The Truth about the Mormons from a Devout Mormon

[cestusdei]

BYU,
Actually I think we have proved we know your religion rather well. Better then Mormons know ours. Hopefully this has given you some food for thought. We look forward to your joining the Church founded by Jesus himself…the Catholic Church.

 

[Writer]

Exporter:

LDSLisa and others,

If God the Father has a “corporeal” body of flesh and bone: knowing the requirements of such a human body, need for air (oxygen) , need for proper air pressure, need for correct temperature range …where is this body located? The environment required for a flesh and bone person is defined. How do yyou explain this?

This strange and perverted belief that God has a physical body has been around for a long time. Saint Augustine, for example, was a member in his youth of a cult which believed this–along with a shopping list of other strange and twisted beliefs.

Not only is Mormonism the product of human minds and intellect alone, but it is not even original or creative at that! I guess that’s all Joey could come up with…

 

[PaulDupre]

Exporter:

If God the Father has a “corporeal” body of flesh and bone: knowing the requirements of such a human body, need for air (oxygen) , need for proper air pressure, need for correct temperature range …where is this body located? The environment required for a flesh and bone person is defined. How do you explain this?

Mormons believe that God the Father lives on a planet which orbits a star named Kolob.

God (the real God) bless you,
Paul

 

[Katholikos]

modestobee.com/

DeaconTony560 posted this link on the “Mormons prejudiced against blacks” thread.

Look on the left hand side for 3.Mormon leader faces excommunication
Don’t miss it. Jay

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

BYU-BOY:

Finally, I have decided that I am going to step out completely from this thread.

Hope to see you continue posting on the Catholic Answers forums!
God Bless. <><

 

[Panis_Angelicas]

Katholikos:

Mormon leader faces excommunication
Don’t miss it. Jay

Poor Mr. Palmer. How can he still love a church after he has proven to himself that it has been teaching falsehoods to him? I guess maybe 64 years as a Mormon, many of them spent as a leader in the church, causes him to feel that there is no place else to turn?

*Hello! Mr. Palmer!!! *
*Over here!!! *

 

[Deacon_Tony560]

Interesting book and article on the truth about the Mormons. Mormom leader, Grant Palmer, wrote " An insider’s view of Mormon origins." He is being tried and faces ex-communication for reporting that Joseph Smith changed scripture for political reasons. See www.modestobee.com Left side of page and heading of Five top stories.

Deacon Tony

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!

 

[mormon_fool]

Time for a a day of rest from studying. I’'l see if I can pose a semblance of a response to some of the better posts such as this one from:

Chris-WA:

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…

I appreciate that the Catholic faith has well drawn lines of authority when it comes to interpretting scripture. The abundant private interpretations seen in other groups have spawned many a Protestant break-off and what looks like chaos.

I don’t think you will find any cases of this in the bible–one prophet correcting another.

One model of a prophet is Christ, who is obviously more than a prophet. He would say things like “it has been said X, but I say Y”. He would correct misunderstandings the Jews had about the scriptures all the time. He reversed practices of the Law of Moses which he stated were no longer necessary because of their fulfillment in Him.

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.

Well, obviously the mormon paradigm disagrees with this. At least two questions have to be addressed to settle this. The first being whether all needed teachings have been correctly preserved and continuously taught over the centuries. The second question is related to whether more has been revealed, as one risks his/her salvation in rejecting true revelations.

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 )…

This is a great example and I am glad you brought it up. Let us say for the sake of argument that LDS concepts of eternal marriage were not revealed prior to Joseph Smith. Then accountability to this doctrine only takes effect after this knowledge is revealed. Variations in accountability can be resolved posthumously or vicariously. I am not sure of any contradiction to canonized doctrine, although some mount an argument from a Jesus-Saduccee exchange in the NT.

. . .even though its doctrines cannot be shown to have changed since the very beginning of Christianity.

This sounds like a claim worth examining.

Good luck on those finals by the way.

Thanks.

 

[mormon_fool]

Panis Angelicas:

Poor Mr. Palmer. How can he still love a church after he has proven to himself that it has been teaching falsehoods to him? I guess maybe 64 years as a Mormon, many of them spent as a leader in the church, causes him to feel that there is no place else to turn?

