pertainant here:

1.) The stubborn refusal to actually uphold or express the clear teachings of their faith, while claiming to be doing precisely that. This is the source of my present consternation with you, in particular.

2.) Their wholly un-civil treatment of my family while we transitioned out of the church. This is also manifested in your blanket dismissal, common among all mormon “apologists”, of all who question the validity of your faith’s doctrines or practices. Such a dissmissal is a crass dismissal of the basic dignity of all who are not part of your particular social group. Such a thing does not occur in the Catholic Church, which can find the valid points made by even its most ardent and vehement opponents. Sadly, your religion cannot do the same.

In both cases, the “antagonsim” springs from actions of Mormons, not myself. My sin resides in failing to overcome such indignation on a permanent basis, it being re-manifeted each time I cross the paths of deceit as I have seen in this thread. Even Tom Nosser, who deliberately goaded me, was at least honest in regards to the teachiings of your religion. Unfortunately, he was the exception, not the rule. Of course, as I can have civil relations with those rare mormons who actually stand up for their faith, such as my Father-in-law, then at least I can conclude of myself that my indignation is not a blind irrational rage (as you would have it), but a mutable one dependant on the legitimate causes which prompt it.

I will say it; you have demonstrated only that you are, in fact, the very wolf in sheep’s clothing others who have fallen for your honeyed words deny you to be. My “harsh” “antagonism” is not a lack of Charity, for it is the duty of Charity to admonish the sinner, and instruct them in the Truth, as any Catholic should be aware. Christ certainly didn’t pause for kind words when he took up the scourge and drove out the profiteers from the Temple. If others choose to believe gentle feelings over plain truth, then I can only point out the error, and pray for them. Past experience as shown that when dealing with the particular circumstances as present on this thread, that it is better to strike at the heart of the error rather than lose sight of the truth in a false “kindness” wherein the truth is lost in equivocation and politeness, which benefits only those seeking to deny the truth.

That said, were NDM to actually demonstrate a desire to accurately report the teachings of his religion, rather than dodges and his personal interpretations which mitigate (in his perspective) the hard truths of his religion, then my tenor would certainly change to reflect a more ameniability that some of you attribute (unjustly) to being the only expression of “charity”. My past in dealing with mormon issues as present on this board demonstrates this.

 

[sterryfamily]

Thank you for the response. And thanks for your patience - man, you have been busy here.

Originally Posted by NotreDameMormon
I apologize, sterryfamily.

I am afraid I am not very savvy when it comes to this discussion board. I do not know when someone posts a question for me unless it is posted here. I am afraid I will not have enough time to search all the posts to find any questions intended for me. I may have to stick to this thread. We’ll see.

The answer to your question is (d) none of the above. LDS know Christ is divine and believe that He sees the beginning and the end. There are two reasons the apostasy is held to be consistent with this passage of scripture.

The first reason is that the gates of hell never did prevail against the Church. The people persecuted the Christians, killed the apostles, and ran the Church underground so that by the time they realized the truth, there were only fragments left to piece together. The world, of its own free will, rejected Christ and rejected His Church. While I am sure Satan delighted in that fact, we all know that Satan does not have power where God does not allow him power. In that respect, the LDS agree, that the gates of hell did not prevail against the Church. The children of God, of their own free will, rejected Christ and His Church.

Are you saying it appears that the church went “hidden” until Joseph Smith? Doesn’t it seem like this is contrary to Christ’s promise? How could He be with the Church “Always” and how could the Church “never” be prevailed against if it was “lost” through persecution, death, and fragmentation? Why would God waste His time? Why would He bother to suffer ignominy on the cross if he knew this would happen?

Originally Posted by NotreDameMormon
The second reason the apostasy is seen to be consistent with scripture has to do with how the text is interpreted. The Catholics read the text to establish Peter as the rock upon which the Church would be built. The LDS read the text similarly except they believe the rock referred to is the revelation Peter received through the Spirit. The Spirit testified of the divinity of Christ. Christ is often referred to as the Rock in scripture. The LDS believe the rock is revelation, through the Spirit, to those who are called and given priesthood keys, of the divinity and mission of Christ that the Church was and is built on. In the initial Church, Peter received those revelations and held those priesthood keys.

