Seeking a balanced description of Mormoninsm

[why_me]

WhyMe, of course you are correct in many ways. There is a cultural difference, and I think there are certainly some Catholics who can become “institutionalised” in Catholicism.

But, it is a more fundamental difference that I refer to. It is my opinion from experience and prayer that there is a spirit that leads the LDS church, but it is not the “Holy Spirit”. It is a blinding and numbing spirit that blinds people to truth and allows them to remain with emotion. It is my honest belief that the following scripture from Thessalonians sums this up. It is a scripture often used by the LDS church to prove a universal apostasy (verses 1 to 3). But it is the latter part of 3 and verse 4 that are enlightening:

This I believe is the description of the spirit that leads mormonism, and what makes the culture of mormonism so different and spiritually dangerous.

God bless you.

Hal.

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.

 

[rpp]

Mother Teresa did not feel Jesus in her interior life for years and years. And yet, she still did the work of God. For many catholics, the inner darkness is present and yet, they remain faithful to the faith. At times it is quite natural not to find or sense Jesus and yet, still do good works with faith.

I think that the test comes when we no longer feel Jesus and yet still believe.

Okay, whyme, I’ll bite.

Which book are you referring to? For “years and years” you say?

Let us know.

Thanks

Robert

The latest book which contains her letters to her confessor and spiritual director. It was just published in an attempt to make Mother Teresa a Saint. It is called: Mother Teresa: Come be my Light.

time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1655415,00.html

Yes, Robert, Why Me is correct, Mother Teresa did experience a dark and arid period during much of her life. Here is another link, but from a Catholic source.

But this is a bit off topic.

Back to a description of Mormon doctrine…

 

[PaulDupre]

The basis for the belief that Mormonism is not Christian but something else lies in a two part “problem”. The first is that Mormons basically redefine Jesus as a different man, for instance, the marriage at Cana was his own…

That is a very strange doctrine taught since the days of Joseph Smith. But look at John 2:1-2:

1 On the third day there was a wedding in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there.

2 Now both Jesus and His disciples were invited to the wedding.

If it was Jesus’ wedding, why would he need to be invited?

God bless,
Paul

 

[JesuitLoyola]

That is a very strange doctrine taught since the days of Joseph Smith. But look at John 2:1-2:

If it was Jesus’ wedding, why would he need to be invited?

God bless,
Paul

I know, Like I said, I was mormon so I’m just elaborating on different doctrines they have. I’m RC now.

 

[JesuitLoyola]

Correct me if I am wrong but does not the Catholic Church more or less say the same thing? That they are the true church. In fact, the TV program ‘Journey Home’ on EWTN is called ‘journey home’ for that very reason.

I do not think we are the one true church in the sense that Mormons define themselves, we believe other people can come to be with God in his fullness that aren’t Catholic. Where as in Mormonism, you must be Mormon to ever have access to Heavenly Father. Also, you have to attain exaltation which is not an easy task.

 

[why_me]

Where as in Mormonism, you must be Mormon to ever have access to Heavenly Father. Also, you have to attain exaltation which is not an easy task.

I don’t think that this is true. Mormons believe that all people have access to god regardless if they are mormon or not. What mormons do claim is that the lds church is the true church.

I have run into catholics that more or less say the same thing about catholicism referring to Christ’s promise to Peter.

I am not sure about exaltation being difficult. I assume that it is. But likewise, living like a saint is not easy either! :=)

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

 

[why_me]

The basis for the belief that Mormonism is not Christian but something else lies in a two part “problem”. The first is that Mormons basically redefine Jesus as a different man, for instance, the marriage at Cana was his own, he became exalted to become one with the father. stuff like that.

I have never heard that Jesus was married at Cana.Where did you get this from?? I think that you are mistaken in your statement.

 

[ibkc]

I don’t think that this is true. Mormons believe that all people have access to god regardless if they are mormon or not. What mormons do claim is that the lds church is the true church.

I have run into catholics that more or less say the same thing about catholicism referring to Christ’s promise to Peter.

The Catholic Church has history on its side in regards to this, though, while the LDS church does not. The Catholic Church was founded by the apostles on the direction of Jesus himself, and has an ancient, objectively verifiable history. The LDS church was founded by a semi-literate, racist 19th-century con man who scribbled a poorly-written imitation of the KJV which is based on, and filled with, historical claims that cannot be demonstrated as true in any way.

