The Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Brainwashed

[SkinnyJay]

Symbols.

to recap the debate as I see it…someone (I forget who) claimed that the symbols used by Christians, from the Cross to eggs to Easter baskets to holly, Ivy and Christmas trees, are purely Christian, have always BEEN Christian, and it is pretty much blasphemous to claim that they were ever used in any other context/religion.

That’s one viewpoint. Another is that because all these symbols did originate from pagan beliefs, that they should be utterly abandoned. Michael seems to have come to that conclusion, or is arguing for that.

My position is…yes, these symbols (including the cross) have been used in other religions for thousands of years. Christians took them, ‘baptized’ them, in a sense, and converted the meanings of them to Christian meanings, with Christian symbology and lore—and good for them. Symbols mean what the people who use them claim they mean.

…and the meanings of symbols change, sometimes drastically. If you don’t believe me, research the swastika. Now THERE is a symbol that has been around for millenia, too–as a symbol of peace, fertility and good will. Come the Nazis and…oops. I have a quilt that my great grandmother made, that I will never be able to display. She would have been utterly astounded if I could tell her why.

I could get all upset and insist that the swastika REALLY means peace, harmony and all good things, but let’s face it; it doesn’t. Not any more, and it would be truly asinine of me to insist upon it.

Just as it is asinine for Christians today to recoil from the Easter egg because a thousand years or so ago it meant something else.

Thanks for the sum up Diana.

I think most anyone understands the concept of altered meanings through time and culture. I suppose the arguments arise when people are not on the same meaning.

 

[SkinnyJay]

That is basically the same concept as the Pauline doctrine of becoming “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ” (Romans 18:17; Galatians 4:7). Jesus has all that the Father has (John 17:10). So to become “heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ” is to have all that they have.

I am not really sure if the word heirs and it’s modern definition works for this case.

Heirs–noun

1. a person who inherits or has a right of inheritance in the property of another following the latter’s death.
2. Law.
   
   a. (in common law) a person who inherits all the property of a deceased person, as by descent, relationship, will, or legal process.
   b. Civil Law. a person who legally succeeds to the place of a deceased person and assumes the rights and obligations of the deceased, as the liabilities for debts or the possessory rights to property.
   [*]a person who inherits or is entitled to inherit the rank, title, position, etc., of another.
   [*]a person or group considered as inheriting the tradition, talent, etc., of a predecessor.​

Heirs receive their property or rank once the primary has died or stepped down. You cannot have two masters. I believe God to be infinitely perfect and good from forever to forever. God does not change. He neither dies nor steps down.

The idea did originate from inside Mormonism. I haven’t done research into it to discover who brought it up first. But just because it originated from inside Mormonism, it does not make it official Mormon doctrine. You, however, probably picked it up from anti-Mormon stuff on the Internet rather than from talking to Mormons.

If you say so.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Having spirit children is taught by the church in no uncertain terms Z just doesn’t believe it.

From the LDS Gospel Principles Manual chapter 47 on Exaltation

*"Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
2. They will become gods.
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our Heavenly Father*. They will be an eternal family.
4. They will receive a fulness of joy.
5. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have–all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge. President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to his commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:36)."

Just a note, it seems the Gospel Principles Manual is being updated and the part I bolded above will be removed. Z should be very happy his church is conforming to his beliefs or maybe it’s someone else’s beliefs?

 

[zerinus]

I am not really sure if the word heirs and it’s modern definition works for this case.

Heirs–noun

1. a person who inherits or has a right of inheritance in the property of another following the latter’s death.
2. Law.
   
   a. (in common law) a person who inherits all the property of a deceased person, as by descent, relationship, will, or legal process.
   b. Civil Law. a person who legally succeeds to the place of a deceased person and assumes the rights and obligations of the deceased, as the liabilities for debts or the possessory rights to property.
   [*]a person who inherits or is entitled to inherit the rank, title, position, etc., of another.
   [*]a person or group considered as inheriting the tradition, talent, etc., of a predecessor.​

I didn’t invent the use of that term in Christian theology, Paul did:

Hebrews 1:

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.

