The Truth about the Mormons from a Devout Mormon

[PaulDupre]

What are all these Mormons doing here all of a sudden?? I think what we have is a very carefully orchestrated attack coming from BYU-BOY. Notice they are all spouting the same nouveau-Mormon line:

“Nothing those nasty old prophets taught is really doctrine.”

“We’re just Christians like you.”

“All that disgusting stuff we all used to believe was just somebody’s opinion. We’re much better now.”

hint: If you want to appear random, don’t all show up at once.
Paul

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

What are all these Mormons doing here all of a sudden?? I think what we have is a very carefully orchestrated attack coming from BYU-BOY. Notice they are all spouting the same nouveau-Mormon line:

BYU-BOY invited some of us over from a LDS message board, because he was feeling swamped. If you want I will go away.

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

And what exactly is this canonization process?
Paul (an ex-Mormon)

The important last step of canonization is described in this 1981 Ensign aricle:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1981.htm/ensign%20february%201981.htm/150%20years%20of%20general%20conference.htm

In October 1880, Elder George Q. Cannon, then First Counselor to the First Presidency, held up the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price before the members and explained that new material had been added since the original canonization of the Doctrine and Covenants in Kirtland. The brethren felt it wise, he continued, “to see whether the conference will vote to accept these books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.” Thus the Articles of Faith became binding scripture upon the Latter-day Saints when the Saints voted to accept them at the October 1880 conference.

Hope that helps

 

[Aris]

LDSLissa:

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.

I think you may accurately say that that is your doctrine right now but the issue is is this just a case of backpedalling? Of going back from your original doctrines to make it more palatable to common man? If you discount the numerous documents that show the beliefs of your church in its early history.

Compare that with the Catholic Church which has an unbroken history from the time of Christ and whose doctrines have not changed a bit. It is the Catholic Church that has faithfully carried the Truth.

 

[Aris]

Go back to your first point.

You claim you do not hold the belief that Gad had intercourse with Mary.

Yet you have numerous documents coming from your supposed prophets and apostles that claim this belief.

You have not satisfactorily answered PaulDupre’s questions.

If your church can change its beliefs with the generations, how can you be sure that it is True?

 

[rich123456]

As a Catholic in Utah who was raised Mormon I feel as if this is a good time to bring forth a Saint. I was told here that we pray to dead Saints. This one Saint helped me come to Christ and His Church. My wife is Mohawk and French from Quebec. You will understand this connection. This is how the Gospel of Christ has been spread over the centuries. I have to ask you this. Do you know these types of Saints? If not why. They are the reason in Christ that one can even whisper His name today.
http://catholic-rcia.com/pages/cJouges_page.html

“the prisoners were tied spread-eagle to the ground, and the children were encouraged to throw live coals on their bare flesh”

This is a real documented Indian story of the North America’s

 

[rich123456]

catholic-rcia.com/pages/The_Church.html

Use the links on this page. It’s about the Church that Christ established, it’s about who Christ is to a Christian who has come to the revelation of Jesus. He is very much divine and it is His light that illuminates us, Creator / Creation The difference is immense!
God Bless

 

[Katholikos]

Mormons don’t seem to understand. We have no interest in their religion other than our objection to their false claim to be Christians. Their religion is in no way Christian.

It is not monotheistic, which disqualifies it from the get-go. Their belief that there are three earth gods and that there are countless more throughout the universe is appalling to any Christian or Jew.

Call it what you want, believe whatever kind of bizarre doctrines you care to, just don’t call what Mormons believe* Christian*.

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.

The “confirmation from the Spirit” that LDSLissa writes about is the infamous Mormon “burning in the bosom” that they believe “proves” everything. Logic flies out the window when “burning in the bosom” occurs. I recommend Tums.

Atheism is more logical than Mormonism as a thought system!

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[Katholikos]

Fiat Lux:

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.

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.

Yep. If you want gods who change their minds, Mormonism is the right religion. flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop

JMJ Jay

 

[Fiat_Lux]

Katholikos:

Yep. If you want gods who change their minds, Mormonism is the right religion. flip-flop, flip-flop, flip-flop

JMJ Jay

The typical Mormon response would be that there can be no doctrinal flip-flip on an issue when it was never doctrine in the first place. And, there is some truth to that.

It is ironic that a church which boasts of a prophet who communes with God and is charged with receiving direct revelation has such difficulty establishing doctrine. Ironic, but not really surprising.

The idea of a wide range of permissible beliefs appeals to many people. But what looks like a strong selling point is actually a huge liability in terms of human salvation. You and I know that there is one Truth and that God has centrally located all of it for us, if we care to know it.

