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.
Why the resurrection of the body?

Catholics and Mormons certainly agree on one thing: the resurrection of the body. I believe that this is the clear Biblical teaching, however, I personally have always wondered why the physical body is resurrected—I wonder due to the following:

Catholic teaching is that the highest order of being (God) is that of pure spirit (no physicality). Through Christ’s redemption, fallen mankind has the opportunity to become the adopted Sons of God and “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Pet. 1:4). Do in part to the fact that redeemed mankind shall become “partakers of the divine nature”, we are also promised that just as Jesus Christ is seated on God’s throne, so too the saints: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne” (Rev. 3:21 -KJV). Our new catechism sums up the saints future state in heaven this way:

**460 **The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”. “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: son that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers of his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1st English edition, 1994, p. 116 – bold emphasis mine.)

What incredible promises!!! Yet I personally am left wondering why we need a physical body; what is the purpose of a resurrected body in heaven? Since God is pure spirit, and since “the Son of God became man so that we might become God”, in my feeble brain a physical body seems unnecessary.

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
mormon fool:
I will grant you your “revelation is perfect” semantics. This however doesn’t mean that our record of revelation is inerrant, immune to misinterpretations, or complete. It takes logical argumentation and a leap of faith to establish otherwise. A revelation is an event and shouldn’t be confused with how it was written up or taught. Allegations of changing an event make little sense to me.

I depend on scriptures despite their potential errancy. I consider them the best available source I have for official doctrine (along with help in interpreting them from the prophet and whatever inspiration I can receive from the Holy Spirit). I don’t consider myself accountable now to possible future corrections. One principle of mormonism is to not hold anybody accountable for something they don’t know.
Click to expand...
You’re right about the interpretation part. Of course there have been many errors in this area, which is why today we have thousdands of Christian denominations. That is one reason why Catholics believe in one true church–to interpret scripture infallibly. Otherwise, you have chaos.

But as for the rest of your post, if this is how you feel about the scriptures and revelation, then I think you’re standing on shaky ground. Such a belief system opens one up to heresy. Again, we never “correct” old revelation. I don’t think you will find any cases of this in the bible–one prophet correcting another. Yes, more was revealed as God unfolded his plan of salvation to the human race, but it never corrected or reversed earlier revelation. This is not the case with the Mormon concept of revelation, both in its history and understanding of revelation.

Let me give you an example here. Christ opened the door to heaven with his death and resurrection. He gave us everything we needed in order to live with Him and His Father forever. There is no indication otherwise. Surely none of us could disagree with that. 1800 years later, however, in order to be in heaven with our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ for eternity, the LDS church now instituted and required temple marriage. This is definitely a case of new revelation contradicting old revelation (not adding to or deepening our understanding of ).

You may not see it that way, but any objective examination would come to this conclusion. Putting it simply, if I was a Christian in the time of the Apostles, marriage would have no bearing on what degree of salvation I could attain. Now as an LDS in the current age, marriage is absolutely key in attaining the highest degree of salvation. How marriage got tied to one’s ultimate salvation I will never understand, but in the LDS church it is the current doctrine, which by the way could change again according to your explanation of how revelation works.

I’ll make one final point here and then close this post. I find it bizarre that the Catholic church supposedly suffered the Great Apostacy even though its doctrines cannot be shown to have changed since the very beginning of Christianity. Yet the LDS church, which did not suffer the Great Apostacy, has many doctrines that have changed in only 174 years of its existence. Does that make sense?

Good luck on those finals by the way.
 
All,

I can’t reply to every mis-translation and misreading of what I have written. I have repeatedly put the blame of errancy in the records we have of revelations on the human element, but some here make it seem like I am blaming God and diminishing truth. I deny doing this. If you think my statements force such a conclusion, it would be helpful to demonstrate it with logic and not just assert it. I would like to learn how you all reach your conclusions.

The principles I am defending here are part of larger set of principles. How these principles are applied in practice is rather complex.

I don’t understand the resistance to learning additional truth from God. (invitation: help me understand why the Bible is the only record of revelation that we need). Man’s learning process has a history of becoming more sophisticated on secular knowledge. Why wouldn’t the same be the case with religous ideas? We can compare the “algebra” of Old Testament with the “calculus” in the New Testament brought about by Christ’s personal visit. In this analogy Mormonism is an invitation to do post calculus studies.