And he tells us that man can be God’s heir in the same way that Jesus is:

Romans 8:

17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

If that is what Paul believed, who am I to dispute.

 

[guanophore]

You lie,

Answers, it is not appropriate or adviseable for you to give this response to people who disagree with you. It is hostile, provocative, and judgemental. People see things differently. It is not necessarily a deliberate attempt to deceive others.

the parables were for the Apostles and the disciples, and when the Apostles did not understand a parable, Jesus The Christ EXPLAINED it to them.

Yes, Jesus did explain parables to His Apostles, and one of his explanations for using them was that people who were not meant to understand would not.

“pearls” and you don’t cast mormon “pearls” before the “swine” you are trying to “convert” (trick) into your false religion.
How nice of you to admit it.

You know, you seem very hostile when talking about this topic. Have you been ensnared before by this tactic? Or perhaps a loved one of yours? It would explain the resentment.

In this thread alone people can see how hard it is to get a straight answer from a mormon, especially truly evasive ones like Zerinus.

I think that you present a very difficult audience for any civil discussion. The name calling and the prejudice seem to ooze out of your posts.

fancy visions and high sounding words, go try to fool someone else. Your false religion is built on sand.

Mormons are welcome at CAF, and are encouraged to explore the differences in beliefs along with everyone else. Your hostility does not promote any useful discussion.

 

[mjf001]

Mormons are welcome at CAF, and are encouraged to explore the differences in beliefs along with everyone else. Your hostility does not promote any useful discussion.

Except, we only ever seem to explore their faith, the dialogue doesn’t see like a two way street.

 

[zerinus]

Just a note, it seems the Gospel Principles Manual is being updated and the part I bolded above will be removed. Z should be very happy his church is conforming to his beliefs or maybe it’s someone else’s beliefs?

Thank you zaffiroborant for that interesting observation. I was aware of the new edition, but have not had the chance to read it yet, and it has not been put online yet either. Assuming that your observation is correct, that would be a welcome development; although in my opinion it does not go far enough. This whole idea of having “spirit children” has nothing to support it in LDS scripture. I am not saying that it can’t be true; but if it is, it introduces doctrine into the Church by stealth! That is not the Lord’s way of doing business in the Church. If it is true, and the Church has received a revelation to that effect, they should publish it, canonize it, and make it the official doctrine of the Church. That is my personal opinion.

 

[zerinus]

Except, we only ever seem to explore their faith, the dialogue doesn’t see like a two way street.

You don’t “explore their faith” at all; you just attack it! You think you already know all that you need to know about it, and think that it is just your duty to just attack it.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

Face it almost all faiths brainwash. What would you call taking a child, hammering in the teachings of one faithas true over and over again from Age 0 to Age 17 and saying all other religions are wrong?

I call that brainwashing.

I’m not just picking on Roman Catholics they are one of these in my view and so are others. Why not just let each person choose to study all the faiths they want and when the person is an adult they can pick one they like without all the pressure tactics?

 

[dianaiad]

[/SIGN]

The meaning of the Swastika has forever changed because of the actions of an evil man.

This is true, but what has that got to do with anything?

An Easter egg hunt, while fun, carries no Religious significance, as far as I can tell. It’s fun. It’s fun to watch my nieces and nephew have fun. But what significant does an Easter egg have outside of being fun? I don’t recognize it as a symbol of the holiday, but as a cultural expression of the holiday.

Fine…what do you tell your children when they ask you why you decorate eggs and hide them?

The fact is, the egg has long been a symbol of fertility and rebirth, and early Christians considered eggs to be the ‘seed of life,’ and are thus symbols of Christ’s resurrection. The Easter Bunny used to be the Easter hare–a rampant symbol of fertility and spring. The reason decorated eggs are hidden to be found is that children were told that the Easter Hare laid these eggs in the grass.

