The Mormon creed

[Marie5890]

Indeed.

By logic. Truth precedes error. Whatever Church that tells you about God to begin with. The Roman Church evangelized western Europe, so that is the Church that told us pagans about God to begin with. The Protestants borrowed the Catholic God, and the Mormons then borrowed that God from the Protestants, changed him around a lot, and started sheep-stealing.

So the source of the teaching of God for us is the Roman Church. I don’t find much logic in the Mormon Church nor in its history, which is why I think Mormons put so much emphasis in their evangelizing on the “burning in the bosom” or conviction by the Spirit that Joseph Smith is a prophet and the Mormon Church is true.

I would add, too, that the it’s Jewish roots are still discernible in their liturgies.
How could a church not reflect Yeshua’s own religious identity.
Jews ARE our elder brothers and sisters.

It’s the basic reason that I find only Catholic and Orthodoxy as having legit claim to valid authority and sacraments.

Most denominations, including Mormonism (since that was the original topic of this thread), do not possess the ancient sense of Christ being Jewish. That struck me when I had been thru the LDS temples. And even their idea of alters. The only alters they have are in the temples, and there is not sense of sacrifice, either Christ’s or, going back further, animals.

Show me a church that has a Jewish connection in it’s beliefs and rites, then you have a church that has not forgotten that Christ was a Jew, as was Mary and Joseph, and the community they lived in

 

[mackbrislawn]

So you are RCC because by happenstance your ancestors lived in an area politically dominated by RCC, not due to any convection of the truthfulness? How about a person who by happenstance your ancestors lived in an area politically dominated by Islam, does that make Islam true? Or someone who happens to be Jewish ethnically?

 

[mackbrislawn]

Good point. And it applies to everyone else as well. You and me both. If by happenstance you or your ancestors hadn’t been in an area visited by Mormon missionaries, would you thought to have prayed for a conviction that Joseph Smith was a prophet? I doubt it. And I’m sure if you had lived in an area politically dominated by Islam, you would now believe Islam to be true. In fact, if not for the RCC, I’m sure western Europe would have become dominated by Islam and there would have been no Christianity there at all. Hence no Protestantism, and hence no Mormon Church.

That’s a sly little diversion, hinting that I’m RCC not from any conviction it is true. I’m convinced it is true because it is more logical than Protestantism or its daughters. Catholicism does not use testimonies a lot, although it can be done. They are important for Pentecostals and evangelicals. Calvinism relies on conversion experiences as indicators you are a true Christian, that is, saved. These are emotional and subjective. To these people, their testimonies are just as real and valid as yours are to you. But, the proof is in the pudding. If one is convicted in their bosom, what else is there to do? Logic is not in the equation anymore.

The reference, “politically dominated” seems a bit gratuitous. Maybe calculated to get an emotional response from me? I won’t bite.

You don’t respond emotionally?

I can see why you would find history based arguments weak, because they are not in your favor. Best to ignore them. But history is extremely important, because Christianity is based upon history. If Jesus is not resurrected, our faith is in vain.

The term “big bully” is gratuitous as well. But, we’ll use it anyway. If not for that big bully we would all be pagans, or more likely Muslims, today. We wouldn’t even know about God to go to for truth.

I still find it strange that we should pray to a God we learn about from one source, and ask Him if He is a God different than what we learned about in the first place. That’s kind of a twisted logic.

But back to the subject, the Mormon creed. I wonder, if one asks God directly as the source of truth, why have a church and a creed? A creed tells one what to believe, but if we can ask God Himself, we don’t need a creed.

 

[mackbrislawn]

You are saying that the Roman Catholic faith has spread throughout the world because they were a big bully?

Please give an example of this.

She’s just using these terms to try to get a rise out of us. They are red herrings, an attempt to divert the argument because she can’t use actual logic.

 

[mackbrislawn]

She’s just using these terms to try to get a rise out of us. They’re red herrings, an attempt to divert the argument because she can’t use actual logic.

 

[jane_doe]

Good point. And it applies to everyone else as well. You and me both. If by happenstance you or your ancestors hadn’t been in an area visited by Mormon missionaries, would you thought to have prayed for a conviction that Joseph Smith was a prophet? I doubt it. .

You are falsely assuming my family situation favors me being Mormon.

You don’t respond emotionally?

Feeling your emotions (generic you) is very different thing than feeling the Spirit.

I can see why you would find history based arguments weak, because they are not in your favor.

Another false assumption.

