The Creation Account Contrary to LDS Account?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mercytruth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ParkerD,
We’re still waiting for your response the the Michael/Adam question.

But in the meantime,
Your claims of restoration of the Church do not hold water. From the Gospel according to St. Matthew: (Douai-Rheims)
Mat 16:15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am?
Mat 16:16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Here we read about St. Peter’s confession of Jesus being the Christ, and Jesus blessing St. Peter. Notice that in the second blessing Jesus declares that he will build his Church upon St. Peter, and further declares that the gates of hell will not prevail against his Church. For the Church to have fallen into error and be “restored” by the Mormons over a thousand years later, Jesus Chirst would have to have been a complete liar. Jesus, who is Truth itself, would have had to be a complete liar. So anyone who says that the Church fell into error and had to be replaced is calling Jesus Christ a liar. And let’s face it, the word really is “replace” and not “restore,” since a restoration would have happened on the “ruins” of the original Church and Joseph Smith went somewhere else, poured a fresh foundation, and created something entirely new.
The LDS Church counters that argument by saying that Jesus wasn’t referring to PETER as the Rock, He was referring to the statement Peter had just made in saying that Jesus was the Son of God. So no, the “Rock” isn’t Peter (in LDS doctrine), the “Rock” is the idea that Jesus is the Son of God.

It’s a very flawed way of looking at it that shows that the originator of the concept had no idea about how that passage was translated out of the Greek (or possibly even Aramaic). However, that’s their justification for that passage. It’s a pretty subtle way of twisting ancient scripture and unless you’re armed with knowledge as to how to combat their reasoning it’s easy to get very confused as to WHY it’s not saying what they say it is, even if you KNOW what they’re getting at is wrong.
 
And let’s face it, the word really is “replace” and not “restore,” since a restoration would have happened on the “ruins” of the original Church and Joseph Smith went somewhere else, poured a fresh foundation, and created something entirely new.
The first thread I started on this forum several years ago was on this very subject. To truly restore something means to go through a painstaking process of preserving the original work, as in restoring a painting, or even an antique car. The purpose is to get back to the original and one that attempts to pass off something as an original that has been altered in any way is guilty of fraud. The LDS church has taken a masterpiece and painted clown faces over it claiming it to be a restoration of the original. It has nothing to do with the original and is, therefore, a fraud.
 
Brigham Young taught that the church went into apostasy because the persecution against the early Christians killed all of the best Christians. The Romans persecuted the early Christians because they (even Jesus) practiced polygamy.
 
ParkerD can’t post? Well…ParkerD, if you’re reading this, thank you for participating in the discussion. I was actually having fun.🙂

SpeSalvi,
Have you checked out Jimmy Akin’s website? He has an article on there called Why Be Catholic: An Exercise for Evangelicals, which really digs into Matthew 16. Of course, it’s written to counter Evangelical arguments, but they are similar to the one you listed. He examines both the Greek and the Aramaic words for rock to counter the claim that the rock on which Jesus would build his Church was the rock of Peter’s faith. There’s a lot of other stuff in that one also. You know, even before I ever thought of converting to Catholicism, and not knowing a thing about the original language, I took that particular verse at face value. The sad thing, for those who argue against Peter being the rock, is that the tone of the sentence and the structure alone insist on Peter being the rock. Every time I read that passage, I see Jesus grabbing Peter by the shoulders and looking him right in the eye as he says it. I mean, how much more obvious can it be? Combine that with all the other verses where Jesus singles out Peter and how can anyone doubt that Peter is the rock Jesus spoke of in Matthew 16?

SteveVH,
I agree. I have in years past had conversation with Evangelicals who denied that the Catholic Church was started by Jesus, and have heard about how this or that church was trying to do things the way the Apostles did or whatever. But none of them, beyond perhaps an unspoken belief in the “invisible Church” concept, attempted to claim they were the one true Church. There was a level of honesty there. I can respect that, and I can also respect the attempt to try to revive what they believe has been lost (even though I know it hasn’t been lost). But claiming to be the one Church when she is still going strong is mind boggling.
 