New knowledge doesn’t need diminish old knowledge but builds off it. Sometimes it corrects it, but the old models are still useful. For example Einstein’s model of gravity surpasses the Newtonian one but hardly replaces it. The Newtonian model is good enough in most situations, but anomalies drove the search for a more involved model. We don’t throw out the Newtonian model because it is still used as a stepping stone in teaching the more advanced and is still good at predicting some situations.

In this case the old knowledge is only “misleading” for those in which a) the anomalies are relevant and b) refuse to accept the updated more useful knowledge (see my earlier post on accountability).

I don’t consider myself on shaky ground because I believe in modern prophets. I have faith that God watches over and inspires his prophets. The important truths have been revealed, re-affirmed, and the prophets have been consistent with them

Here’s a question for those who have mustered up reasons and assertions against even theoretical believing in a living prophet: Would your attitudes and reasoning stand in your way of believing a prophet if you lived in Biblical times?

Back to finals studying. Good posts guys, my over-defensive writing makes me appear more negative than I really am to your responses. Chris-WA has written an excellent post I hope to get to later and I would hope that the discussion takes a turn in that direction. As opposed to all this abstract epistemological meandering, which admittedly I am responsible for bringing up,

Later,

fool
 
Mormon Fool:

Surprised to see you posting. Thought you were doing finals. I’m impressed that you have the time to do both. You must be a pretty smart person. I know how hard finals are. And must say I am glad to not have to take anymore.
 
mormon fool:
Here’s a question for those who have mustered up reasons and assertions against even theoretical believing in a living prophet: Would your attitudes and reasoning stand in your way of believing a prophet if you lived in Biblical times?
Click to expand...
The idea of believing in a living prophet who happens to be Mormon is against EVERYTHING the Catholic Church teaches. The Catholic Church teaches that it was established by Jesus and existed for close to 2,000 years…teaching the same doctrines, while also expanding our knowledge under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In order for there to even be the possibility of an LDS prophet, that MUST mean that the Catholic Church is an apostate church and that the beliefs we hold are wrong. There are several people on these thread who can (and have) shown Catholic teachings to be the same throughout history. I could do so as well, but it would take me some time as I would have to look everything up. In fact, Rich123456 started a thread called “Catholics/Mormons/Changed Doctrine” where he shows qoutes from Church Fathers before 150 and they are the same beliefs held by the Catholic church today.
 
Quote:

“Don’t consider myself on shaky ground because I believe in modern prophets. I have faith that God watches over and inspires his prophets”

All prophesy in the Old Testament was to set the table for the coming of our Christ. As a Catholic I receive the same revelation about Christ and His Church that the very first apostles received. It goes on and on one soul at a time, to save one soul at a time. What was new to them who proceeded me is now new to me. The Cross has no bounds. My eyes are opened as theirs was.

It was soon after my Christian baptism that these revelations really began to unfold in my life. The fall, forgiveness and reconciliation, the Sacraments through the Cross of Christ, who Christ is, who I am etc…. It is the Holy Spirit in me that has brought me to such revelations. It has brought me into an awesome relationship with my savior, into the One body of Christ. The Sacraments of the Church “all seven” are all connected to our Savior, not to condemn us in any way or to make us feel un worthy, rather to set us free from our selves, so that we can be humble enough to need our Lord and God In every aspect of our lives. Because our lives were created by Him and for him.

In my Church and in my life I have my very own revelation given to me by my Creator. It tells me what is right and what is wrong. But most of all it tells me about Christ. This revelation, in a more dim light led me to the light. In it I have found enough peace in this life to last a million life times. Even in the bad times. All Glory and Honor is Gods. Knowing this brings peace. An explosion in Gods Greatness. As one who was taught Mormonism, I am in Awe!!! It is my prayer that you to find this. Not for me, for Christ… Keep searching. This faith is Rock Solid because Christ, as a Doctor is at it’s core.

