Seeking a balanced description of Mormoninsm

[BartBurk]

Unlike some of the catholic mudslingers I tend not to practice it. But since the unchristian catholic language in this section of the forums is so rude, I can’t resist. Here is some mud to wash off:

The Bad Popes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Bad Popes is a 1986 book by E. R. Chamberlin documenting the lives of eight of the most controversial popes (papal years in parentheses):

Pope Stephen VI (896-897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber[1]
Pope John XII (937-964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032-1044,1045,1047-1048), who “sold” the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303), who is lampooned in Dante’s Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378-1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), a Borja, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513-1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523-1534), also a Medici, whose power-politiking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.

Read it and weep…

The bad popes don’t have anything to do with the foundation of the Catholic Church – that goes back to Peter. By the way, Peter also had some problems. We don’t claim our popes to be perfect, but they haven’t taught any bad doctrine. Joseph Smith taught evil doctrine with his celestial marriage doctrine. He made it an essential doctrine of the LDS Church. It remains essential doctrine today and many LDS men are sealed to more than one woman for all of eternity.

 

[rpp]

I am not posting much on this thread, but I am reading.

Please let us all remain charitable. Yes, there are aspects the differences between Mormonism and Catholicism that may get some hot under the collar, but please let us all remain calm.

A calm and humble attitude is required to convey, either by writing or reading, information. Responses that are heated or angry do not really help me to understand.

I am trying to learn a bit about Mormonism, not watch a boxing match.

Thank you.

• rpp, the OP.

 

[why_me]

I am not posting much on this thread, but I am reading.

Please let us all remain charitable. Yes, there are aspects the differences between Mormonism and Catholicism that may get some hot under the collar, but please let us all remain calm.

A calm and humble attitude is required to convey, either by writing or reading, information. Responses that are heated or angry do not really help me to understand.

I am trying to learn a bit about Mormonism, not watch a boxing match.

Thank you.

• rpp, the OP.

I agree with you. Usually, I am polite and never mudsling. But the use of antimormon language on this forum is extreme and some catholics have been rather unchristian on this thread. Fortunately it is only a handful of catholics who engage in it. My last post only wanted to demonstrate that perfection is hard to come by if one is human. It makes no difference if one is a pope, cardinal or mormon prophet or Mormon General Authority.

I have included in this thread some mormon websites and videos. They should give one aspect of the discussion for you and you can hear what mormons have to say.

 

[why_me]

The bad popes don’t have anything to do with the foundation of the Catholic Church – that goes back to Peter. By the way, Peter also had some problems. We don’t claim our popes to be perfect, but they haven’t taught any bad doctrine. Joseph Smith taught evil doctrine with his celestial marriage doctrine. He made it an essential doctrine of the LDS Church. It remains essential doctrine today and many LDS men are sealed to more than one woman for all of eternity.

If I truly wanted to I could put you on the defensive. But what would be the point. I have no intention of even bad mouthing the bad popes. I just wanted to prove a point that perfection is hard to come by.

Can you be sure that the popes have not taught bad doctrine or that they used doctrine in a bad way?

Evil doctrine is in the eye of the beholder. Many protestants may consider aspects of catholic doctrine evil. Do you see my point?

 

[Chris-WA]

Can you be sure that the popes have not taught bad doctrine or that they used doctrine in a bad way?

Posters here and on other threads about Mormonism have shown time and time again how LDS prophets have taught error, and how the LDS church instead chooses to call this error “speculation” rather then face the truth that its own leaders lead the church astray. We have given specific examples of this.

Now we Catholics freely admit that a few popes have been terrible people, but I challenge you to produce one instance where a pope has taught error in matters of the faith. In order to do this you will have to do what we have done with past LDS leaders–state what they taught, and then show how the church later reversed, denied, or called that teaching “speculation.” If you can do this, I would love to have that discussion. It’s a perfectly reasonable approach and I welcome it. But if you cannot demonstrate these type of errors, then I suggest you seriously start contemplating how the Catholic Church, with all its flaws and wounds throughout its 2000 year history, has managed to preserve its doctrines, even with bad popes at the helm from time to time. We Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit has preserved the teachings of the Church even when lousy people held the papacy. The legitimacy of the papacy does not depend upon the individual who occupies the seat, just like the office of the President of the United States doesn’t disappear when we get a lousy person in that office from time to time. It’s the office, not the individual that matters.

 

[Chris-WA]

I think Paul knew what he was talking about, as did Ignatius.

“Am I not able to write to you of heavenly things? But I fear to do so, lest I should inflict injury on you who are but babes [in Christ]. Pardon me in this respect, lest, as not being able to receive [such doctrines], ye should be strangled by them. For even I, though I am bound [for Christ], yet am not on that account able to understand heavenly things, and the places Or, “stations.” of the angels, and their gatherings under their respective princes, things visible and invisible. Without reference to such abstruse subjects, I am still but a learner [in other; for many things are wanting to us, that we come not short of God.”[/COLOR] (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter V)
Be careful about quoting St. Ignatius. He also knew what he was talking about when he passionately defended the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and called the Church “catholic.” Ignatius is as Catholic as they come, so if you’re going to quote from him in support of your assertions you should be willing to accept what he said on other issues he considered even more important.