SpeSalvi,
Have you checked out Jimmy Akin’s website? He has an article on there called Why Be Catholic: An Exercise for Evangelicals, which really digs into Matthew 16. Of course, it’s written to counter Evangelical arguments, but they are similar to the one you listed. He examines both the Greek and the Aramaic words for rock to counter the claim that the rock on which Jesus would build his Church was the rock of Peter’s faith. There’s a lot of other stuff in that one also. You know, even before I ever thought of converting to Catholicism, and not knowing a thing about the original language, I took that particular verse at face value. The sad thing, for those who argue against Peter being the rock, is that the tone of the sentence and the structure alone insist on Peter being the rock. Every time I read that passage, I see Jesus grabbing Peter by the shoulders and looking him right in the eye as he says it. I mean, how much more obvious can it be? Combine that with all the other verses where Jesus singles out Peter and how can anyone doubt that Peter is the rock Jesus spoke of in Matthew 16?
Thanks for the suggestion! I’ll take a look. I’ve heard similar explanations in a few books I own, and one that I really enjoy for it’s direct approach at addressing topics like that is Catholic Answers’ The Essential Catholic Survival Guide. It has REALLY helped me organize my thoughts when it comes to controversial topics such as Matthew 16.
 
ParkerD,

Thank you for your responses.

First, I disagree with your definition of soul. From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, “In Sacred Scripture the term “soul” often refers to human life or the entire human person. But “soul” also refers to the innermost aspect of man, that which is of greatest value to him, that by which he is most especially in God’s image: “soul” signifies the spiritual principle in man.” (CCC 363) Again, to stress the point, there is nothing in Christian doctrine which states that man consists of a bodily shell filled with a soul; that is simply not a Christian concept.

Second, you have used trick language here by saying, “I agree that Jesus didn’t have to “progress” to become God with us.” This is not only not what I said, but completely twists the meaning of my words. You quote me in entirety, and then insist that I have said something I have not. In order for this to be an honest dialogue, both parties must be clearly understood by the other, and neither party is to misrepresent what the other has said. This is not only for the benefit of the conversation itself, but also for those reading who might be trying to learn. When I use the word shell, it is a matter of terminology only, and regardless people will understand it to mean what you are saying, as RebeccaJ clearly does. But quoting me and then misconstruing what I have said means either that I have failed to present things clearly to you, or I have and you choose to misrepresent them anyway.

Now, a similar point is only similar, and not the same. I referenced the LDS page to which SpeSalvi provided a link (a page which is not only an official LDS page, but provides references to LDS literature in support of its statements.) , refuting the claims made therein. It is Scriptural fact that Lucifer is a creation and that Christ created him. The Gospel of St. John says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through him, and without him nothing came to be.” The book of Genesis says, “In the beginning, when God created the heavens and the earth…” Between these two verses alone we know that God is the Creator, that nothing came to be without him, and that Jesus was both with God and is God. To place the word made in quotation marks as you do is, again, to misrepresent what I have said.

Angels are eternal, hence the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels, so they do not need to be granted eternal life. Angels are not human souls because angels are not in union with a body, and the idea that they can wear a body like a glove means that they are not in union with that body.

If souls were not in union with bodies, then it would make nonsense of sins such as mutilation and murder; should one body wear out, get another (opening the door to heretical reincarnation beliefs). It would mean that verses such as “by his wounds we are healed” are meaningless because the wounds are only on a body and not on God himself. It would make the Christ’s Sacrifice on the cross empty, as well as his words at the Last Supper that his flesh would be given up for us. It would be meaningless and valueless for God to put on a meat suit and have it tortured and executed while not being in union with that body. It would mean that the Incarnation did not happen, because by not being in union with the body God didn’t actually become man. But we know from Scripture that Christ actually became man and was God also. We know from Scripture that the wounds are on Christ himself and not just his body.

God sends angels to earth without them having to have flesh. The Angel of the Annunciation is just one example. The question, if we are all enfleshed angels, is why would humankind be so impressed with angels if we were the same but with a meat wrapper? Wouldn’t we know our own? And why would God, in that case, not simply send the next door neighbor to announce the Incarnation to Mary? Surely that would have been simpler.

These LDS beliefs about angels are definitely inconsistent with Catholic beliefs, you’ve got that right, and since the Catholic Church’s beliefs about angels define the rest of the Christian world’s beliefs about angels, that means the LDS beliefs are at odds with all of Christianity. In fact, they are at odds with Scripture, which would say in the book of Genesis that God placed an angel inside the body otherwise. If you are actually reading my posts, then you must know that breaking down things the way I’m doing is following St. Paul’s advice about testing the spirits. These LDS teachings fail the test.