God Bless
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
I’ll make one final point here and then close this post. I find it bizarre that the Catholic church supposedly suffered the Great Apostacy even though its doctrines cannot be shown to have changed since the very beginning of Christianity. Yet the LDS church, which did not suffer the Great Apostacy, has many doctrines that have changed in only 174 years of its existence. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...
Chris…exactly! It makes absolutely NO sense! But, most Mormons simply LACK the ability to be objective in regards to their religion. For them, the restoration happened, so the great apostasy MUST have happened. It’s reverse logic. If you accept a theory or premise based on nothing but faith, then you can’t use logic after the fact to disprove the theory. It’s belief first, logic second. They have a belief, now they need to do everything they can to prove to themselves that this belief(however unreasonable) is true.

I remember clearly the day when I allowed my mind to really look at my religion objectively for the first time. Naturally, I left the LDS church soon after. To examine the LDS church and it’s doctrines objectively, to be totally honest with oneself, is to cease to be LDS.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
I remember clearly the day when I allowed my mind to really look at my religion objectively for the first time. Naturally, I left the LDS church soon after. To examine the LDS church and it’s doctrines objectively, to be totally honest with oneself, is to cease to be LDS.
Click to expand...
I have a theory that I think would make a very interesting study. It goes like this: The more a Catholic/prospective Catholic studies and learns about the history of the Catholic church, the more likely he/she is going to remain Catholic/convert to Catholicism. The more a Latter Day Saint/prospective LDS studies and learns about Mormon history, the more likely he/she is going to leave Mormonism/never join at all. Obvioulsy LDS will strenuously object to the second part, and I’m not saying this happens in large numbers, but it seems to be a common experience among Mormons who have converted to other faiths. I guess to really find out I would have to hear from ex-Catholics why they left Catholicism. Did they leave because they educated themselves, or because they weren’t educated? In other words, are we losing knowledgable Catholics, or Catholics who know very little about their faith and thus are prime for conversion to other religions?
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
I have a theory that I think would make a very interesting study. It goes like this: The more a Catholic/prospective Catholic studies and learns about the history of the Catholic church, the more likely he/she is going to remain Catholic/convert to Catholicism. The more a Latter Day Saint/prospective LDS studies and learns about Mormon history, the more likely he/she is going to leave Mormonism/never join at all. Obvioulsy LDS will strenuously object to the second part, and I’m not saying this happens in large numbers, but it seems to be a common experience among Mormons who have converted to other faiths. I guess to really find out I would have to hear from ex-Catholics why they left Catholicism. Did they leave because they educated themselves, or because they weren’t educated? In other words, are we losing knowledgable Catholics, or Catholics who know very little about their faith and thus are prime for conversion to other religions?
Click to expand...
There’s another thread here in the “Non-Catholic Religions” board that asks this very question…“Why do most people leave the Catholic church?” The most common answer that I have seen is poor Catechesis/education.
 
mormon fool:
I don’t understand the resistance to learning additional truth from God. (invitation: help me understand why the Bible is the only record of revelation that we need). Man’s learning process has a history of becoming more sophisticated on secular knowledge. Why wouldn’t the same be the case with religous ideas?
Click to expand...
Mormon fool, I know you whole-heartedly believe in continuing public revelation and in the LDS belief system it makes sense. So, I know I’m not going to convince you otherwise. I will just quote what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says on the subject so you can see our side of it. 65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect, and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word–and he has no more to say…because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely uon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.27

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Convenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelum knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.
Code: 
  Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations."
73 God has revealed himself fully by sending his own Son, in whom he has established his covenant forever. The Son is his Father’s definitive Word; so there will be no further Revelation after him.

​
 
Thanks for that post Chris!!! Well done! :clapping: It’s nice for us Catholics to be reminded of exactly what the Catechism says regarding a specific topic we are discussing with other faiths.
 
40.png
tkdnick:
Thanks for that post Chris!!! Well done! :clapping: It’s nice for us Catholics to be reminded of exactly what the Catechism says regarding a specific topic we are discussing with other faiths.
Click to expand...
I’ll second that!
 
This may help. Its laced with Christianity.

When I was just twenty it gave me great satisfaction that I managed to read, and understand, the Ten Categories of Aristotle without a teacher. I would mention the book at every opportunity, slipping the title in with a touch of awe, smiling to myself when lecturers would comment how difficult it had been for them to answer it.