 

[PaulDupre]

Fiat Lux:

The typical Mormon response would be that there can be no doctrinal flip-flip on an issue when it was never doctrine in the first place. And, there is some truth to that.

It is ironic that a church which boasts of a prophet who communes with God and is charged with receiving direct revelation has such difficulty establishing doctrine. Ironic, but not really surprising.

The idea of a wide range of permissible beliefs appeals to many people. But what looks like a strong selling point is actually a huge liability in terms of human salvation. You and I know that there is one Truth and that God has centrally located all of it for us, if we care to know it.

Yes, it is centrally located in the Deposit of Faith (scripture and sacred tradition) passed down faithfully within the Catholic Church.

How can you base your life on the teachings of a “modern prophet” when you know that his teaching is just his own opinion and will eventually be contradicted by another “living prophet” later on, probably within your own lifetime?

You have built your house on shifting sand. I’d move if I were you.
God bless you,
Paul

 

[BYU-BOY]

I hope that I was not over stepping my bounds by inviting some other active Mormons to join our conversation. I have felt bad that I started a thread that attracted so much interest and than left you high and dry as I try to finish up my finals.

BYU BOY

 

[Fiat_Lux]

PaulDupre:

Yes, it is centrally located in the Deposit of Faith (scripture and sacred tradition) passed down faithfully within the Catholic Church.

How can you base your life on the teachings of a “modern prophet” when you know that his teaching is just his own opinion and will eventually be contradicted by another “living prophet” later on, probably within your own lifetime?

You have built your house on shifting sand. I’d move if I were you.
God bless you,
Paul

I’m Catholic.

 

[PaulDupre]

Yes, I figured (because of your Latin moniker). I was answering the line of thinking you posted, not so much you personally. Sorry for the confusion.
Paul

 

[Chris-WA]

Mormon fool, welcome to the discussion. I think the more LDS folks we have here, the better chance we have to dispel many misconceptions on both sides of the issues.
mormon fool:

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.

Whoa there. I would ask you to think long and hard about this. Look at it objectively. Don’t you see this as a potentially huge problem for the LDS church? If past scripture and leaders (prophets, I assume) can be errant, how can you ever know if what you’re currently being taught is true? If the Holy Spirit testitifies to you that something is true, what guarantee do you have that it will be true 10 days or 10 years from now? If what you’re saying is correct, then there can be no objective truth, because anything can change at any time.

As a Catholic, we don’t believe that current leaders can ever change doctrine or scripture. We can develop doctrine to a fuller understanding, but we can *never *go against what has previously been revealed. What was true then is true now and will be true forever. What was false then is false now and will be false forever. How can we completely trust God if he changes his mind from time to time?

 

[Writer]

Katholikos:

Mormons don’t seem to understand. We have no interest in their religion other than our objection to their false claim to be Christians. Their religion is in no way Christian.

It is not monotheistic, which disqualifies it from the get-go. Their belief that there are three earth gods and that there are countless more throughout the universe is appalling to any Christian or Jew.

Call it what you want, believe whatever kind of bizarre doctrines you care to, just don’t call what Mormons believe* Christian*.

The “confirmation from the Spirit” that LDSLissa writes about is the infamous Mormon “burning in the bosom” that they believe “proves” everything. Logic flies out the window when “burning in the bosom” occurs. I recommend Tums.

Atheism is more logical than Mormonism as a thought system!

JMJ Jay
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

Well said! The LDS church is not Christian by any stretch of the imagination…

 

[mormon_fool]

Chris-WA:

Mormon fool, welcome to the discussion. I think the more LDS folks we have here, the better chance we have to dispel many misconceptions on both sides of the issues.

Thank you for your kind welcome.

Whoa there. I would ask you to think long and hard about this. Look at it objectively. Don’t you see this as a potentially huge problem for the LDS church?

I don’t see this as a problem because the idea of receiving new revelation is a founding principle of Mormonism. I believe in objective truth that originates with God but not in man’s ability to objectively comprehend it. For mormons, prophets and revelations were important in Bible times and we see no reason this should be changed for our troubled times.

If past scripture and leaders (prophets, I assume) can be errant, how can you ever know if what you’re currently being taught is true?

Faith, scripture study, prayer, guidance of the Holy Ghost all lend checks and balances in my search for truth and give me confidence in the path that I am following pleases God. I can live with uncertainty on topics I see have little importance to my salvation that might be corrected by some revelation in the future. I am accountable only for the things that have been revealed (and canonized) up to this point.