You may not know this, ParkerD, but heresy is a direct attack on Jesus. Technical definitions of heresy aside, each heresy attacks the person of Jesus Christ. This is the reason I return to Jesus in my arguments. If what the LDS teaches attacks the person of Christ, then it is heresy and must be abandoned; and believe me, these LDS teachings attack the person of Christ.

The word “spirit” is used in different ways, and in the case of your argument, is an attempt to parse words and justify an unsupportable position. Satan did the same thing when he tempted Jesus in the desert. God sends either an angel with a message, or a person with a message. Humans are not derivative of angels, nor do angels make up any part of the human person.
Crux

I find your responses to be insightful and striking to the heart as to what ParkerD does with our posts.
 
Crux

I find your responses to be insightful and striking to the heart as to what ParkerD does with our posts.
mwok,
Thank you for the compliment!🙂 I have been doing a bit of reading on Apologetics lately, and also a reading a bit of Aristotle. Stuff like that tends to put me on my toes.
 
Crux-Sacra It pians me to read the arrogance and spitefulness in your words. I have had many close Mormon friends and we had never tested eachothers religion in such a way. Mainly because we had respect for what eachother believed in, even though we didn’t agree with it. You can analyze every scripture in the bible and interpret it any way you want. But it will never change the Catholics/Christians views on Mormons. You can call yourself Chritian all you want but that does not make you one in my Church. You can say you follow Jesus Christ but that does not mean we follow the same Christ. God said that there would be a false prophet that would promise unimaginable things and steal the souls of the Christians. This prophet was Joseph Smith! He had promised the most unimaginable things, which includes being able to become a God and set forth your own “Spirit Children”. I am not looking to get into a huge arguement like you have been in this thread. Mainly because I can tell you have alot more time on your hands than I do. Also you have been raised and taught to argue against anyone that challenges your religion. I have just been taught to worship and praise the God I believe in. I will keep you in my prayers
God Bless
 
Also you have been raised and taught to argue against anyone that challenges your religion.
I was taught to respect everyone’s beliefs, and practice my own without being vocal about it. Ten years ago I discovered that such an attitude is self-defeating. I discovered that many Mormons have no respect for my choices, and who I am, or what I believe in. We have the responsibility to defend ourselves, and our faith.

So far as I have read it, Crux Sacra’s analysis is just the right thing we need to see on these boards.

I really wonder if you actually read his post. Something is fishy here. Some of us have studied Mormonism inside out, and some of us have seen it from the inside, now seeing it from the outside. I would suggest that you study deeper, rather than spouting typical anti-Mormon rhetoric.
 
Crux-Sacra It pians me to read the arrogance and spitefulness in your words. I have had many close Mormon friends and we had never tested eachothers religion in such a way. Mainly because we had respect for what eachother believed in, even though we didn’t agree with it. You can analyze every scripture in the bible and interpret it any way you want. But it will never change the Catholics/Christians views on Mormons. You can call yourself Chritian all you want but that does not make you one in my Church. You can say you follow Jesus Christ but that does not mean we follow the same Christ. God said that there would be a false prophet that would promise unimaginable things and steal the souls of the Christians. This prophet was Joseph Smith! He had promised the most unimaginable things, which includes being able to become a God and set forth your own “Spirit Children”. I am not looking to get into a huge arguement like you have been in this thread. Mainly because I can tell you have alot more time on your hands than I do. Also you have been raised and taught to argue against anyone that challenges your religion. I have just been taught to worship and praise the God I believe in. I will keep you in my prayers
God Bless
I disagree. I found it neither argumentative or untrue. We are told by our leaders to speak out and not be afraid to argue against untruth.
 
Crux-Sacra It pians me to read the arrogance and spitefulness in your words. I have had many close Mormon friends and we had never tested eachothers religion in such a way. Mainly because we had respect for what eachother believed in, even though we didn’t agree with it. You can analyze every scripture in the bible and interpret it any way you want. But it will never change the Catholics/Christians views on Mormons. You can call yourself Chritian all you want but that does not make you one in my Church. You can say you follow Jesus Christ but that does not mean we follow the same Christ. God said that there would be a false prophet that would promise unimaginable things and steal the souls of the Christians. This prophet was Joseph Smith! He had promised the most unimaginable things, which includes being able to become a God and set forth your own “Spirit Children”. I am not looking to get into a huge arguement like you have been in this thread. Mainly because I can tell you have alot more time on your hands than I do. Also you have been raised and taught to argue against anyone that challenges your religion. I have just been taught to worship and praise the God I believe in. I will keep you in my prayers
God Bless
Coltenmur,
I think you have confused me with someone else, since I have been arguing the Catholic position this whole time. Perhaps your post was mis-addressed?

