The Truth about the Mormons from a Devout Mormon

  • Thread starter Thread starter BYU-BOY
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
BJ,
I cringe when people talk about marriage cases. It usually gets nowhere because canon law can be complex. Some priests do get things wrong. Which is why we have the magisterium. When a Mormon bishop gets something wrong I assume you immediately question the Mormon religion?

I have been to Mexico. It didn’t remind me of Israel. The pyramids there were no burial monuments. They were used for human sacrifice to gods that have no connection to the Hebrews. DNA evidence does not link any Indian tribes to the Hebrews. No, none, not one, non Mormon archeologist accepts the BOM. That speaks volumes. I can take you to Jericho, Jerusalem, Rome, Tarsus etc. You can’t take me to one BOM site. I issued the challenge and you cannot produce that one artifact. Not one. Paul said if anyone, even an ANGEL, preaches a different gospel then he is to be rejected. I would say even an angel named Moroni.
 
BJ Colbert:
The retired priest who the Tribunal sent to our home, said not to talk to my husband’s main priest in his parish because no one agrees with him and he does not know what he is doing. That is why Tdknick told us to go to “Divine Savior”, he says it is a better parish and we will like it. How can a Catholic ever know what to believe if the Priests do not even know or agree with each other?
Click to expand...
Certainly there are deacons, priests and bishops who do not follow the Church’s teachings. There are many millions of Catholics who don’t follow them either, but one of the main things that drew me to the Church, (which I joined 3 years ago) is the CCC. I can look up nearly anything I can think of, and find the Church’s position, backed up by the Bible and writings from the earliest of the Church Fathers.

I grew up in the Baptist church, (American, not Sourthern), in SW Idaho where being anything but LDS made you a minority. The Catholic Church does hold the fullness of the revalation of Christ Jesus, and I thank God for bringing me home to it after many years.

I’m sure that God does work in and through other denominations, even in the LDS church, although as I’ve read through all of these posts, I find it very hard to believe that many LDS folks will ever come to Christ because of the blinders that have been placed on them by the enemy.

Since most Mormons are not nearly as open to discussion as BJ, I guess all that we can do is look past the LDS church, and pray for the poor people who have been caught up in this lie. Our efforts seem to be in vain, but through prayer, “all things are possible.”

Maybe we should start praying the Rosary for the conversion of the LDS.

Peace, Tony
 
40.png
Writer:
By encouraging the young men to devote themselves to a mission trip, I believe there is also an insidious result. Namely, the missionaries’ own personal investment and involvement in the conversions of others to their heresy, I believe, creates a pressure to avoid questioning their faith. After all, if they change their mind, they lose not only their family and friends, but they also must realize that they have led many astray.
Click to expand...
Writer,
As a former LDS missionary myself I can tell you that your insight here is spot on. The LDS Church admits that the primary objective of the missionary program is not conversion of outsiders, but is rather the full initiation of the young missionaries themselves. It is a rite of passage that separates the “real members” from the lukewarm members.
One of the toughest parts of leaving Mormonism was the admission that I had not only been deceived, but had also deceived others.
God bless you,
Paul
 
40.png
BYU-BOY:
Before I go on though, I need to clear up a few things that Brother Dupre brought up in his last post.