I don’t know Palmer’s true motives for saying that he loves the mormon church, but I suspect it is to sell more books. The man developed his dis-belief in some fundamental truth claims of the LDS church in the 80’s, And yet he continued to draw a paycheck as a Bible instructor waiting until his retirement pension was safe to publish his awful book.

 

[Tmaque]

Mormon Fool,

Christ did not change doctrine. He FULFILLED doctrine. He FULFILLED scripture. HUGE difference! When he said you have heard it said X…but do Y…he wasn’t changing doctrine but correcting a incorrect common understanding or behavior. Man ALWAYS has an imperfect understanding of God’s will. Christ was clarifying, helping us to understand, not adding doctrine.

If you believe that changing doctrines is something that God does. Then you have absolutely no real theological foundation to stand on. For instance, If you believe that after Christ left us, we continued receiving revelation that adds or modifies doctrine then how do you know which doctrine to believe? Maybe Mohammed was receiving a real revelation when he got the Koran. Maybe Arius was right. Maybe Luther or Calvin were simply receiving new revelation.

You believe J. Smith was right but how do you know? Well, I know how you know. You prayed and you received a personal revelation. So, all discussion about facts is really a waste, isn’t it? I’ll let you in on a little secret most Mormons don’t know. Almost everyone seeking God prays and asks God to guide them to truth. So, every year you have millions of people praying to God for guidance. Why aren’t they all Mormons? Why did God lead me away from the LDS church, the church of my forefather pioneers to Catholicism? It takes more than prayer. You have a responsibility to be objective and seek truth.

If the evidence led me away from Catholicism I would leave in an instant. I simply want the truth! I’m sure you want the truth as well. But, if you seek the truth you must first accept that your current belief system could be wrong. If you’re not willing to accept that then you’re not seeking the truth at all. A Mormon who says “I know my church is true” has stopped seeking God and the truth. God Bless You.

 

[Tmaque]

A few more things.

A common belief in Mormonism is that those who proved themselves worthy in the pre-existence are given an “advantage” here on earth by being born LDS or being born in an LDS neighborhood so they end up Mormon, etc. The idea is that God wants to give you a leg up on getting to the celestial kingdom because you somehow earned it before you were born. I know this doctrine is still being taught because I heard it on the BYU channel we get here in Salt Lake. The program was a scripture study program and one member of the panel stated that all priesthood holders were “valiant” in the pre-existence. The rest all nodded affirming the statement.

So, the log and short of it is that if you’re LDS you were probably “valiant” in the pre-existence. If you’re not LDS, well you were probably just hanging around up there. This belief exists, I believe, so that the LDS faithful can understand why it is that God doesn’t answer everyone’s prayers and just tell them that the LDS church is true. The valiant ones get every opportunity to get right in while the rest of you have to work real hard for it. My mother told me that my punishment would be especially harsh because I was valiant in the pre-existence, was given special blessings and opportunities and yet I’ve rejected God’s truth on earth.

Another thing…
In Mormon culture it’s very important that you have a “testimony”. This means that you KNOW the LDS church is true. Not believe, mind you, you KNOW. How does one achieve this knowing? By praying, of course. This is important because once you “know” something you stop seeking for the answer…after all, you already “know” the answer. I just wanted to clarify my earlier post regarding how you can tell if a Mormon is really seeking truth or not.

 

[mormon_fool]

Chris-WA:

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.

Thanks for looking up this CCC section especially for me. It gives clear statement of belief. I understand it to mean that there are no public revelations (at least until the Second Coming) only private revelations. rich123456’s post helped me appreciate that personal revelation is alive and well in the Catholic faith.

Can we expolre when exactly the last revelation occurred? The CCC seems to tie it to the ministry of Jesus. I suppose this includes his appearances after his death to the apostles and Paul to establish his resurrection and deliver some 40 days worth of teachings. Can we extend this revelatory grace period until the last of the writings of the apostles that became scripture were recorded? The Book of Revelation was revelation, right? If correct so far, can we say public revelation ceased with the death or discontinuance of the apostles, who up until that point were the established leaders of the church?

Here in lies alleged doctrinal change # 1. The idea that apostles were the established leaders and revelators of the church died (and revelation with them) and no living apostles replaced them–like the precedent presumably set in Acts with Mathias’s call–is enough for any mormon to question the legitimacy of their supposed non-revelatory sucessors. We imagine that some of the councils that resulted in creeds and definitions of orthodoxy would have turned out differently if they had been presided over by an apostle who could obtain the will of God via public revelation.