 

[majick275]

no I don’t agree with your point. I thought your post on bad popes was perfectly acceptable. I think we should look at popes , bishops, priests, etc. and what they taught, did, etc. It’s the only way to get to the truth. We know that there were bad popes. they did bad things and they don’t get a pass from me just because I’m Catholic. The miracle in my opinion is that even when these men were bad the doctrine of the Catholic church did not change. Our dogma is consistent from Jesus founding to the present day. Those who taught error were not ever able to get their errors past the magisterium and into dogma. Furthermore, erroneous teachings have been denounced and corrected.

LDS history on the other hand is full of significant doctrinal changes and teachings by men who claimed to be speaking directly to and for God (which is very different from the Popes) which have been “not spoken about” or “not emphasized” in order to avoid the messy piece of denouncing “prophets” as having taught false doctrine.

How is it uncharitable or unchristian or “mudslinging” to present facts? How is that any different from canonized LDS scripture saying that all other churches are wrong and going even further to classify them as apostates whose creeds are an ABOMINATION in the sight of God and all who profess those creeds corrupt?

Are we just supposed to accept that those scriptures are friendly and loving? and that Even if we believe that the evidence shows that Joseph Smith was a bad man whose teachings are dangerous we should just smile and allow his followers to persist in not only their own deception but actively encourage others to be deceived by praising the LDS missionary efforts just because mormons are nice people?

I don’t understand how you can ride the fence here. You claim to be Catholic which means that you profess the nicene creed and yet you actively participate in and the praise the efforts of teh LDS church which says that creed is an abomination. Both of these churches require the members to commit to them as the one true church. So which is it in your opinion? your posts seem to indicate it doesn’t matter and that God doesn’t care. A position strongly denounced by both churches. I ask you to state your position then. which church do you believe God established and presides over to this day?

 

[Publisher]

There is a book I have found very helpful…it’s called “How Wide the Divide”, it is a conversation between two respected theologians, one Mormon and one Evangelical (Baptist). They discuss scripture, nature of God and salvation.

Mormons do not begin their interpretation of scripture through the Creeds and councils of the church…so they “begin” at a different place. It is an informative book which gives a different understanding…it allows a Mormon to explain what they believe instead of a Catholic or Evangelical explaining what they believe.

Good read.

 

[truthsilence]

There is a book I have found very helpful…it’s called “How Wide the Divide”, it is a conversation between two respected theologians, one Mormon and one Evangelical (Baptist). They discuss scripture, nature of God and salvation.

Mormons do not begin their interpretation of scripture through the Creeds and councils of the church…so they “begin” at a different place. It is an informative book which gives a different understanding…it allows a Mormon to explain what they believe instead of a Catholic or Evangelical explaining what they believe.

Good read.

Perhaps it is a good read; you can take that as far as it goes. But for a Mormon to explain “what they believe”, the answers would vary, depending on when you asked, (what *time period *in mormonism, that is) and they’d vary an aweful lot. Not only that, but the answers would also vary from member to member quite a bit, even today.

 

[Publisher]

Perhaps it is a good read; you can take that as far as it goes. But for a Mormon to explain “what they believe”, the answers would vary, depending on when you asked, (what *time period *in mormonism, that is) and they’d vary an aweful lot. Not only that, but the answers would also vary from member to member quite a bit, even today.

Agreed, answers do vary from member to member, but the “official” teaching of the LDS church is what this book encompasses…I’m sure the nominal Catholic or Protestant would give differing statements to the “official” teachings of their respective churches…so trying to understand the “official” teaching of the LDS church, as opposed to what non-Mormons claim Mormons believe, this book is a good start at trying to understand the differences between “orthodox” Christians and Mormons.

 

[truthsilence]

Agreed, answers do vary from member to member, but the “official” teaching of the LDS church is what this book encompasses…I’m sure the nominal Catholic or Protestant would give differing statements to the “official” teachings of their respective churches…so trying to understand the “official” teaching of the LDS church, as opposed to what non-Mormons claim Mormons believe, this book is a good start at trying to understand the differences between “orthodox” Christians and Mormons.

But even some the “official” teachings have changed in LDS-ism; and quite dramatically. Particularily if you allow the teachings of their Prophets into the equation. Then it goes beyond confusing.

 

[Publisher]

But even some the “official” teachings have changed in LDS-ism; and quite dramatically. Particularily if you allow the teachings of their Prophets into the equation. Then it goes beyond confusing.

Even so, if one wishes to understand Mormonism, it is best to ask a Mormon instead of a Catholic or a Quaker what Mormons believe. While their answer may not be satisfactory to “orthodox” believers as representing the “truth”, one can at least come away with the assurance that it was a Mormon who was articulating their beliefs instead of someone outside their faith tradition who may have less than a qualified understanding of the in’s and out’s of Mormonism.

Example, I’d rather trust a Quaker to tell me what they believe than trust a Catholic to explain to me what a Quaker believes, as I have seen more than once in this forum, both Catholics and Protestants tend to make grand blanket statements somewhat squewed to sometimes unrecongnizeable about each others belief systems…and Protestants and Catholics share much more in common concerning beliefs than they do with Mormons…so going to the source is still the most trusted method of discovering what someone believes.