The “rock” and “foundation” of the church, in Scripture, is described some places as Christ, some as the Father, some as faith, some as the apostles, and here as Peter. The ECF and Catholics today have no problem with this. But one does not cancel out the other. Catholics do not see Scriptures painting an either/or dilemma pitting one passage against the other and forcing one to choose.

In MT 16:17, Jesus bestows multiple blessings upon Peter: Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

1. The beginning of that third sentence, in the original Aramaic, would have been rendered something like, “And so I say to you, you are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church…” (Whenever God changed a man’s name it had significant meaning. Kepha, or Peter, means “Rock”)
2. The Jews of the day understood well that the “keys to the kingdom” were an ancient symbol of transferrence of authority to one who would stand in as the Royal Vizier or Prime Minister in the absence of the Master. More importantly they understood that this new office was, again from ancient times, one of succession.

3)The Jews at the time also understood the term “to bind and loose” as one of judicial power to make and enforce rules, etc.

1. The writings of the early Christians confirms their understanding of Peter, and his successors as the rock that Christ intended His Church to be built upon.

The question would be; how do you personally reconcile these concepts and these multiple blessings conferred upon Peter with the relatively new idea that Christ was recognizing Peter’s receipt of revelation and not the man, himself?

Thanks again for your graciousness and helpfulness.

 

[BJRumph]

Now, offering a hand of concilliation, and allowing NDM to “prove me wrong” in my characterization of his effort here:

Consider what the lds church’s website says about God, as found here.

Note that only The Father is directly called God, leaving Jesus and the Holy Spirit as mere members of the “godhead”, a council “united in purpose” but “separate beings”. I’d also call upon NDM to reflect upon how many times he pointed to Jesus’ baptism while conducting the missionary discussions as proof that the three persons of the “godhead” are distinct entities in specific contrast to the truly “common faith” of Christians in the Trinity.

Compare this with the Catechism. Compare this, even, with the new Advent article here. Despite some identical word useage, there remains an incontrovertable distinction.

The the LDS, “God” is specifically “The Father”, who is the head of the “Godhead” which consists of two other beings who merely share commonality of “purpose”. LDS: “God” = The Father

Contrastingly, for the Catholic Church, “God” referrs equally and without subordination of any fasion, to each member of the “Godhead”, which itself is a term used only to describe the distinctive persons of the Trinity, not a concilliar function. CC: “God” = The Father, son, and Holy Spirit, each distinct yet unseperable in their essential unity.

The distinction creates a barrier for the professed “common faith” that our mormon freind asserts he holds with us regarding Christ. For his religion, if not his personalize assumptions and beliefs, asserts that Christ is a subordinate, separate entity whose unity with God resides only in his subordination to the will of God (who is strictly said to be the Father only). This is very different from the Catholic perspective that Christ, himself, is God , as is the Father and the holy spirit, and that “God” is all of them without confusion of substance or division of essence. As such, according to both religions (and yes, they are distinct “religions”), ther is no comonality of Faith as regards God. There exists only a comonality of terminology.

While I do not, in actuallity, deny NDM’s assertion to his sincere desire to “serve Christ”, which itself is a common notion between the two religions, it is impossible to conclude that there exists an objective comonality of “faith” in regards to Christ, let alone other doctrinal issues.

And yes, doctrine does matter; otherwise there would have been the need for either teaching of Christ, nor the possibility of the mormon apostacy theory, and finally the necessity for prophets. If doctrine is subordinate to “works”, as some other mormons (usually uncomfortable with the implications of doctrine) have asserted in making such claims of commonality, then there was no need for the restoration of Smith, nor can said restoration have any purpose. Therefore, the comonality I acknowledged is not one which allows for the claim of commonality of faith as asserted. On the level of works, Buddhists are united to Christians in the same commonality, yet ontologically they are also as irreconcilable from the perspective of Faith. It is false ecumenicism which allows for the confusion presented by NDM.