To me the CCC just acknowledges the obvious, that some time after Jesus’s ministry ended, no one was receiving authoritative revelation anymore. Heb 1:1-2 favorable compares Christ’s ministry favorably to the prophets of the past (Christ trumps prophets), but this doesn’t rule out future prophets, at least to me.

 

[Tmaque]

mormon fool:

Here in lies alleged doctrinal change # 1. The idea that apostles were the established leaders and revelators of the church died (and revelation with them) and no living apostles replaced them–like the precedent presumably set in Acts with Mathias’s call–is enough for any mormon to question the legitimacy of their supposed non-revelatory sucessors. We imagine that some of the councils that resulted in creeds and definitions of orthodoxy would have turned out differently if they had been presided over by an apostle who could obtain the will of God via public revelation.

.

If apostles were necessary for the continuation of a valid church don’t you think the living apostles would have appointed new apostles to replace them? The fact that they didn’t proves that it was unnecessary. They appointed bishops to replace them, they taught the gospel, they and their followers willingly died horrible deaths for the preservation of it! Yet, you believe they somehow forgot or neglected something that was necessary for the salvation of the church on earth? That is simply illogical.

 

[Tmaque]

mormon fool:

I don’t know Palmer’s true motives for saying that he loves the mormon church, but I suspect it is to sell more books. The man developed his dis-belief in some fundamental truth claims of the LDS church in the 80’s, And yet he continued to draw a paycheck as a Bible instructor waiting until his retirement pension was safe to publish his awful book.

I find it interesting that you didn’t attack the message but instead chose to attack the messenger. Mr Palmer states in the article “I think only the truth is good enough for the members of the LDS church,”. A Mormon who seeks the truth and is willing to accept it even if it is painful. I can relate.

 

[mormon_fool]

A very nice post from one who has obviously thought much about what’ is important in searching for truth.

Tmaque:

Mormon Fool,
Christ did not change doctrine. He FULFILLED doctrine. He FULFILLED scripture. HUGE difference!.

A difference without a distinction as to the end result. Certain laws and practices were discontinued.

TM: When he said you have heard it said X…but do Y…he wasn’t changing doctrine but correcting a incorrect common understanding or behavior. Man ALWAYS has an imperfect understanding of God’s will. Christ was clarifying, helping us to understand, not adding doctrine.

MFool: The example I had in mind was Matt. 5:27-8. No new doctrine there? None of Jesus’s teachings were new or added doctrine?

TM: how do you know which doctrine to believe?

MFool:The one the LDS scriptures and prophet teach.

TM: Maybe Mohammed was receiving a real revelation when he got the Koran.

MFool: I don’t rule this out. Perhaps the Koran was corrupted by later followers to contain the stuff we don’t like about Jesus. Maybe it is a mix of revelation and man made ideas. I don’t accept it as scripture because the gospel is found much more clearly and less erroneous in other sources, And, oh yeah, I haven’t received a personal witness of its truthfulness .

TM: Maybe Arius was right.

MFool: Maybe on some things

TM: Maybe Luther or Calvin were simply receiving new revelation.

MFool: I don’t see them claiming to be prophets, just scripture scholars

TM: You believe J. Smith was right but how do you know? Well, I know how you know. You prayed and you received a personal revelation.

MFool: Good call!

TM: So, all discussion about facts is really a waste, isn’t it?

MFool: I hope not, as hope springs eternal, even if not realistic. I consider it valuable to discuss things with those of other religous backgrounds to increase interfaith understanding and I usually come away with a greater understanding of my own faith.

TM: So, every year you have millions of people praying to God for guidance. Why aren’t they all Mormons?

MFool: I believe God gives guidance to those people according to their needs and capacity for receiving guidance. Not everyone is in position to receive a witness of mormon truth claims.

I consider evidence against the CoJCoLDS all time, none of it actually moves me away from my present level of confidence in my beliefs.

Thanks for your well wishes. May God bless you too.

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

I find it interesting that you didn’t attack the message but instead chose to attack the messenger. Mr Palmer states in the article “I think only the truth is good enough for the members of the LDS church,”. A Mormon who seeks the truth and is willing to accept it even if it is painful. I can relate.

Trust me, I can attack his message, too. Here I was responding to someone wondering why Palmer would choose to remain attached to the LDS church while not agreeing with its fundamental truth claims. Do you have a better guess thnn I?

