Seeking a balanced description of Mormoninsm

[why_me]

Perhaps that explains why Hinkley (the current Mormon prophet) responded to Larry King’s inquiry about the doctrine of eternal progression, on national television, with, “I don’t know that we teach that?” Even I, a cradle Catholic, KNOW that is a Mormon teaching and it is even included on the LDS website. Hinkley, of all people, would be very well aware of that teaching; albeit absolutely incongruent with base Christian theology. More accurately, it appears to me that his public denial of a core Mormon doctrine did not reflect “being careful.” Worse than “milk before meat,” it reflected blatant deception in order to obfuscate a highly heretical (from a Christian perspective) peculiar core Mormon dogma.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Once again, and as always, it comes around to defining mormon doctrine. Nailing Jello to a wall, as the saying goes.

BY, a supposed prophet, taught that Jesus was married. First in a general conference. Mormons at that time were following a man who they believe spoke as prophet. Now mormons today say it was just BY’s opinion. Which is it? It can’t be both.

whyme,

And Rebecca [excuse the extended pun] nails the issue on its head.

Mormonism is in constant change. Forever running away from its sordid beginnings and unprovable origins.

And when direct questions are asked about these ‘doctrines,’ we get the excuses: “not true, but…” “he’s in his nineties…” “he is not speaking as a ‘prophet’” et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.

The fact is: there is NO Christian scripture in the mormon church. There is NO Christian baptism in the mormon church. Regardless, of how good and nice mormons are (and they are extremely gracious and good people), the pantheology of mormonism is redolent of islam and its’ murky beginnings and beliefs.

Sorry, whyme, but we have yet to hear from official and unofficial (Zerinus, for example) sources as to how EXACTLY mormons should be considered Christians when they DENY the Traditions (from the Church) and the Scriptures preserved and handed down by the Church.

To say the BoM “fulfills” Holy Scripture is to deny Holy Scripture.

To claim on-going revelatory teachings of Jesus, and then make excuses for those teachings (Mark of Cain; polygamy; Jesus and Satan are brothers; God has a human body and is one of many gods; Jesus married and was a polygamist) is beyond mere histrionics: it is heretical to Christianity and smells like the WRONG Spirit is involved.

Robert

 

[Jerusha]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Footnote References

267 Cf Jn 8:44; Rev 12:9.
CITED TEXT:

John 8:44
You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the Devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world–he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him

kofc.org/publications/cis/catechism/getreftext.cfm?PartNum=1&SecNum=2&ChapNum=1&FParnum=421&FnoteNum=267&NoteText=267%20Cf%20Jn%208%3A44%3B%20Rev%2012%3A9%2E

Powerful text. Sorry to those who are offended by it.

 

[RC_Matt]

It is always interesting to me just how perfect a mormon must be in the mind of a critic. Hinckley is not a young man. He is old, well into his nineties. To be on television in an interview was a very bold step for him as it would be for anybody. My take on it is that he was caught off guard by the question and his mind could not give a clear statement. Not uncommon for old people.

But you have proved my point. A critic is never satisfied with anything less than perfection in mormon leaders.

Now that being said, when is Pope Benedict doing an interview with Larry King?? Lets hope he shines to perfection in all his statements.

This has nothing to do with perfection, nor failure to recall some obscure insignificant theological detail; it has to do with the Mormon prophet denying a CORE tenet of Mormon eschatology. It is as if the Pope were to deny the existence of purgatory. You, as a Mormon, do not subscribe to purgatory; however it is a CORE Catholic belief and every Catholic is aware of it.

It appears to me that the LDS attempts to camouflage itself as a mainstream Christian church in order to attract investigators (potential converts/tithe payers) and lead them to baptism. Mormonism cannot be mainstreamed, simply because it is NOT mainstream. It has a totally unique theology and unique canonized scriptures (BOM, JOD, etc., - and I will stay away from the BOA out of charity) that place it well beyond the pale. In order to mainstream Mormonism, you’d have to remove all the peculiar tenets that make it Mormonism.

I am not being critical of Mormon beliefs, nor am I trying to impact you testimony. It just bothers me when I see the missionaries going door-to-door, when I know they are not telling people the whole story.