I still find it strange that we should pray to a God we learn about from one source, and ask Him if He is a God different than what we learned about in the first place…

Do you feel that you already know everything about God? If a person does not presume they already know everything, seeking more learning is a very natural thing.

 

[mackbrislawn]

jane_doe;14152581

You are falsely assuming my family situation favors me being Mormon.

It is you who are falsely assuming that I assumed something about your family situation. What assumption was it that you thought I made? At any rate, you avoided addressing the real point. Another evasion and diversion. Because don’t think you are not in the same boat as everyone else in regard to happenstance, because if without by happenstance Mormon missionaries hadn’t gone out, in whatever time or place, I doubt you would have known about Joseph Smith, nor thought of praying that he was a prophet.

Feeling your emotions (generic you) is very different thing than feeling the Spirit.

Tell that to a Pentecostal! Their Spirit gets them going.

Another false assumption.

Here’s your chance to go into greater detail. And also explain why history is indeed in your favor. Oops, history and empirical evidence are weak. So is logic.

Do you feel that you already know everything about God? If a person does not presume they already know everything, seeking more learning is a very natural thing.

This question doesn’t explain the strangeness of asking the God you learned about if he is really the God you learned about. An evasion. But we’ll accept it. Seeking more learning is probably why you are here…

But, in spite of everything, like I said before, the proof is in the pudding. You’ve got to go with what you feel, what your interior convictions are, and if that’s what you have, go with it.

 

[wmscott]

So I have been reading the back and forth here between the LDS and the Catholics, and some Protestants. My eyes are blurry and I have a cramp between my ears

Am I wrong or are the LDS here relying on the Early Church Fathers and the apostate Church to bolster their position?

 

[SyroMalankara]

But back to the subject, the Mormon creed. I wonder, if one asks God directly as the source of truth, why have a church and a creed? A creed tells one what to believe, but if we can ask God Himself, we don’t need a creed.

Not only do you NOT need a creed, you don’t need a Book of Mormon, or a Bible. Just ask God all the time about what to do and how to act. Done. If answers are so direct and clear, and the Catholic Church (or any Church is not a mediator) why have any in between? I’ve heard and seen Evangelicals make the same kind of argument, never made any sense to me.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So I have been reading the back and forth here between the LDS and the Catholics, and some Protestants. My eyes are blurry and I have a cramp between my ears

Am I wrong or are the LDS here relying on the Early Church Fathers and the apostate Church to bolster their position?

You’re not wrong, some are using references of heterodox early church leaders and other apostates to claim lineage or authenticity.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Not only do you NOT need a creed, you don’t need a Book of Mormon, or a Bible. Just ask God all the time about what to do and how to act. Done. If answers are so direct and clear, and the Catholic Church (or any Church is not a mediator) why have any in between? I’ve heard and seen Evangelicals make the same kind of argument, never made any sense to me.

Protestants sometimes say they ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate scripture for them. But, I wonder, why ask the Holy Spirit to illuminate scripture? Why not just ask the Holy Spirit for direct illumination? Why bother with scripture at all? (They have already decided not to bother with the Church.)

Of course the forget that they only know about God and scripture to begin with because of the Church.

 

[jane_doe]

It is you who are falsely assuming that I assumed something about your family situation. What assumption was it that you thought I made?

That I am LDS because LDS missionaries by happenstance proselytized my ancestors. This is a false assumption.

Here’s your chance to go into greater detail. And also explain why history is indeed in your favor. Oops, history and empirical evidence are weak. So is logic.

Needless insults are a great way to completely shut down a conversation.

This question doesn’t explain the strangeness of asking the God you learned about if he is really the God you learned about.

Why not have confirmation directly from the source? It’s a great thing!

Seeking more learning is probably why you are here…

About God? No.
About the Catholic people and their beliefs? Yes, that is one of my goals here. I am a huge proponent on interfaith understanding and relations. And to learn about Catholics I’m going to go ask Catholics, and successfully learn stuff about them/their faith all the time here.

 

[Stephen168]

I can see why you would find history based arguments weak, because they are not in your favor.
jane_doe;14152581:

Another false assumption.

Here’s your chance to go into greater detail. And also explain why history is indeed in your favor. Oops, history and empirical evidence are weak. So is logic.

If Mormons claimed to be part of a non-Christian religion invented by Joseph Smith in 19th Century America, I think history is in their favor. It is when they claim it is a restoration of ancient Christianity that the whole thing falls apart. That is why it is common to see lots of reasons why they cannot engage to defend such a claim.

Needless insults are a great way to completely shut down a conversation.