And much good it did me! Indeed, it was harmful, because it encouraged me to think of You, O Lord, as if you were part of what you had made*,…(Mormon God)* instead of being its essence and origin.,(Christian God) Sadly, I had my back toward the light and my eyes fixed on the darkness. I could understand without difficulty logic, rhetoric, geometry, music, and arithmetic, but I did not see that my intelligence itself was a gift of God and that all the true things I learned came from him, their source.

What advantage was it to me that I had a nimble wit when all the while I turned from good and clung to evil? Little did I realize then how much better off were all those (as I saw them) “simple” souls who lacked my native intelligence but put their trust in God.…Saint Augustine
"Better to know the planner than the plan"

Lord, you are not pleased with someone simply because that person is knowledgeable. In fact, it would be possible for one to know everything there is to know in the whole wide world, except for knowing you, and consequently know nothing. Just as another person could live in blissful ignorance of the great sum of human knowledge, but know you, and be both happy and content. After all, who is better placed - the person who owns a tree and gives You thanks for all the good things it provides; or the one who owns a similar tree and knows its weight and dimensions down to the least leaf, but does not realize that You are its Creator and that it is through You that he or she has use of it? In essence, the latter person is ignorant, though full of facts, and the former person wise, though bit short on details.

So in general we can say that the most important knowledge is knowledge of You, O Lord."**…**St. Augustine

All in All
Whenever there is true fellowship and love between people, God’s spirit is always present. In all human relationships, God’s spirit is what brings them together. When a life is changed through the channel of another person, it is God who makes that change using the person as a means. The moving power behind all spiritual things, all personal Relationships between people is God, who is always there. No personal relationships can be right without God’s presence.****

………….From the Word among Us

God Bless
Rich
www.catholic-rcia.com
 
Come on guys, this is a thread about Mormonism vs. Catholic belief/s. Looking for some insight/s (from either Mormons or Catholics) as to why deified Christians retain a physical body.

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
Thank you for asking, Augustine. I’ll do my best to offer an answer for the LDS side, though this encompasses a lot.

We believe that we are made in the image of God and are His literal children. Children grow up to be like their parents: chicks become chickens, piglets become pigs, etc. We believe that we were created spiritually first and our spirits lived with Heavenly Father. We learned and progressed there, until one day he called a Grand Council and told us that we had to leave Him for a time to receive physical bodies. We could progress (grow up) no further without them. However, due to the nature of a physical body, we would fall short, so Jesus, our Brother, offered to be our Savior, so that we could return again with our bodies.

Thus we come to this life. We are born into this world with a body. We are tested and proved and try to learn to master our bodies. We turn to the Savior to cleanse us from sin and to try to follow the example of His life so that we can return to our Heavenly Father.

When we die, our spirit and our flesh are separated. I think of it sort of like being naked after being used to wearing snow gear. It will feel weird, and uncomfortable. We cannot have a fulness of joy without our bodies; they are why we came here in the first place. We know from scripture that everyone will be resurrected (Acts 24:15 for starters). So, all of us will receive what we came to this life for: a body. As Paul mentions, it is corruptible now, but when it is raised up, it will be incorruptible. It will be perfect, no longer subject to death, illness, etc.

We will then be judged according to our works on this earth (Rev. 20:12). It is not just those who will become like Heavenly Father that will reunite with their bodies, though, it is all of us. How could we be happy without our body? Our body is one of the main reasons we came to Earth. I’ll let someone else pick it up from here if this isn’t sufficient.
 
40.png
AugustineH354:
Come on guys, this is a thread about Mormonism vs. Catholic belief/s. Looking for some insight/s (from either Mormons or Catholics) as to why deified Christians retain a physical body.
Click to expand...
I do not have the capacity to answer this (don’t know the answer), but I am wondering if you might get a better response by creating a new thread to discuss this particular topic. I have found that this thread has jumped from one topic to the next with such frequency that it is hard to follow and keep up at times, and it might take quite some time for people to respond to your question here.
 
40.png
LDSLissa:
When we die, our spirit and our flesh are separated. I think of it sort of like being naked after being used to wearing snow gear. It will feel weird, and uncomfortable.