 

[Chris-WA]

Mormons and the catholics have much in common in many regards. :=) One striving for exaltation and the other striving for sainthood…

This is not something we share in common at all. Striving for sainthood simply means going to heaven, because by definition all people in heaven are “saints.” Striving for exaltation is completely different. Striving for exaltation means striving for “godhood.” Catholics in no way are striving for godhood. We can never become a god (or goddess), we will never be a god, and we don’t want anything to do with any religion that believes attaining godhood is something to be sought. Even in heaven, we are still God’s creatures, not gods ourselves.

 

[Chris-WA]

It is difficult to argue which spirit is true and which spirit is false. For example, I just watched a british program that focused on a group of young adults participating on a Muslim Retreat. Some were wayward muslims and others were not Muslim at all. At the end, one young adult converted to Islam and said that she felt good. I believe she mentioned god and spirit behind her reasons for converting.

My take on it all is simple: God wants us to become closer to him. If this can occur in the catholic faith, he has no problem. If it can occur in the mormon faith, he has no problem. Likewise perhaps for Islam or other christian groups. Now I do believe that some christian sects may be harmful and we have seen this happen. I see a false spirit in these sects as I do in certain muslim sects.

But I see no false spirit in mormonism or in catholicism. I believe that both faiths encourage their members to lead good moral lives with charity and faith in their hearts. I don’t believe that mormonism is only about emotion. No all feel emotion during the meetings. There may be certain people feeling good and they may say that they felt a strong spirit present but I can also say the same of the catholic faith. When I enter a catholic church I can sense the spirit that leads to god too. But with certain faiths, when I enter their churches I can feel nothing.

This is exactly why one must not rely on feelings, burning in the bosom, or whatever one chooses to call it, as a basis for believing in a religion. Our basis should be faith and reason together. Faith is accepting something without proof (including the use of feelings as a proof). Faith has nothing to do with feelings. Faith is a gift from God. Feelings are often conjured up within ourselves and can easily be mistaken for something else. Reason is self-explanatory.

 

[Chris-WA]

Here is my response to Paul…

lightplanet.com/response/answers/jesus-married.htm

No one bars church leaders from speculation, especially during the good old days. However, today, lds leaders are much more careful in what they say or write for the very reason that speculation creates confusion and antimormon rhetoric.

I am sorry, but true prophets and apostles do not have the luxury of speculation on matters of the faith, especially when they teach such things publicly to the flock. This article is nothing more than a get-out-of jail free card for Mormon general authorities. Either they were true prophets or they were false prophets, and true prophets don’t teach error on matters of the faith. Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Orson Pratt and others were free to speculate all they wanted if they kept it to themselves. But they did not. They taught such things openly and publicly to the entire church. Those things were then believed and passed on within the church, so the membership obviously thougt their authorities were being serious. So please for the sake of truth stop claiming “speculation” as a way to avoid facing the reality that early Mormon leaders taught a lot of wacky things that compromise their status as true prophets.

And by the way, if these men were true prophets, then you should regard their “speculation” as a terrible abuse of their teaching authority. They never said they were speculating. They taught these things to the church with their prophetic authority. If they were only speculating, then shame on them for not saying so and for leading the membership down the path of error. I am truly flabbergasted at how easily Mormons let their prophets off the hook in this manner. How can you do it?

 

[Chris-WA]

The early lds leaders were very open in their statements and that is not a bad thing. But the end result now is that antimormons and critics are using these early statements for dubious purposes.

No why me, it is a very bad thing. True prophets teach truth, not error. I can’t say it any more simply that that. A true prophet will not speculate in a sermon or a writing when teaching his flock, and pass it off as truth. What I’m saying here, so as to be crystal clear, is that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were not true prophets for the previously mentioned reasons. True prophets teach truth, not error. True prophets are not afforded the luxury of passing off speculation as truth. True prophets don’t blur the line between speculation and truth. If you are going to accept Joseph Smith and Brigham Young as true prophets of God, then you must accept all of their teachings on the faith, not just the ones the current church seems to claim as valid while dismissing the others.

Incidentally, if we allow prophets to publicly speculate when teaching their flock on such matters, how can one possibly tell the difference between someone who is speculating and someone who is intentionally leading their flock astray? Can you see what I’m getting at here? How do you tell the difference between a true prophet and a false one if you allow prophets a license to “speculate?”

 

[Paul_G]

Paul G;3167920:

Rbt Southwell;3167887:

Hey, quit talking about me.

Fair enough.