 

[Jerusha]

… The LDS church was founded by a semi-literate, racist 19th-century con man who scribbled a poorly-written imitation of the KJV which is based on, and filled with, historical claims that cannot be demonstrated as true in any way.

Current research indicates that Joseph Smith was not the primary author of the BOM. He rarely taught from it or quoted it, and some things he taught were in direct conflict with it. Current research indicates that it was plagirized from a number of sources, by a conspiracy of racists, which included JS.

My research is on the theory that any truth which was not plaigirized from the Bible had to do with the Viking invasion of North America. There were no “Hebrews” involved (although there may have been some Muslims), and the time period it encompasses does not start at 600 BC, but at (probably) 980 AD. This, like the other sources, was plaigirized and embroidered upon. That authentic manuscript was probably of Chrokee origin.

 

[PaulDupre]

I have never heard that Jesus was married at Cana.Where did you get this from?? I think that you are mistaken in your statement.

All the Mormons I know believe this. Here is where it comes from historically:

“I discover that some of the Eastern papers represent me as a great blasphemer, because I said, in my lecture on Marriage, at our last Conference, that Jesus Christ was married at Cana of Galilee, that Mary, Martha, and others were his wives, and that he begat children.”
(President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, v2, p210)

“It will be borne in mind that once on a time, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and on a careful reading of that transaction, it will be discovered that no less a person than Jesus Christ was married on that occasion. If he was never married, his intimacy with Mary and Martha [the sisters of Lazarus] and the other Mary also whom Jesus loved [Mary Magdelene], must have been highly unbecoming and improper to say the best of it.”
(Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses 4:259)

“Gentlemen, that is as plain as the translators, or different councils over this Scripture, dare allow it to go to the world, but the thing is there; it is told; Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do.”
The Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, 2:, p. 82, 83

“Jesus was the bridegroom at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, and he told them what to do. Now there was actually a marriage; and if Jesus was not the bridegroom on that occasion, please tell who was. If any man can show this, and prove that it was not the Savior of the world, then I will acknowledge I am in error. We say it was Jesus Christ who was married, to be brought into the relation whereby he could see his seed, before he was crucified.”

• The Apostle Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 2, p. 82

“Sunday I Attended the Sabbath School Conference … Joseph F. Smith spoke one hour & 25 minutes. He spoke upon the Marriage in Cana at Galilee. He taught Jesus was the Bridgegroom and Mary & Martha the brides.”

• Wilford Woodruff wrote in his journal on July 22, 1883

“Heber taught, as did a few other Mormons of his day, that Christ was married—indeed that Christ was married to both Mary and Martha and that the famous wedding of Cana was in reality Christ’s own wedding. In his own mind Heber was not only a follower of Christ, but a literal descendant.”

• Biography of Apostle Heber C. Kimball, p. 275

"Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says, the ‘grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was because He had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed Him.’ After Jesus went from the stage of action, the Apostles followed the example of their master. . . The grand reason of the burst of public sentiment in anathemas upon Christ and his disciples, causing his crucifixion, was evidently based on polygamy,. . .a belief in the doctrine of plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus, and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.’’

• The Apostle Jedediah M. Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young in the First Presidency, Journal of Discourses, Vol 1. ppl 345-346

Hope this helps,
Paul

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Paul;

I can hear the screaming and wailing going on from SLC!

Good job, Paul!

God bless you!

Robert

 

[RC_Matt]

I don’t normally post on these boards; but, as a life-long Catholic, I can say that I have generally been treated VERY poorly by Mormons. My faith has been referred to “the great abominable church,” “the whore of Babylon,” and “the mother of all whores.” I’ve heard this garbage over and over again, ad nauseam. I heard it as a kid in the school yard (nice to teach that stuff to their children), and as an adult. I’ve never researched it, but it is my understanding that these epithets actually come from Mormon scripture/doctrine and/or direct quotes from Mormon prophets/apostles. Someone please correct me if I’m mistaken.

There are numerous differences between Mormonism and Christianity; in fact, Mormons did not consider THEMSELVES Christians until fairly recently. Some of these points have been raised here, such as the doctrine of eternal progression (as man is, god once was; as god is, man can become – or something like that). One can become a god of his own planet and there are countless gods. Another would be the “signs and tokens;” i.e., the secret handshakes and passwords one needs to enter the highest of the three Mormon heavens (the one in which God and Jesus reside, as individuals with multiple wives). One can only learn these handshakes and passwords by being a temple worthy Mormon. Another is that nobody can enter that heaven without the express approval of Joseph Smith; i.e., he is the gatekeeper. There are numerous others and I’m not trying to be critical here; simply to point out that there is a very wide gulf between Mormonism and even the most liberal of biblical Christian churches. That’s not to say that one is good, and one is bad, nor that anybody is banished to hell; but they are theologically mutually exclusive.