The egg is a good symbol to use for this because it is so very obvious; a visible metaphor for birth, rebirth and spring—and if you think about it, you can figure out why an egg would be a good symbol for the resurrection.

To reiterate, I’m not saying don’t go on Easter Egg Hunts, don’t decorate the christmas trees. I’m not saying they’re not fun. I believe they have there part. They are not; however, part of the ceremony.

You are committing a fallacy of composition here. If Christians engage in these activities during special occasions and only during those occasions, as part of those specific holidays, then those activities are as much a part of those holidays as strict religious observances are.

If you decorate a tree for Christmas and at no other time, and the reason you do it at Christmas is because it is Christmas, then decorating that tree is every inch as much a part of your Christmas holiday observances as your attendance at church. Or Mass. Or whatever.

If you decorate a tree and give gifts in remembrance of the gifts of the Magi–and are giving thanks for the birth of the Christ child thereby, you are celebrating the holiday then every inch as much as you are when you participate in church services. If you go to an Easter Sunrise Service (itself an idea with very pagan origins, by the way) then go home to the gaily decorated baskets, the colored eggs and the ham dinner, it’s ALL part of the holiday.

You don’t get to claim that the symbols you are uncomfortable with are simply coincidentally being used on that day…just for kicks.

 

[dianaiad]

Thanks for the sum up Diana.

I think most anyone understands the concept of altered meanings through time and culture. I suppose the arguments arise when people are not on the same meaning.

That’s part of it.

the biggest problem arises when people figure that their particular interpretation of a particular symbol must be the one and only ‘true’ interpretation of it, and then seek to force others to agree with them.

…the controversy over Christmas and Easter symbols is evidence of this, and so is the entire discussion of the meaning of the cross.

 

[dianaiad]

Except, we only ever seem to explore their faith, the dialogue doesn’t see like a two way street.

You are quite right about the two way street. Take it from me, sir, it’s not. The Mormons are all standing in the middle of a one way thoroughfare, facing the wrong way, and here come the Mack trucks…

But hey…there is a reason this is called the non-Catholic religions forum. It’s for discussing non-Catholic religions. CAF is devoted, almost entirely, to the discussion of Catholicism, not Mormonism…so your ‘two way street’ is more like an eight lane freeway—with seven and a half lanes going your way. Causes a little traffic jam in here, y’know?

One last point: don’t you think it would be a little, oh, deceptive to insist that a forum devoted to discussing NON-Catholic religions really be used to discuss Catholicism? I mean, several posters have done precisely that, usually by asking (in more or less accusatory and insulting terms )" WHAT ARE YOU DOING TALKING ABOUT (insert whatever it is here ) ON A CATHOLIC FORUM? "

I think that these folks have a little problem with the whole concept of what discussing ‘non-Catholic religions’ actually means. Such as…actually discussing non-Catholic religions.

 

[dianaiad]

Face it almost all faiths brainwash. What would you call taking a child, hammering in the teachings of one faithas true over and over again from Age 0 to Age 17 and saying all other religions are wrong?

I call that brainwashing.

I’m not just picking on Roman Catholics they are one of these in my view and so are others. Why not just let each person choose to study all the faiths they want and when the person is an adult they can pick one they like without all the pressure tactics?

Because they are our children, and their souls are at stake. Tell me: would you allow your children to eat anything in the garden they wanted to, figuring that when they grew old enough they could choose their favorite vegetables?

What if one of the things they wanted to eat was the Oleander? How about…datura? Spotted hemlock? Potato flowers?

Would you allow them free reign then? Or would you teach your kids wnat you know about what is good to eat?