If I wanted to know what you believe, I would ask you…not a Mormon.

 

[truthsilence]

Even so, if one wishes to understand Mormonism, it is best to ask a Mormon instead of a Catholic or a Quaker what Mormons believe. While their answer may not be satisfactory to “orthodox” believers as representing the “truth”, one can at least come away with the assurance that it was a Mormon who was articulating their beliefs instead of someone outside their faith tradition who may have less than a qualified understanding of the in’s and out’s of Mormonism.

Example, I’d rather trust a Quaker to tell me what they believe than trust a Catholic to explain to me what a Quaker believes, as I have seen more than once in this forum, both Catholics and Protestants tend to make grand blanket statements somewhat squewed to sometimes unrecongnizeable about each others belief systems…and Protestants and Catholics share much more in common concerning beliefs than they do with Mormons…so going to the source is still the most trusted method of discovering what someone believes.

If I wanted to know what you believe, I would ask you…not a Mormon.

I understand. Fair enough. I am just saying that even their “official beliefs” have changed, or are no longer taught/discussed. I’m sure we have at least three active LDS people lurking, if not posting, here at CAF. I’d like to ask them to answer the following questions, and see if we get three similar answers:

*Was God the Father once a man? (who progressed to Godhood)

*Why did the church practice polygamy? Does it still?

*Is black skin a curse?

*What exactly does “Families are Forever” mean?

I promise not to argue with anyone who might choose to post; or even with their answers. (no cheating) I’m only curious to read the responses we may or may not receive.

 

[Publisher]

I understand. Fair enough. I am just saying that even their “official beliefs” have changed, or are no longer taught/discussed. I’m sure we have at least three active LDS people lurking, if not posting, here at CAF. I’d like to ask them to answer the following questions, and see if we get three similar answers:

*Was God the Father once a man? (who progressed to Godhood)

*Why did the church practice polygamy? Does it still?

*Is black skin a curse?

*What exactly does “Families are Forever” mean?

I promise not to argue with anyone who might choose to post; or even with their answers. (no cheating) I’m only curious to read the responses we may or may not receive.

Very good, I think you would like the book “How Wide the Divide”, it addresses all of those issues from an “official” Mormon stance from a Mormon believer. While I disagree with his theology, it does answer the questions much more “factually” than asking a Catholic what a Mormon believes…and one of the authors admits many LDS do not understand the “official” stance of the church on many issues, much like in some threads the idea of “immaculate conception” and “virgin birth” get “mixed up” by both Protestant and Catholic believers…going to the source is the best place to go for an honest apraisal of one’s belief system.

 

[zerinus]

I understand. Fair enough. I am just saying that even their “official beliefs” have changed, or are no longer taught/discussed. I’m sure we have at least three active LDS people lurking, if not posting, here at CAF. I’d like to ask them to answer the following questions, and see if we get three similar answers:

*Was God the Father once a man? (who progressed to Godhood)

Joseph Smith on one occasion said that He was. But it is not taught in LDS scripture, therefore it is not confirmed LDS doctrine.

*Why did the church practice polygamy?

Because the Lord commanded it to do so.

Does it still?

No.

*Is black skin a curse?

No, and never has been.

*What exactly does “Families are Forever” mean?

It means that family relationships are intended to continue after death and resurrection, into the eternities, provided that such relationships are sealed by proper priesthood authority.

I promise not to argue with anyone who might choose to post; or even with their answers. (no cheating) I’m only curious to read the responses we may or may not receive.

 

[majick275]

and once again zerinus misrepresents LDS doctrine even by his own definition of it.

LDS scriptures STILL describe the skin of blackness as a curse from God:

*1.
2 Ne. 5: 21
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
2.
Jacob 3: 5
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
3.
Alma 3: 6
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
4.
3 Ne. 2: 15
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
*

this is fresh from the LDS website

 

[truthsilence]

Joseph Smith on one occasion said that He was. But it is not taught in LDS scripture, therefore it is not confirmed LDS doctrine.

Because the Lord commanded it to do so.

No.

No, and never has been.

It means that family relationships are intended to continue after death and resurrection, into the eternities, provided that such relationships are sealed by proper priesthood authority.

Oh maaan! Can I get a “pass” with Zerinus?

I am kidding. A promise is a promise.

 

[zerinus]

Oh maaan! Can I get a “pass” with Zerinus?

I am kidding. A promise is a promise.

Any further questions?

zerinus

 

[PaulDupre]

*Is black skin a curse?
No, and never has been.

Zerinus,
Your answer to this question allows only two conclusions: Either you are woefully ignorant of the Book of Mormon and LDS doctrine in general, or you are deliberately lying about what your scriptures and your prophets have taught.

Which is it?

Paul

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus,
Your answer to this question allows only two conclusions: Either you are woefully ignorant of the Book of Mormon and LDS doctrine in general, or you are deliberately lying about what your scriptures and your prophets have taught.

Which is it?

Paul

Neither.

zerinus