 

[Chris-WA]

NotreDameMormon, I appreciate your willingness to answer some tough questions from us Catholics, and I also appreciate your charitable tone. But frankly some of your writing is confusing me because you’re saying things that are in direct opposition to what other LDS posters here have stated regarding the official beliefs of the Mormon church.

As it is best understood, God organized all things from the intelligence that emanates from Him.

This seems to me to be a huge departure from everything I’ve ever read from LDS sources or been told by LDS members. This is the first time I’ve heard this interpretation from a Mormon. Do you have an LDS source that teaches this?

However, it has been said that God organized preexisting intelligence, but that notion is harder to reconcile with revelation and is not taught by the Church.

Really? That notion is much closer to everything I’ve read from LDS sources or been told by LDS members. We’ve had other well-read LDS posters here go to great lengths to explain that matter is eternal and God did not create it, but rather took that preexisting matter and formed the universe from it.

Contrary to common thought, the Church does not teach that spirit children of God are the result of some sort of celestial copulation.

This common thought comes from the LDS church itself. Does not the church believe that we have a heavenly mother, who is the wife of Heavenly Father? Isn’t there also a church hymn stating the same? Does not the church teach that once we become gods in the celestial kingdom we could have the same power to produce spirit children of our own with our eternal spouse(s)?

 

[MGEISING]

We have morman friends and they are exceptional people.

They have shared with us however, some of the teachings that are represented in this thread that the Notre Dame Mormon refutes.

Perhaps, there is a term called Cafetaria Momorn’s - Like Cafetaria Catholic …

Let’s be honest, you could ask this type of Catholic what the churches teaches - and they will give their idea of the teaching - not the OFFICIAL teaching from Rome.

Just a thought!

 

[zerinus]

The only evil involved when a child is conceived through rape, is the act of rape itself.

Once that is finished, and the rapist is no longer around, there is no evil.

So why should the baby be aborted? No matter how much counselling and guidance is given.

If a girl is raped by her uncle, and wouldn’t be able to cope with seeing that child every day, knowing it has been made through rape and incest, then she can adopt the baby out. There are plenty of people who would love an innocent baby.

The baby is not evil just because it has been conceived through violence, and a contaminated blood line.

I don’t understand how the Mormons can say abortion is ok after guidance and prayer and counselling in these circumstances. It is still murder.

Do you think that the victim of the rape has some legitimate rights as well, or do you think that she is just a dead corpse that has the obligation to bear the child of a rapist whether she wants to or not? Another difference seems to be that you equate abortion with murder, whereas LDS don’t. In LDS theology, murder is a sin that cannot be forgiven; but abortion is a sin that can be repented of, and forgiven.

zerinus

 

[sterryfamily]

Do you think that the victim of the rape has some legitimate rights as well, or do you think that she is just a dead corpse that has the obligation to bear the child of a rapist whether she wants to or not? Another difference seems to be that you equate abortion with murder, whereas LDS don’t. In LDS theology, murder is a sin that cannot be forgiven; but abortion is a sin that can be repented of, and forgiven.

zerinus

Dude, listen to your logic: Person one commits a crime against person two, so the solution is to kill person three? Come on…

 

[NotreDameMormon]

BJ and others,

“In a forthright manner”…

The Christology of the LDS religion is not irreconcilable with that of the Catholic Church in the essentials. The Jesus Christ proclaimed in the New Testament is your God and Savior and He is mine. Despite all our conflicting interpretations, abstractions, dogmas, and prophets, we worship the same God, you and I, and it is frantic and fruitless hairsplitting to claim otherwise.

I do not deny that our religions have their decided differences (and often, their clashes), yet all our law and all our prophets hang on one key phrase: Love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself. It is in that spirit and that commonality that I accepted the invitation to answer questions here, not to preach, not to proselytize, not to deceive, but to do my part to ensure this one law is not lost on all the rest.

I have made it abundantly clear that I do not speak for the Church officially. I have qualified my own ability to addressing matters generally. If I was not clear enough then, let me reemphasize now that I am not a scholar, nor do I claim to be anything of the sort. I can only answer each question to the best of my understanding and experience and hope that it is helpful in communicating the beliefs and teachings of the Church. I am an active member in good standing with years of study, teaching, and leadership experience, thus I am in a fair position to answer questions regarding LDS faith and practices.