First of all, about half of things that Brother Dupre quoted had already been discussed in my first post on the question of sexual union between God and Mary. I am concerned that he may have missed my statements concerning Bruce R. McConkie and who Elder McConkie was addressing his remarks to. For I am sure if Brother Dupre had read my post that he would not have added his additional remarks.
Click to expand...
His response was also directed at those who challenged that such teaching was EVER part of Mormon teaching.
40.png
BYU-BOY:
Some of the quotes were as late as 1979 still supporting a sexual union between a mortal and an immortal
40.png
BYU-BOY:
Which brings me to my next point. Many of you have felt that since there has been dissension between Mormon Apostles and Prophets that they cannot be men of God. However, with this understanding then we must conclude that the ancient apostles Paul and Peter cannot be men of God due to their bickering and opposing teachings on circumcision. The one thing that we must remember is that being temporal in the flesh means that we are imperfect. Therefore, we will learn of actions and beliefs that may not be of God but to completely negate an individual and their beliefs would be a great injustice.
Click to expand...
Yes, but once it’s settled it’s settled and is forever dogmatic. The continued teaching, well after the Pratt quotes, included by Dupre indicate that that teaching was still a part of Mormonism. In addition, failing to address specifically what was heretical and what was true regarding Pratts quotes leaves the possibility open that a type of physical union with Mary and God is true teaching. the subsequent support of this view speaks volumes. Is there ANYTHING that SPECIFICALLY REFUTES THIS TEACHING written by an OFFICIAL in the Mormon Church that represents dogma?
40.png
BYU-BOY:
Now, I know that I am young, however, I am quite certain that this assumption by Brother Dupre has never been taught by the church.
40.png
BYU-BOY:
How are you certain? We know what you believe - how do you know?
Click to expand...
What we can conclude from this discussion is that LDS official doctrine states that Mary was a virgin at the birth of Jesus Christ. Any form of sexual intercourse would mean that Mary was not a virgin.
Physical union of mortal and immortal would be the explanation of those who were quotede as supporting the view that there was a sexual union. They don’t see a physical union between a mortal and an immortal as eliminating Mary’s virginity.
40.png
BYU-BOY:
We can also see that LDS doctrine holds that Jesus Christ is the “Only Begotten Son” of the Father (John 3:16). This is essential doctrine for any Christian to believe.
Click to expand...
We still don’t know what a Mormon means when they say this!

Thanks,

Phil
Click to expand...
 
Thank you very much for confirming this suspicion. I am so glad you have found a new church home!
 
40.png
PaulDupre:
Writer,
As a former LDS missionary myself I can tell you that your insight here is spot on. The LDS Church admits that the primary objective of the missionary program is not conversion of outsiders, but is rather the full initiation of the young missionaries themselves. It is a rite of passage that separates the “real members” from the lukewarm members.
One of the toughest parts of leaving Mormonism was the admission that I had not only been deceived, but had also deceived others.
God bless you,
Paul
Click to expand...
Thank you, Paul, for confirming this for me. I am so gald you have found a new church home!
 
I have received several emails from members of the thread wondering if ‘the heretical Mormon kid’ had thrown in the towel and conceeded defeat.

This notion is the farthest thing from my intentions. However, I was hoping to have most of the questions answered before the end of the Thanksgiving break. I knew that my finals were approaching and could not devote the time necessary to answer all your questions. Last day of school for me is December 9th and my last final is December 15th. I hope to post our fourth question (and answer some of the new one’s that have been asked) by the this Friday or Saturday. I appreciate your patience.
 
Hi BYU-BOY,
Best of luck on your exams and we will await your return.
God bless you,
Paul
 
BYU Boy:
Good luck with your finals, and we anxiously await your answers/responses.
 
The Book of Mormon claims to present a history of the people of ancient America. There were three migrations from the Middle East to America. The first was in about 2 200 BC when the Jaredites came away from the Tower of Babel. The next migration about 600 BC leaving from Jerusalem under the leadership of Lehi and Nephi. This second migration of Israelites from the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is of major importance. These Israelites are considered the ancestors of the American Indians. However, there are many problems associated with this claim. Indians have come under much study by anthropologists and are recognized as belonging to the class “Mongoloid” [Asiatic] and not “Semite”, as are the people of Israel and others from the Middle East region. Mongoloid [Asiatic] characteristics are to be found amongst those countries and peoples bordering the Pacific Ocean, particularly those from Eastern Asia. D.N.A. Tests were conducted on several Native American tribes and an astounding 99.6% of the D.N.A. sampled suggests that the Indians came across the land bridge from Asia to Alaska. The remaining .4% was mostly European.
 
Paul,
I would love if you would start a thread discussing your experiences as a Mormon missionary and how we should respond to them.
 
Hi all,

This is a very thoughtful thread and it is good to see respectful conversation abou the mormon faith on a Catholic board. BYU-BOY appears to be describing mormon belief on some contraversial issues. On some of these topics it is good to get a range of views to get a good balance on the breadth of permissable belief. I understand the need of those not of the mormon faith to document beliefs that make us look unorthodox.

I hope a couple of principles can be helpful in understanding what is normative in LDS belief.