 

[Janet1983]

Debate all you want but I truly believe it. I believe it more today than yesterday. Agree or disagree. That is what this topic is for, Have fun-

Agreed…

 

[Janet1983]

Debate all you want but I truly believe it. I believe it more today than yesterday. Agree or disagree. That is what this topic is for, Have fun-

Let’s compare…

Specific Church Leader on earth
Catholicism: The Pope
Mormonism: The Prophet
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Watchtower Organization
Christianity: none (except, of course, Jesus)

Source of Theology
Catholicism: Bible and Tradition
Mormonism: Bible and additional Scripture
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Bible and Watchtower Organization
Christianity: Bible

Sample of non-biblical teachings
Catholicism: Purgatory, Penance, Indulgences, praying to Mary, her assumption.
Mormonism: Many gods, god from another world, goddess mother, you can become a god.
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Jesus is Michael the Archangel. No blood transfusions, no hell, 144,000 go to heaven
Christianity: If it isn’t taught here, I don’t believe it.

Method of Salvation
Catholicism: Faith, grace, baptism, works
Mormonism: Faith, grace, baptism, works
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Faith, grace, baptism, works
Christianity: Grace through Faith

True Church
Catholicism: Their church organization is one true church
Mormonism: Their church organization is one true church
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Their church organization is one true church
Christianity: All who are saved by grace through faith are in the true church

Claim of Authority
Catholicism: Apostolic Succession
Mormonism: Apostolic Succession
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Being the faithful servant
Christianity: In Jesus alone

Assets
Catholicism: Great Wealth and Power
Mormonism: Great Wealth and Power
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Wealth, not much power
Christianity: Treasures in heaven

Goddess-like figure
Catholicism: Mary has godlike abilities: able to hear and answer all prayers of all people all the time, intercede with God.
Mormonism: Goddess Mother who has populated this world with spirits who inhabit human bodies
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Not Applicable
Christianity: Not Applicable

Images of God, or Jesus, or Mary, etc.
Catholicism: Used in worship in churches
Mormonism: Used in temples and headquarters
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Not Applicable
Christianity: Not Applicable

 

[dianaiad]

Let’s compare…

Let’s not. Or rather, (and please excuse me, folks, if what I am about to do confuses people a little bit…)

Janet, the first problem you have is that you are begging a huge question and telegraphing your own prejudice and disinclination to civil discourse.

How? By your classification system. I have news for you, luv…Catholics are Christians. They’ve been Christians longer than whatever group you belong to has been. Mormons are also Christians, and so are Jehovah’s Witnesses (though I"ve met some who claim that they aren’t, their website says they are, so I guess…they are.)

Nobody you are addressing here is going to take you seriously if the first thing you demand of them is that they agree with you that they are not Christian.

Therefore, try rethinking your categories. You are just setting people’s backs up, and there is something about being offended from the get go that turns people’s ears (or in this case, eyes) off.

Specific Church Leader on earth
Catholicism: The Pope
Mormonism: The Prophet
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Watchtower Organization
Christianity: none (except, of course, Jesus)

I see. You don’t have clergy in whatever church you attend? (by the way, as far as I am aware the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not place the Watchtower Organization on the same level as the pope or our prophet and President…)

Source of Theology
Catholicism: Bible and Tradition
Mormonism: Bible and additional Scripture
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Bible and Watchtower Organization
Christianity: Bible

Sample of non-biblical teachings
Catholicism: Purgatory, Penance, Indulgences, praying to Mary, her assumption.
Mormonism: Many gods, god from another world, goddess mother, you can become a god.
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Jesus is Michael the Archangel. No blood transfusions, no hell, 144,000 go to heaven
Christianity: If it isn’t taught here, I don’t believe it.

(grin) grammar, Janet. “if it isn’t taught here, I don’t believe it” doesn’t make sense as an example of ‘non-biblical teachings.’ I’m just sayin…

Method of Salvation
Catholicism: Faith, grace, baptism, works
Mormonism: Faith, grace, baptism, works
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Faith, grace, baptism, works
Christianity: Grace through Faith

Yet another person who doesn’t get the faith/works thing…

True Church
Catholicism: Their church organization is one true church
Mormonism: Their church organization is one true church
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Their church organization is one true church
Christianity: All who are saved by grace through faith are in the true church

Then what’s your problem with Catholics, Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses?