If the Holy Spirit testitifies to you that something is true, what guarantee do you have that it will be true 10 days or 10 years from now? If what you’re saying is correct, then there can be no objective truth, because anything can change at any time

As stated above I believe in objective truth, but I am open to my understanding being improved by the many methods and channels made available to me, including receiving the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

As a Catholic, we don’t believe that current leaders can ever change doctrine or scripture. We can develop doctrine to a fuller understanding, but we can *never *go against what has previously been revealed. What was true then is true now and will be true forever. What was false then is false now and will be false forever. How can we completely trust God if he changes his mind from time to time?

Well said. I actually agree with all these sentiments as expressed.

 

[PaulDupre]

mormon fool:

The important last step of canonization is described in this 1981 Ensign aricle:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1981.htm/ensign%20february%201981.htm/150%20years%20of%20general%20conference.htm

In October 1880, Elder George Q. Cannon, then First Counselor to the First Presidency, held up the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price before the members and explained that new material had been added since the original canonization of the Doctrine and Covenants in Kirtland. The brethren felt it wise, he continued, “to see whether the conference will vote to accept these books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church.” Thus the Articles of Faith became binding scripture upon the Latter-day Saints when the Saints voted to accept them at the October 1880 conference.

Hope that helps

I really doesn’t help. You see, as a former Mormon I understand that Mormonism provides the illusion of democracy by asking the faithful to “sustain” the leaders and the major additions to its canon of scripture. But it is not a vote to enact or not to enact a change. It is merely an opportunity for the faithful to publicly declare that they believe and will live by the change which by then has already taken place.

But by the time the “sustaining” is asked for, the leader is already in place, or the new scripture has already been approved by the 1st presidency and has been printed, bound and distributed. It is a little late for a referendum at that point.

Do you really think that if a significant number of Mormons did not sustain a change, that that change would be reversed? If so, you are living in a dream world. Of course, you will never fail to get a unanimous vote to “sustain”:

If anyone does not “sustain” what the leaders hand down, he is considered to be in a state of apostacy and is disciplined.

In the endowment (and as a Mormon in general), you promise to sustain your leaders in all things. If you do not sustain them, even at the local level, you will be called into the bishop’s office. You will be offered the chance to repent and sustain, but if you stick to your decision not to sustain, your temple recommend will be yanked and you may be disfellowshipped or excommunicated for apostacy. Any Mormon not already on his way out of the church would never risk that. So he raises his hand and “sustains his leaders”.
Paul

 

[mormon_fool]

PaulDupre:

I really doesn’t help. You see, as a former Mormon I understand that Mormonism provides the illusion of democracy by asking the faithful to “sustain” the leaders and the major additions to its canon of scripture. But it is not a vote to enact or not to enact a change. It is merely an opportunity for the faithful to publicly declare that they believe and will live by the change which by then has already taken place.

I agree with what you are saying that that sustaining is not a real vote on something. Theoretically it could be, but in practice it is not. The value of sustaining is that it is a defining moment. Because of the role of the common consent principle, members publically recognize what comprizes canon and who is authorized in positions of leadership.

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

Faith, scripture study, prayer, guidance of the Holy Ghost all lend checks and balances in my search for truth and give me confidence in the path that I am following pleases God. I can live with uncertainty on topics I see have little importance to my salvation that might be corrected by some revelation in the future. I am accountable only for the things that have been revealed (and canonized) up to this point.

As stated above I believe in objective truth, but I am open to my understanding being improved by the many methods and channels made available to me, including receiving the testimony of the Holy Ghost.

Welcome to this “exciting” discussion! It’s nice to have another voice other than BYU Boy from the LDS perspective.

You have me TOTALLY confused!!! You say you believe in objective truth, and yet you also say that you believe whatever the prophet says. Hypothetical: So you have one prophet who says God has revealed to him that He was once a man just as we are. Then several years later, the next prophet comes out and says God revealed to him that He is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow and was never a man. There’s a HUGE difference in those 2 stances/revelations!!! Where is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH in that? How is that a clarification of your belief? They’re contradictory!

I have heard (and I don’t have references for this) that Bringham Young declared a revelation from God that Adam was in fact God. And later, another prophet came out and declared the revelation from God that Adam was Michale the Archangel. Which is it? Where is the OBJECTIVE TRUTH there? How can they BOTH be direct revelations from God? They are contradictory! Again, this is just something I have heard. I don’t know that it’s true, and I apologize if it is not (just use that as another hypothetical if so).