The first idea is that much of our most official and binding doctrine is found in our scriptures. If it is difficult to establish a doctrine from scripture alone, then it is likely that there is a range of permissable beliefs.

The second idea is that we don’t hold past scripture and leaders to be inerrant. The current prophet can receive corporate revelation that adds additional light and knowledge and even correction of past views. A corollary to this is that if something is not currenty being taught in conferences and church lesson manuals, it means that teaching may not be very fundamentally important.

Applying these principles and others in determining what constitutes mormon doctrine is certantly ambiguous in some case (but not others) and we welcome the discussion.
 
Hey all,

Mormon Fool beat me to my point.

If this discussion is going to go anywhere meaningful, we Catholics will need to try to gain (and maintain) a preliminary understanding of how Mormon theology works. The LDS church does not have a systematic theology as we understand it. There is nothing akin to the CCC. Even statements that come from the head of the church and are taught and believed far and wide, unless they go through the canonization process, are not binding doctrine.

This short article might be helpful: mormonismi.net/kirjallisuus/bergera_line_upon_line.shtml

We are accustomed to relative clarity and decisiveness from our Church leadership; grasping the underlying concept of Mormon theology in general can be very difficult. It is difficult even for some Mormons, who I think are sometimes surprised to find that what they thought was “official church doctrine” actually was not. You can of course form conclusions about the value or wisdom of this type of theology, and whether a prophet should know better, and opinions in this regard are certainly of value. But it really does no good to go back and forth about something like the mechanics of the conception of Christ. It is clear to me that it was taught as alleged at one point, and the very fact that it was taught holds meaning for me, but I am satisfied that it is not (and never was) official doctrine. It do not believe it is contained in any of the four standard (canonized) works.

It is a hard concept to grasp and makes discussion difficult, but I think we will save ourselves a great deal of time and headache if we can come to this preliminary understanding about Mormon theology.
 
The difference between the Church that Christ established and the Mormon Church is this: In the Catholic Church all Glory is all Gods Glory. In the Mormon Church each can receive his own Glory. If we compared heavenly Bodies to our Churches, those in the Catholic faith would be like the moon. The Sun shines on the moon and reflects the light. In the Mormon faith each would be like the sun with their own light. One is fallen and does not know it, fallen for the lie. The other is fallen and knows it and will not fall for the lie. Learned Catholics know their God, they know him as Creator of all things. And there is only one and we see Him and we Touch Him in Jesus.

http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/Scriptures/Col_1__15-20_

All_things.html

We being created by Him. The difference is mind boggling. It comes down to the Fall in the garden. As Catholics we want Mormons to know the immensity of our Creator. They have been taken away from Him and only have this life to find the real Him. I know, I was one. If you want to have a good discussion focus on who Christ is to you as a Catholic Christian. Talk about sufferings and the Cross.Talk about Jesus. Why go anywhere else?

http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/Cross_scripture.html

To the Mormons here posting. Learn this faith, take time to study the Catholic answers site. You will not find any lies, only truth. If you honestly look into it, look out, you will be swept up in a very large Miracle. There was no Aopostasy. You have been fooled. But who is this life has not??? Go to a Mass and help Christ carry our Cross.We are the Cross on His Back. It is Him who brings us home. To share as adopted sons and daughters in what He Himself has always had. This would be a relationship with His Father. There is nothing else of importance

God Bless
Rich
 
I guess I’ll jump into the fray as well. While I’ve only been in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for 6 years, I’ve done a lot of studying. I won’t say that I know everything, but I do know that I know a lot. I converted from Atheism, and this was the only church that was able to satisfactorily answer my questions, not to mention receiving confirmation from the Spirit. I would like to say that I don’t think that the church is trying to appear more like “mainstream” Christianity, and frankly, I don’t want it to. Earlier (way earlier! this is a big thread!) someone mentioned clarifying terms. I think this is important, especially when discussing concepts. From what I understand, the Catholic view is that they hold the “deposit of faith”, and that there is no new revelation given from God, thus changes would be frowned upon. I can understand this, as God is an unchanging God. However, to a Latter-Day Saint, the heavens are open, and the church is living, in that we receive guidance and direction from Jesus Christ through the prophet. The Apostles are given the “keys” to be the prophet, but they do not use them until such time as the mantle falls on them. The only person authorized to receive revelation for the entire church is the prophet. However, even with this, the prophet is still an imperfect man. It has ever been thus with prophets (the Savior excepted of course). The prophet is only the prophet when he is acting as such, so even though the authorities may say something, it will often be true, but not always as they are still imperfect men with their own ideas. Thus, true church doctrine can only be found in select places: the scriptures, Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and when the prophet is directly acting in his role as prophet and teaching us revelation. The Journal of Discourses is NOT considered doctrine.