Paul G, nothing burned in my bosom but the desire to be propelled away from mormonism as far as possible. I had rocket shoes.

I have some experience in the various reasons why people leave the Church, very rarely are they for doctrinal reasons - Although that is the most used excuse.

And comparing JS to the Apostles is about the most laughable and ridiculous thing ever.

I can certainly compare the mentality and tactics of the status quo surrounding the Apostles and Joseph Smith and the similar lengths to which they went to rid themselves of those proclaiming ideas that upset their apple carts

Paul.

 

[Paul_G]

Really?

What about things that didn’t exist pre-Columbian in the Americas? Were they lost in one generation?

OMG! Where did the iron and chariots go?!?!?

It’s hard to say, The Book of Mormon says that when some of these things where cankered and decayed when they came cross some. Chariots - scholars say that they knew nothing about the wheel, however artefacts have been unearthed that clearly show that they did. Before I joined the Church my attitudes where very much like yours are now.

It was, however, while reading through the Book of Mormon that I did indeed receive to my mind and heart that there was something valuable here. I knew about the animals, metals, and grains controversies but none the less the impressions I received were significant. It was not for a few years that I understood what these impressions were – The testimony of the Holy Ghost to my spirit. To me the Book of Mormons message is of a spiritual nature not a history lesson. I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Paul

 

[Chris-WA]

I have some experience in the various reasons why people leave the Church, very rarely are they for doctrinal reasons - Although that is the most used excuse.

If not doctrinal reasons then what? Are you saying that ex-members really still believe in the doctrine but leave anyway? I find that very hard to believe.

It was, however, while reading through the Book of Mormon that I did indeed receive to my mind and heart that there was something valuable here. I knew about the animals, metals, and grains controversies but none the less the impressions I received were significant. It was not for a few years that I understood what these impressions were – The testimony of the Holy Ghost to my spirit. To me the Book of Mormons message is of a spiritual nature not a history lesson. I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Your reason was trying to tell you something about the weird claims of the BoM, but you let your feelings take over. One cannot accept the BoM without accepting both its spritual message and historical claims. If this testimony you received caused you to ignore one in order to accept the other, I assure you it was not from the Holy Spirit. That’s more how the adversary works.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Many critics and anti mormons point to the discourses of the General Authorities or Brigham Young. First, we need to understand that these works are not secret. They are basically published by the lds church. But a Journal of Discourses is basically just that: discourses. In the dictionary, it states that a discourse can explain or teach something. It is also a written form of communication.

What I am saying is that many people at that time in the beginning were teaching or speaking many things that were not canonized. Now I can’t say that christ was not married at cana or that he was married as the links that I posted question but I can say that it is not taught in the lds church in sunday school or in relief society or in priesthood. It is not doctrine.

The early lds leaders were very open in their statements and that is not a bad thing. But the end result now is that antimormons and critics are using these early statements for dubious purposes.

The quote may have been from the JoD, however, BY made the statement about Christ being married at a General Conference. I have yet to hear any mormon on the face of the planet describe anything they hear at a mormon general conference as opinion.

Asking for clarity, pointing out things that do not make sense, is not being dubious. BY spoke as prophet, if anything, it is mormons who are being dubious in claiming that what was once considered prophecy, is now considered opinion.

 

[Paul_G]

If not doctrinal reasons then what? Are you saying that ex-members really still believe in the doctrine but leave anyway? I find that very hard to believe.
Parental rebellion, indiscretions, perceived emotion or social needs not meat, perceived ill treatment - The list is as varied as individuals. Are there some that leave because of doctrine – sure they do, however I believe the majority leave for some the examples above.

Your reason was trying to tell you something about the weird claims of the BoM, but you let your feelings take over.
We are indeed in a world of reason, which has ignored and the denied the existence of prompting spirit. My reason tells me not to drive my car over a cliff, but the impression to stop my car during a wind storm just before a tree comes crashing down – reason would have compelled me to ignore this sensation to drive on and die.

One cannot accept the BoM without accepting both its spritual message and

historical claims. If this testimony you received caused you to ignore one in order to accept the other, I assure you it was not from the Holy Spirit.
I did not change my view quickly but after learning for my self what it is the Saviour was teaching us in the New Testament I found it with in the LDS Church.

That’s more how the adversary works.

That seems to be the pat answered to anything that goes against the status quo - If it’s not our way it is of the devil. Sorry don’t agree.