Do not think that because I am not prepared to accept your opinion on what are the express and clear teachings of my faith, that I am denying that faith all together. 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.

My time is very limited and I cannot research every answer to provide footnotes. That is regrettable, I know. I will cite what I can from memory and perhaps dig up a few specific cites on the weekends for those that are specifically requested. That is, if we can get past the bitter assault on my integrity and character.

Again, I am here in the spirit commonality (no matter how little you personally find) to answer any questions that I can. We’ll see if and how we can continue.

Thanks, again.

 

[BJRumph]

In LDS theology, murder is a sin that cannot be forgiven; but abortion is a sin that can be repented of, and forgiven

No, murder of an innocent is the unforgivable sin as expressly stated in mormon scripture. The problem is, mormon theology, in an effort to repudiate infant baptism as an aberration/“abomination”, insits that all children are innocent until they reach the age of accountability. (typically age 8 years)

As such, to state that killing the innocent is unforgivable, while the actual slaughter of the innocent through abortion is forgivable, is a fundamental contradiction. It simply cannot be both.

Abortion is the deliberate, premeditated, termination of a life incapable of defending itself. This shows both the intentionality, and the indefensibility of the victim. This constitutes murder according to most definitions of the word. It is only in engaging in semantic sleight of hand does one derive an ethic which somehow exempts “abortion” from the definition of murder. The pre-meditative circumstances don’t even allow one to consider it the “lesser” crime of manslaughter, especially if the mormon in question actually engages in the “required” prayerful consideration and thought. Plain as plain, and as painful as it is to hear for some, abortion is ethically and morally murder.

 

[BJRumph]

Then, based upon your unintended indifferentism, you deny the unique claim of truth of your religion, as well as determine that any muslim or buddhist who happens to also believe in the common ideal of “Love thy neighbor” is as good a mormon/christian as any of us.

The fact is, as already stated, Doctrine is essential to salvation, and not mere hairsplitting. Your religion, like muslims, denies the unique Incarnation of God in Jesus. This is irreconcilable to traditional Christianity which calls Christ the Incarnation because he is “God made Flesh”.

This IS an essential characteristic of Christology. It is also an undeniable distinction between the mormon religion and the Christian one (both Catholic and most protestants). It is also the teaching, even of your church, that we must form a correct understanding of God in order to have the necessary faith “unto salvation” in God. To deny the distinctions made between the two religions as being superfluous abstractions of men rejects the truth both religions are trying to teach you, as well as the ultimate claims of either religion as possibly having the Truth.

Christ was not simply an ethical Teacher, teaching the same drivel as many other self-appointed prophets. Additionally, it was not “love thy neighbor” which, in either religion, that granted Salvation. Being a mere teacher is not sufficient, in either of the distinct teachings regarding the atonement, to have the ability to effect the salvific atonement. What one believes about Christ is CRITICAL to one’s faith in him.

Except for apologists, I have not known any mormon who denies that a correct doctrine regarding Christ, or God, is not essential to their Faith.

Your stated argumentum makes you, like a buddhist or mason for example, a philosophical christian. However, it does not allow you to be a religious Christian as you deny the basic theological basis that establishes the religion of Christ.

IF doctrine doesn’t matter, and works alone do, then there is no validity to your religion, as it “restored” nothing of importance. Not only that, but what it did restore contradicts this assertion. Mormons are not any more charitable than any other social group which holds to any sense of “goodness”, and quite often is very insular in its charitable offerings due to the obligations it makes upon its members.

 

[BJRumph]

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.

Actually, yes I can; that is the virtue of “intelligence”; discernment will allow one to identify what is in context, what is “valid” and move from there. If the religion in question cannot be relied upon to express its doctrine, then what are all the books for? You have not heard of the Catechism of the Catholic Church? (of course you have, it was mentioned earlier in this very thread…)

You go to ND, yet are no "Scholar? Was it not your opening postion that you were here to answer questions about the teachings of your religion?