For the record, I have great respect for Mormons as persons. The impression I get is that they are very upright, devoutly religious people. It is not my intention to be harsh or cruel to people and I do not believe I have been here. Apologetics is oftentimes a trial by fire, but were we in the same place I would still buy someone I had been arguing so passionately with a beer when it was all over. Or whatever they prefer to drink.

1 Peter 3:15-16 says, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope, but do it with gentleness and reverence, keeping your conscience clear, so that when you are maligned those who defame your good conduct in Christ may themselves be put to shame.” St. Nicholas punched the heresiarch Arius in the face to stop him from speaking lies about Jesus Christ. I have been gentle and reverent, respecting this person enough to explain the nature and extent of the theological error without being unkind. My conscience is clear.
 
Their is nothin wrong with stating or defending your religion, I am all for that. I would just never go on a Catholic website and state my Mormon views, that’s what I find arrogant. I visit this website to reach deeper into my faith and I don’t find it appropriate to have Mormons argueing on here. I do have a great knowledge of what Morminism intials and even though I don’t agree with it I don’t go on Mormon websites expressing my feelings.
 
And Yes Crux I mistakingly put your name, it was supposed to be addressed to someone else. But I totally agree with your point.
 
No harm done, Coltenmur. Thank you. I would like you to consider something, though. This particular forum is the non-Catholic religions forum, and having only Catholics discussing non-Catholic religions would result in some pretty lopsided views, don’t you think? Maybe it’s better that people from other religions post here as well, since we get to learn about their faiths and, more importantly, they get to learn about ours. Perhaps by coming to know Truth, they will pare away falsehoods and eventually come into the Catholic Faith. We may not proselytize, but we answer when asked.🙂
 
They may come here thinking they are proselytizing for Mormonism, but they are actually curious about Catholicism. We are here to respond to that curiosity :cool:.
 
I believe my purpose is not to argue or fight, but to correct the current LDS need to whitewash their history and doctrine. Mormonism can be very attractive and people need to know the truth.
 
I would like to add that, if people like us had been around in 1983, I likwly would have never been LDS
 
In looking up Scripture verses about angels, I came across one that I think is interesting considering the subject matter of this thread. While other translations of the same verse do not read exactly the same, the Douai-Rheims version I have on my computer (don’t have a print copy) reads:

2Pe 2:10 And especially them who walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise government: audacious, self willed, they fear not to bring in sects, blaspheming.
2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, who are greater in strength and power, bring not against themselves a railing judgment.

I copied the entirety of verse 10 for the sake of clarity. The verse contrasts men, who are not afraid to commit blasphemy, with angels, who do not bring “railing judgment” against themselves. Going back to the original discussion about angels and men, if angels were the souls of men, why would an angel who never rebelled be willing to become a sinner? Because in 2 Peter 2:4, it says that God did not spare the angels when they sinned. Why would he spare an enfleshed angel if he did not spare Satan and his lot?

As I said, other translations do not read the same way. The KJV and the NABRE have a translation that reads that the angels do not accuse men before the Lord for this sin. And the NABRE connects the verse in its footnotes to Jude 9. The wording of the NABRE, though, without the footnotes, still might possibly be read with the meaning in the Douai-Rheims.
 
I believe my purpose is not to argue or fight, but to correct the current LDS need to whitewash their history and doctrine. Mormonism can be very attractive and people need to know the truth.
TexanKnight,

I appreciate your contributions to this subject. I have difficulty in understanding how LDS members can seem to be very decent human beings, but have such a warped interpretation of Christianity.

Can you tell me if you know of the speech made by the President of the Mormon Historical Society, Dr. Reed Durham in 1974, titled, “Is There No Help for the Widow’s Son”? (It has to do with his claims that Joseph Smith and the leadership were involved with Freemasonry). I am trying to understand all this from the aspect of ‘wolves in sheep’s clothing’, or deception disguises itself ‘as an angel of light.’

Thanks, and God’s peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top