With that said, I’ll put in my two cents and see if I can help clarify some of what has been discussed, to try to help BYU Boy out a bit. We just recently studied this in my Institute class, so I’ll pass on what I was told, and try to find the references later. Official Church Doctrine is that Jesus is the Only Begotten of the Father, and that Mary was a virgin when she conceived. The doctrine does not go into ooey-gooey details, and I don’t see that it needs to. God the Father has a body. Mary was a virgin when Jesus was born (as the scriptures state). Jesus is part human, part deity, inheriting aspects from each parent, just as every child does. It is not stated that Heavenly Father had sexual relations with Mary.

Now, about Jesus being a polygamist. We recently covered this in my Institute class as well. It is not revealed doctrine. Thus, there is no official church stance on this, so to say that the LDS believe that Jesus was a polygamist is false. There are those who are entitled to their opinions and make speculation that it seems likely that Jesus was married, but whether it was to one woman or multiple women is not revealed and thus is purely speculation and NOT DOCTRINE.
 
Some short answers to BYU-BOY’s questions
  1. The belief that God had intercourse with Mary and thus produced Jesus.
My Belief: don’t know/don’t care
Official belief: None. Arguments can be made from scriptures and statements from leaders for 3 different positions of yes, no, or don’t know.
  1. That Jesus was a polygamist.
My belief: don’t know – I am open to possibility of him being single, mongamist, or polygamist.
Official belief: None. Arguments for can be made from the NT, by projecting mormon values onto Jesus, or from mormon leaders’ speculation. But not in a manner that removes all doubt.
  1. The Bible is a polluted and insufficient guide from which the truth has been deliberately removed.
a) pollution
My belief: Open to scholarly evidence
Official: “We believe the Bible to be the Word of God as far as translated correctly.” Not one verse has been singled as “polluted”.

b) removals
My belief: irrelevant-- it pointless to judge a book by what’s not in it.
Official: Book of Mormon can be interpreted as there are plain parts of the gospel not included in the Bible that could be.

c) insufficient guide
My belief: Yes if these means rejecting modern prophets, additional scripture, and (name removed by moderator)iration from the Holy Ghost.No if the Bible is seen as supporting these things (as it is in a mormon POV.)
Official:
  1. The Catholic church is the great whore of all churches.
My Belief: Definitely Not
Official: Not an official interpretation. We can infer this from the lack of an official statement, expressions of alternative interpretations, and censorship of at least one outspoken individual.
  1. The LDS Church is the true church.
My Belief: Yes.
Official Belief: Yes, LDS scripture: “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased”

BYU-BOY probably wants to add some context to this claim, though.
  1. Belief in more then one God.
My Belief: Yes and No. Depends on how you count.
Official Belief: Readily affirm “one God” verses in the Bible and Book of Mormon. On the other hand, we could count three separate personages each divine
  1. God is a corporeal being
My belief: yes. (assuming we are talking about the Father)
Official belief: yes
  1. Joseph Smith is a scoundrel and convicted of several charges of swindling others.
a) scoundrel
My belief: Joseph Smith had impeccable character. He continues to be the target of unwarranted mudslinging.
Official belief: High regard for the prophet and his religous claims

b) convicted
My belief: No. A pretrial hearing found him “guilty” of treasure seeking, but he was let go before a criminal trial.
Official belief: While guilty of some youthful follies Joseph Smith claims “no one need suppose me guilty of any great or malignant sins.”
  1. Jesus and Satan are brothers.
My belief: Yes. Both can claim to have the same Father. Jesus because he is the Only Begotten Son, Satan because he was created by the Father. So in that loose sense they are brothers.