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

If apostles were necessary for the continuation of a valid church don’t you think the living apostles would have appointed new apostles to replace them? The fact that they didn’t proves that it was unnecessary.

I would agree with you if I accepted the premise that “a valid church” was meant to be continued against rampant persecution and heresy. Just because some parts of the church went through change doesn’t mean that everything was lost.

Yet, you believe they somehow forgot or neglected something that was necessary for the salvation of the church on earth? That is simply illogical.

I believe the apostles were acting under divine inspiration. The absence of of replacement apostles signals God’s intentions in regards to his church, to me. The transferral of a power from revelatory apostles to (sometimes) squabbling bishops seems to be a doctrinal shift.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Why would we need future prophets when we have the revelation of Jesus in our lives today? He is the end means, the final deposit of faith.

His very spirit dwells in us. All was defeated on the Cross. The devils game continues but we have the final score. Jesus wins those souls who can die to themselves, the fallen nature, the very nature that the LDS Church promotes as a good thing. This hurts. . You have to come to the revelation that Jesus is the very essence of our being. Everything else will perish. Why would you want anything else than to be engrafted upon Christ? What reward in the after life could be better than that? To share in what Jesus has always shared with the Father. “love”… In this, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit your families will be found. Not within themselves. Rather, all within the one body of Christ (1 Cor all of 12.) There is only one center and we have been gifted as created beings to belong to it. It was my Catholic Baptism, Christian baptism that enlightened me to these things. My only wish in this life is that others such as yourself can take the plunge into these waters. No one can help you along accept for the Truth in Christ. He is the only one that can help you find Him. And all credit for finding “you home, in his immensity” will belong to him. But a Cross would have to be lifted and you could loose a lot. But the gain, well, what is it that you want? What is enough for you? Could you say “no” in a desert? To what is offered?
www.catholic-rcia.com

 

[Tmaque]

mormon fool:

I would agree with you if I accepted the premise that “a valid church” was meant to be continued against rampant persecution and heresy. Just because some parts of the church went through change doesn’t mean that everything was lost.

I believe the apostles were acting under divine inspiration. The absence of of replacement apostles signals God’s intentions in regards to his church, to me. The transferral of a power from revelatory apostles to (sometimes) squabbling bishops seems to be a doctrinal shift.

So, what you are saying is that God intended for his “true” church to be absent from the earth for 1800 years? To what end? This even though Christ told his followers he would be with them always. Did Christ mean his church and the “truth” would be gone but he wouldn’t? I’m confused. So, the aposltes and their immediate followers died horrible deaths for a religion that would soon fail miserably? Why would they do that? I’m sorry but I can hardly take that kind of logic seriously. You agreed in the previous post that your belief is based on a feeling obtained through prayer. If that is so then why do you argue points of fact at all since your belief is based on no facts of any kind? By this I mean you have a belief FIRST…then a conclusion based on this belief FIRST, then you look at the proof or lack thereof after the fact and only after the fact. You argue as if your mind can be changed through logic, when in fact it can’t because you came to your conclusions specifically WITHOUT logic.

 

[mormon_fool]

Tmaque:

So, what you are saying is that God intended for his “true” church to be absent from the earth for 1800 years? To what end? .

Yes. To what end? I give my opinion that God is this case implemented a plan that was maximally beneficial towards bringing about the salvation of his children. He can accomplish His will without a ‘true church’ being continously on the earth.

This even though Christ told his followers he would be with them always. Did Christ mean his church and the “truth” would be gone but he wouldn’t?

We note that he was talking to a specific group of followers. I see no logical reason to extend this to followers who weren’t present.

I’m confused. So, the aposltes and their immediate followers died horrible deaths for a religion that would soon fail miserably? Why would they do that?

Because of their commitment to Jesus. And to provide a deposit of faith that was good enough to sustain Christianity until the times would allow the true church to be restored*.*

I’m sorry but I can hardly take that kind of logic seriously.

Well at least your trying. I appreciate this.

You agreed in the previous post that your belief is based on a feeling obtained through prayer.

I agreed to “You prayed and you received a personal revelation.” My personal revelation includes more than just a feeling. Telling me my belief is based on no facts and I don’t care about logic presumes a little too much. I think discussion goes smoother without delving into so much personal detail.

But thanks for your response. This will be it for me for awhile.