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

Fair enough.

I have some experience in the various reasons why people leave the Church, very rarely are they for doctrinal reasons - Although that is the most used excuse.

I never said that is why I left.

I can certainly compare the mentality and tactics of the status quo surrounding the Apostles and Joseph Smith and the similar lengths to which they went to rid themselves of those proclaiming ideas that upset their apple carts

Paul.

One is a group of men who were called by Christ, followed Christ, and founded Christ’s Church. The other is a con man who never followed anything but himself and his own desires. The comparison is ridiculous.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Paul_G:
It’s hard to say, The Book of Mormon says that when some of these things where cankered and decayed when they came cross some. Chariots - scholars say that they knew nothing about the wheel, however artefacts have been unearthed that clearly show that they did. Before I joined the Church my attitudes where very much like yours are now.

It was, however, while reading through the Book of Mormon that I did indeed receive to my mind and heart that there was something valuable here. I knew about the animals, metals, and grains controversies but none the less the impressions I received were significant. It was not for a few years that I understood what these impressions were – The testimony of the Holy Ghost to my spirit. To me the Book of Mormons message is of a spiritual nature not a history lesson. I won’t throw the baby out with the bath water.

Paul

You don’t know me.

And as usual, when a mormon can’t reason something out…retreat to testimony. The BoM is utterly useless. Does nothing but lead people away from God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is not something we share in common at all. Striving for sainthood simply means going to heaven, because by definition all people in heaven are “saints.” Striving for exaltation is completely different. Striving for exaltation means striving for “godhood.” Catholics in no way are striving for godhood. We can never become a god (or goddess), we will never be a god, and we don’t want anything to do with any religion that believes attaining godhood is something to be sought. Even in heaven, we are still God’s creatures, not gods ourselves.

It is what mormons do constantly. They lay their whacky religion over the top of other belief systems. Aztecs had a white, bearded God…they were mormons. Mayans did ritualistic bleeding…they were mormons. Saints and exaltation are the same thing…Catholics are mormons. They twist everything and anything they can to force it to match to Smith’s BS.

 

[Paul_G]

You don’t know me.

I know your words. Your attitudes are well communicated by them…

And as usual, when a mormon can’t reason something out…retreat to testimony. The BoM is utterly useless. Does nothing but lead people away from God.

This is part of my history, experiences I guess, do form a part of ones developing testimony in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Do you not have a belief, or testimony, or the moment in time that you knew that the new faith you have chosen is true? In all of our faith in Jesus Christ, we all must have an all infusing belief that Jesus is the Christ no matter by what name you call it. It is the purpose of the Book of Mormon to declare that Jesus is the Christ the Savour of the world. To dwell on a few verses about animals and metals is to not see the forest the trees get in the way.

Paul

 

[Paul_G]

I never said that is why I left.
I don’t speculate about the reasons for the actions of others, certainly not yours, I was speaking in general terms from my own experience.

One is a group of men who were called by Christ, followed Christ, and founded Christ’s Church. The other is a con man who never followed anything but himself and his own desires. The comparison is ridiculous.

You and others call him a con man for reasons of you own, I don’t think he considered himself one, nor did the people that where close to him and knew him very well. So please clarify then, are you saying that it is justified to treat people in this way because of their beliefs.

Paul

 

[RebeccaJ]

You and others call him a con man for reasons of you own, I don’t think he considered himself one, nor did the people that where close to him and knew him very well. So please clarify then, are you saying that it is justified to treat people in this way because of their beliefs.

Paul

Treat who, Joseph Smith. He is dead. He taught lies, and yes, I feel justified in speaking out against those lies.

 

[majick275]

I don’t speculate about the reasons for the actions of others, certainly not yours, I was speaking in general terms from my own experience.

You and others call him a con man for reasons of you own, I don’t think he considered himself one, nor did the people that where close to him and knew him very well. So please clarify then, are you saying that it is justified to treat people in this way because of their beliefs.

Paul

I have to challenge that last piece. Quite a few folks who knew him well and were close to him cam to realize that. Are you aware of how many of his counselors in the first presidency “apostatized”?
You might want to read what William Law had to say. he was probably the most “stable” and tried pretty hard to present unbiased facts in his writings on it. the rift between Emma and Brigham Young is certainly indicative of an issue as well.