Claim of Authority
Catholicism: Apostolic Succession
Mormonism: Apostolic Succession
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Being the faithful servant
Christianity: In Jesus alone

Well, Mormons do believe in an interrupted form of apostolic succession, I guess…

Assets
Catholicism: Great Wealth and Power
Mormonism: Great Wealth and Power
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Wealth, not much power
Christianity: Treasures in heaven

(musing…) I will admit, having Mormonism compared to Catholicism in terms of ‘great wealth and power’ is a new one…

Goddess-like figure
Catholicism: Mary has godlike abilities: able to hear and answer all prayers of all people all the time, intercede with God.
Mormonism: Goddess Mother who has populated this world with spirits who inhabit human bodies
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Not Applicable
Christianity: Not Applicable

Images of God, or Jesus, or Mary, etc.
Catholicism: Used in worship in churches
Mormonism: Used in temples and headquarters
Jehovah’s Witnesses: Not Applicable
Christianity: Not Applicable

I see. So to you, the definition of “Christian” is : someone who reads only the bible, has no pastor or leader except Jesus, doesn’t have any pictures or depictions of the Savior anywhere, doesn’t believe that Mary was anything special, and doesn’t actually have to do or believe in anything to be saved?

How far off am I on this?

 

[Janet1983]

How far off am I on this?

Way off as usual.

 

[guanophore]

But what significant does an Easter egg have outside of being fun? I don’t recognize it as a symbol of the holiday, but as a cultural expression of the holiday.

To reiterate, I’m not saying don’t go on Easter Egg Hunts, don’t decorate the christmas trees. I’m not saying they’re not fun. I believe they have there part. They are not; however, part of the ceremony.

I am glad you are making a distinction between the religious and the secular symbols of the holiday. In the West, these symbols had religious significance in Europe prior to Christianity. In fact, the term “Easter” is taken from the Pagan fertility rites of the Spring called “oestre”. This word emanates from the same root where we get our word “estrous” or the fertile time of the female’s cycle. The Pagan Rites involved much sexual activity, resulting in procreation, thus the symbols of eggs and rabbits associated with them.

You are correct, that the Latin Rite “baptized” these elements and decided to celebrate the Resurrection on the Spring Equinox, so that it could “trump” these Pagan rituals. This is not the case in the Eastern Churches, whose liturgies were not influenced by the celebration of such religious groups. They were peculiar to Western Europe. In the Eastern Rites, the term “Easter” is not used. It is still called the Pasca.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I am glad you are making a distinction between the religious and the secular symbols of the holiday. In the West, these symbols had religious significance in Europe prior to Christianity. In fact, the term “Easter” is taken from the Pagan fertility rites of the Spring called “oestre”. This word emanates from the same root where we get our word “estrous” or the fertile time of the female’s cycle. The Pagan Rites involved much sexual activity, resulting in procreation, thus the symbols of eggs and rabbits associated with them.

You are correct, that the Latin Rite “baptized” these elements and decided to celebrate the Resurrection on the Spring Equinox, so that it could “trump” these Pagan rituals. This is not the case in the Eastern Churches, whose liturgies were not influenced by the celebration of such religious groups. They were peculiar to Western Europe. In the Eastern Rites, the term “Easter” is not used. It is still called the Pasca.

As I had it explained to me Easter is only used by English and German speakers. It has nothing to do with the “Latin Rite” and in Latin, French, Spanish and Italian the word for Easter is the word for Passover.

 

[guanophore]

Let’s compare…

Your affiliation info says you are an ex-Catholic, but this cannot be true. No person who is Catholic could have such a gross misunderstanding of the catholic faith to post these things. It is clear from what you have written here that you never understood or embraced the Catholic faith. You were poorly catechized (as have been many people) or misled somehow. The things you posted here and attributed to Catholicism are not Catholic.