It is truly astonishing that you included both the qualifiers of “in context” and “valid” in your refutation of documentary evidence of a religion’s doctrines. Am I to conclude that you do not use or read the BoM? The D&C? BoA? Bible? Anything? No, of course I can’t conclude that, as you have already used such documents to explain your doctrine about your faith in quoting Christ in the NT. In practicum, you have invalidated your own position.

Self-defeating arguments will get you nowhere

 

[az_4_faith]

Beware folks, the evil one is working overtime in this post.

 

[majick275]

Do you think that the victim of the rape has some legitimate rights as well, or do you think that she is just a dead corpse that has the obligation to bear the child of a rapist whether she wants to or not? Another difference seems to be that you equate abortion with murder, whereas LDS don’t. In LDS theology, murder is a sin that cannot be forgiven; but abortion is a sin that can be repented of, and forgiven.

zerinus

D&C 132:
27* The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.*

just so we are clear. How can ANY intentional shedding of an unborn childs blood not be murder according to this? if this is done by an LDS person who was sealed in the Temple then there is no wiggle room at all according to this LDS scripture.

 

[majick275]

BJ and others,

“In a forthright manner”…

The Christology of the LDS religion is not irreconcilable with that of the Catholic Church in the essentials. The Jesus Christ proclaimed in the New Testament is your God and Savior and He is mine. Despite all our conflicting interpretations, abstractions, dogmas, and prophets, we worship the same God, you and I, and it is frantic and fruitless hairsplitting to claim otherwise.

I disagree. We believe that Jesus is God…consubstantial and co-equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit. we believe that there is and has always been ONE God. We do not believe that God was once a man nor that he is oure literal progenitor. We believe he is our creator. VERY different.

I do not deny that our religions have their decided differences (and often, their clashes), yet all our law and all our prophets hang on one key phrase: Love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbor as thyself. It is in that spirit and that commonality that I accepted the invitation to answer questions here, not to preach, not to proselytize, not to deceive, but to do my part to ensure this one law is not lost on all the rest.

I disagree here too. Jesus taught that but Joseph Smith did not. LDS doctrine and practice is very gnostic in nature and quite clear that only by having the correct signs, tokens and keywords can pass by the sentinels and enter into the kingdom of God. Furthermore the end results are radically different. The Catholic desires to spend eternity WORSHIPPING God, the LDS hopes to BECOME a God.

I have made it abundantly clear that I do not speak for the Church officially. I have qualified my own ability to addressing matters generally. If I was not clear enough then, let me reemphasize now that I am not a scholar, nor do I claim to be anything of the sort. I can only answer each question to the best of my understanding and experience and hope that it is helpful in communicating the beliefs and teachings of the Church. I am an active member in good standing with years of study, teaching, and leadership experience, thus I am in a fair position to answer questions regarding LDS faith and practices.

fair enough but then by that definition many of us are just as qualified to offer answers to the same questions and in some cases more knowledgeable/experienced in the specifics.

Do not think that because I am not prepared to accept your opinion on what are the express and clear teachings of my faith, that I am denying that faith all together. 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.

okay but in the spirit of fairness, definitive statements by LDS “prophets, seers and revelators” made in general conference, published in official LDS teaching manuals, the handbook of instructions and most cetainly canonized scripture are NOT insignificant.

My time is very limited and I cannot research every answer to provide footnotes. That is regrettable, I know. I will cite what I can from memory and perhaps dig up a few specific cites on the weekends for those that are specifically requested. That is, if we can get past the bitter assault on my integrity and character.

I don’t believe I ever assaulted either. I do think you ignored my post and I think I made relevant observations that deserve comment.

Again, I am here in the spirit commonality (no matter how little you personally find) to answer any questions that I can. We’ll see if and how we can continue.

Thanks, again.

I have to believe that as a “member in good standing” you have at least some interest in utilizing this a “missionary” opportunity. Hopefully you are still objective and interested enough in seeking eternal truth that you will analyze what is said here, do your own study of relevant scripture, pray fauthfully with an open heart and mind and be blessed by God.