 

[Stephen168]

I would add, too, that the it’s Jewish roots are still discernible in their liturgies.
How could a church not reflect Yeshua’s own religious identity.
Jews ARE our elder brothers and sisters.

It’s the basic reason that I find only Catholic and Orthodoxy as having legit claim to valid authority and sacraments.

Most denominations, including Mormonism (since that was the original topic of this thread), do not possess the ancient sense of Christ being Jewish. That struck me when I had been thru the LDS temples. And even their idea of alters. The only alters they have are in the temples, and there is not sense of sacrifice, either Christ’s or, going back further, animals.

Show me a church that has a Jewish connection in it’s beliefs and rites, then you have a church that has not forgotten that Christ was a Jew, as was Mary and Joseph, and the community they lived in

I feel the same way about the Eucharist, as a sign of the true Christian Church.

 

[Marie5890]

I feel the same way about the Eucharist, as a sign of the true Christian Church.

Agreed. John 6 clearly shows that as being a sign of Truth. The Real Presence.

 

[mackbrislawn]

That I am LDS because LDS missionaries by happenstance proselytized my ancestors. This is a false assumption.

It’s good that you already know all there is to know about God and don’t need to learn more. And we’re learning about Mormons.

 

[jane_doe]

So, since it wasn’t your ancestors, it must have been you who by happenstance lived in a place and time affected by Mormon missionaries. You probably studied with them, or read Mormon literature. So, not just me, but you are affected by happenstance too.

Actually, there is another way in which happenstance doesn’t play a role.

Or are person could be of a faith due to deep extensive prayer, study, and searching. Nothing happenstance about it.

You are absolutely correct. So I guess that’s why no further explanations are forthcoming. But I suppose “big bully” and “politically dominate” are not inflammatory terms? Needless insults?

Do you deny the politically dominate historical power of the RCC? Or that they suppressed views they considered to be heretical?

Ain’t it though a great thing? But still that isn’t the point.

Actually it’s entirely the point: the Spirit testifies of truth.

Although directly from the source is mysticism, and then neither church nor creeds are needed. The Catholic Church isn’t needed, and neither is the Mormon Church. Scripture is superfluous as well. One wonders why God set up churches when he illuminates people directly anyway.

You appear to have this dichotomy view: you either need the church or God to know truth. Since you have RCC, you don’t need to talk to God and the witness of the Spirit. (Please correct me if I’m getting this wrong)

I see no such dichotomy: rather BOTH are needed for a believer. The Church provides community, guidance, and leadership. But an individual shouldn’t follow a leader just because someone said so, rather because the Spirit witnessed of that truthfulness. Likewise a leader should be lead by the Spirit.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Or are person could be of a faith due to deep extensive prayer, study, and searching. Nothing happenstance about it.

 

[lax16]

Do you deny the politically dominate historical power of the RCC? Or that they suppressed views they considered to be heretical?

I find this fascinating after listening to Mormon missionaries tell me how the Christian religion vanished after the death of the last apostle.

How could this be if the Church had so much power?

Why wouldn’t the apostles and first Christians fight to keep false teachings out of the early Church? You say it like it is a bad thing to do.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why not have confirmation directly from the source? It’s a great thing!

Yet this is not entirely the Mormon way of things. The first presidency receive revelation, supposedly, that is only for them and then you must follow, or not. It gets kind of loosey goosey when discussing conflicting direction from different men. Mormons who followed one leader received a confirmation that is in conflict with what Mormons receive today, following a different leader.

Joseph Smith viewed orthodoxy as stifling, which we see in his aversion to creeds. He was all about orthopraxy. The D&C is one right-behavior directive after another. He envisioned religion as individualistic with no one suppressing what another believes. See article of faith #11. Of course with Joseph Smith his one preeminent right-behavior directive was to never cross him. That view of leadership is retained in the LDS Church. Never speak ill of the brethren, the first and highest right-behavior.

This theory of orthopraxy is ironically, going by the wayside in the LDS Church. Over time notions of orthodoxy have crept in. Correlation committees? I imagine Joseph Smith is turning in his grave.

Some LDS sense this, I think, and push against traditional Mormonism. Which they can do, without being bothered by any other Mormon, until they begin to publicize their views. Then orthogporaxy has been violated and excommunication will be the inevitable result. These so-called individual confirmations have limits in the LDS Church.

For example, I am Catholic because this is where God led me. The inevitable result for joining another religion is excommunication from the Mormon Church. There are limits to your ideal. There really is only one correct confirmation, that as long as you profess it, you are a Mormon member in good standing. That which you profess publicly, not the things you believe secretly, I would call a creed.