How could we be happy without our body?
Click to expand...
Do you really believe that when you die and go to Heaven (or one of the levels of heaven in your case) that we will feel wierd and uncomfortable?!? How could being in the presence of God be uncomfortable in ANY way?

I agree with you completely that we will be reunited with our bodies in Heaven, BUT…I have no doubt that had God decided “Hey, they don’t need a body in Heaven” that I would still be perfectly happy and feel perfectly at home!
 
40.png
AugustineH354:
Come on guys, this is a thread about Mormonism vs. Catholic belief/s. Looking for some insight/s (from either Mormons or Catholics) as to why deified Christians retain a physical body.

Grace and peace,

Aug
Click to expand...
Probably because being physical is our nature. God created all of physical reality as a gift and a home for us, his highest creatures. When God created us in our mothers’ wombs, he breathed the breath of life into us and we became “living souls” - physical and spirtual.

At the second coming of Christ, there will be a new heaven and a new earth - creation renewed and perfected by the Holy Spirit. I believe that God wills that we should inherit and fully enjoy this perfected creation, both physical and spiritual. To do that we require glorified, perfected physical bodies, no longer limited as our bodies are now.
Paul
 
Hi Paul,

You wrote:
Probably because being physical is our nature. God created all of physical reality as a gift and a home for us, his highest creatures. When God created us in our mothers’ wombs, he breathed the breath of life into us and we became “living souls” - physical and spirtual.>>
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Me: I would say that the angels (until the full deification of mankind) are God’s “highest creatures”. (Psalm 8:6 Yet you have made them little less than the angels (Heb. Elohim), and crowned them with glory and honor – NAB St. Joseph’s Edition.)

Previously in this thread I posted (#276):
**460 **The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”. “For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: son that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers of his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1st English edition, 1994, p. 116 – bold emphasis mine.)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
What incredible promises!!! Yet I personally am left wondering why we need a physical body; what is the purpose of a resurrected body in heaven? Since God is pure spirit, and since “the Son of God became man so that we might become God”, in my feeble brain a physical body seems unnecessary.>>

Me: Once again, pure spirit seems to be a higher order of being in Catholic thought; God and His angels are pure spirit, and though mankind was created a “little less than the angels”, through deification redeemed mankind shall live the life that God lives—in this scenario I see little need for a physical body.

Grace and peace,

Aug
 
AugustineH354 & Others,

I really like your question and agree with tkdnick that you should create a new thread for it.

As for me I have learned quite a bit from this thread. I have made several mistakes (like not keeping our subject to just one question). If I were to do this thread all over again I would only start with one question (and not post 10 all at once). This thread has been so jumpy that it is impossible to really have a solid conversation and flesh out everyone’s convictions.

I also sincerely appreciate LDSLisa and mormon fool for coming to my aid in my time of need. I have learned more from their posts than from all my research on my questions.

Finally, I have decided that I am going to step out completely from this thread (I know, I know, I started the thread). I have realized that it is futile to explain my beliefs with clarity to a Catholic audience when I do not have an understanding where you are coming from. Mormon fool mentioned in one of his/her posts that it is impossible to have an unbaised understanding of Mormonism when you already have a set idea of what we believe. I find this statement true on the reverse. There are some things that just absolutely amazes me that you believe (as I know that you feel the same way for my beliefs).

I sincerely believe that I am in the truth (just as I know that you do about your beliefs). I have too much evidence, both spiritually and temporally, for me to deny my beliefs in Godhead, the LDS church, and my testimony. I admire your endurance to believe your doctrine and to study out others beliefs (I am particularly impressed with Brother Dupre and his vast and diverse background in Mormonism, Catholicism, Wicca, and who knows what else). I encourage LDSLisa and Mormon fool to continue on. I thank you for tolerating me as I stumbled around on this thread trying to figure out the best way to approach this subject.

Endure with Desire,
BYU BOY

P.S. Before I step out I must concede to Brother Dupre that he was somewhat right on my last question concerning the Bible. I feel that I was too soft on my answer. His quote from the Book of Mormon about believing that some “plain and precious truth” have been removed from the Bible is correct. We still use the Bible but we also know that there are some ‘pure’ doctrines that have removed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top