There is some deception here, in that the missionaries do not present the more unorthodox material to potential converts prior to baptism and all converts must be rebaptized. This practice is institutionalized and referred to as “milk before meat,” it allows them to gradually introduce the more peculiar Mormon teachings AFTER one has already become Mormon. Scientology follows the same practice. Contrast this to RCIA, where potential converts MUST learn everything the Church teaches PRIOR to becoming Catholic.

 

[PaulDupre]

Paul;

I can hear the screaming and wailing going on from SLC!

Good job, Paul!

God bless you!

Robert

Thank you, Robert. What is truly amazing is that the Mormons don’t care that among all of the sacred and secular writings of the centuries after Jesus that mention Jesus and the Christians (including many complaints about them from those who hated them) no one mentioned anything about plural marriage. If plural marriage was enough of a 1st century scandal to elicit the vicious persecution of Christians by the Jews, Romans and others as Apostle Jedediah Grant taught, then why is it never mentioned? The answer can only be that the plural marriages never happened.

This line of inquiry seems to have escaped the Mormons.

God love you,
Paul

 

[JesuitLoyola]

why_me:
I have never heard that Jesus was married at Cana.Where did you get this from?? I think that you are mistaken in your statement.

Many people, missionaries, my bishop in my ward and my seminary teacher? Anyone else you want to know about who said this? ALSO! Mormons believe (and I say this in fact because I have read the Preach My Gospel textbook missionaries use to teach, I have one actually) that after death unless you achieve exaltation you WILL NOT be in the presence or have access to Heavenly Father! I’m not going to lie to you, its insulting to be told that I don’t know what I am talking about, I was part of the church and put enough time into researching doctrine to be sure on what I say, otherwise I wouldn’t have commented on it.

 

[why_me]

Paul;

I can hear the screaming and wailing going on from SLC!

Good job, Paul!

God bless you!

Robert

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.

 

[why_me]

Many people, missionaries, my bishop in my ward and my seminary teacher? Anyone else you want to know about who said this? ALSO! Mormons believe (and I say this in fact because I have read the Preach My Gospel textbook missionaries use to teach, I have one actually) that after death unless you achieve exaltation you WILL NOT be in the presence or have access to Heavenly Father! I’m not going to lie to you, its insulting to be told that I don’t know what I am talking about, I was part of the church and put enough time into researching doctrine to be sure on what I say, otherwise I wouldn’t have commented on it.

I give the same response to you as I did above in my previous post.

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

And I will give you one more for food for thought:

lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/jesus_married.html

My point was very simple: It has not been church doctrine that Jesus was married. Speculation is fine but doctrine is quite another thing. The other point that needs to be mentioned is that you will find lds people who consider this issue willing to engage in speculation and some may even unknowingly consider it doctrine. It happens. There is much freedom in mormonism to speculate as long as such speculation remains speculation and not passed off as official doctrine. Then a correction needs to be made.

 

[why_me]

Paul;

I can hear the screaming and wailing going on from SLC!

Good job, Paul!

God bless you!

Robert

No…you can find the information on Mormon websites. No wailing and screaming necessary.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I give the same response to you as I did above in my previous post.

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

And I will give you one more for food for thought:

lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/christ/jesus_married.html

My point was very simple: It has not been church doctrine that Jesus was married. Speculation is fine but doctrine is quite another thing. The other point that needs to be mentioned is that you will find lds people who consider this issue willing to engage in speculation and some may even unknowingly consider it doctrine. It happens. There is much freedom in mormonism to speculate as long as such speculation remains speculation and not passed off as official doctrine. Then a correction needs to be made.

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.

If it were opinion only then what else of BY and every other mormon prophet was/is opinion only? And why did teachings that were once considered divine teachings of a prophet get demoted to opinion only?

 

[RC_Matt]

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.

 

[why_me]

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.

If it were opinion only then what else of BY and every other mormon prophet was/is opinion only? And why did teachings that were once considered divine teachings of a prophet get demoted to opinion only?

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.