Official Belief: Yes. This pulls several doctrines together which contextualize the belief.

Remark: Without context it is a silly belief to be sure.
  1. Let’s not forget my favorite, “Man can become God."
My belief: No. But I would say yes to a watered down statement such as “man can become like God”.

Official belief: Some scripture that contextualize “becoming like God” or becoming gods.

Remark:There is way too much exageration and speculation about these beliefs of deification.
 
Continuing on…

Okay, the Bible. “We believe the Bible to be the word of God so far as it is translated correctly” (Articles of Faith, v. 8). It is true that the Book of Mormon discusses that some of the plain and precious parts were removed from it. Someone earlier mentioned the Great Apostasy. I know that as Catholics, you will not hold that it occured, but to historians, Protestants and Latter-Day Saints, it has (I was just studying this in secular college, as well), even if some don’t call it such. It is well documented that Christianity as practiced today is significantly different from the Christianity as practiced in the early church. The early members of the church were warned about wolves entering into the flock (Acts 20:29). Many of the epistles, which comprise a large part of the New Testament were letters written from the Apostles (mainly Paul), trying to correct false teachings that would creep into the churches, establish doctrine and comfort them. Due to this apostasy, mistakes happened. Men turned to themselves for answers and to philosophy. Also, being men, they are imperfect and though some may have been well-intentioned, others might not have been(we can only conjecture, we were not there), and thus information has been lost. There are epistles not accounted for, lost books not accounted for. Who can say what precious gems were included in them that we are now missing?

With this said, I would not go so far as to say that Mormons hate Catholics or are fighting against them, or anything like that. The interpretation I’ve been taught of the “great and abominable church” is that it is the church of the devil and is basically any false teaching. I would not say that this is discussing the Catholic church specifically, though I wouldn’t say that it excludes it. The Catholic church history is not spotless. I will also remind you that we believe that most if not all churches are a) trying to do the best they know how to do; and b) have a portion of the truth. Please do not take offence by my saying this; obviously, as you are not LDS, you probably feel the same way about my church. You ask for the answer and I am giving it from an LDS perspective.
 
continuing again…final one!

I have to comment on another question that has been raised. How do we reconcile One God, with three personages, one in purpose? When Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ when he was 14 years old, the question about the nature of God was answered. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are two seperate personages, with two seperate bodies. They, along with the Holy Ghost, are ONE God. In a way, you could say that Jesus Christ is the administrator of this planet, and he often speaks for God, and he is a God. In fact, I believe the only words Joseph Smith has ever heard from Heavenly Father were, “This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!” Everything else has come through Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is our advocate with the Father. This is why we pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Jesus Christ. To use some imagery, it is almost like the Holy Spirit is carrying my prayer to Jesus, who then presents it to Heavenly Father in His name, because He is my advocate with the Father. Now, I will admit that I am not sure that this last part is doctrine, it is just a visual. The rest I am positive about, being very familiar with the Gospel Principles book and the scriptures. So, to sum up, God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are three distict personages, two of whom have tangible bodies, who together make up the Godhead, and are one God in purpose, as described in John 17:21. There is no lack of correlation in references to one God made in the Book of Mormon, Bible, or anywhere else, seeing as Joseph Smith understood the true nature of God by revelation before even hearing about the Book of Mormon.

I hope that this clarifies some of the questions that have been given. Seeing as it is getting later by the moment, I’m going to end this now, though I will try to come on tomorrow (no promises!) to try to answer some more of the questions that have been added to this thread. There are a lot of good questions, and I will answer the best I can, in hopes that when BYU Boy finishes his exams he will have some excellent answers for you to the questions he originally was planning to answer. Sorry this is so long! May we all find common ground, tolerance and love in our devotion to Jesus Christ.
 
Fiat Lux:
Even statements that come from the head of the church and are taught and believed far and wide, unless they go through the canonization process, are not binding doctrine.
Click to expand...
And what exactly is this canonization process?
Paul (an ex-Mormon)
 
Mormon fool, I guess you and I decided to help out at the same time! Great answers, by the way. I sure hope this helps to clear the air a bit more…Hope this wasn’t too confusing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top