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

God (the real God) bless you,
Paul
Thanks for this, Paul. I mistakenly thought that the planet where God the Father(allegedly) lives was named Kolob.:whacky: Jay
 
mormon fool:
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.

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.

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*.*

Well at least your trying. I appreciate this.

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.
One key aspect of your denomination appears to be its willingness to change and adapt to the culture which surrounds it–e.g. polygamy. This fits neatly with the belief that the Holy Spirit is directing your particular church in a different direction than the Christian denominations. This belief, in fact, leads one to conclude that you believe in something akin to polythiesm. As Catholics and protestants, we hold that our God is unchanging and perfect in truth. It appears that you believe that the Holy Spirit can move you to contradict Scriptures and traditions of the Church. Since God cannot contradict or oppose Himself, you therefore are proposing multiple gods. If something you believe becomes particularily unpopular, you simply declare that the Holy Spirit has called you to adapt and change these core beliefs–a sort of “theological evolution” at work. (Christians are called upon to be the salt of the earth, and we expect to be opposed by the culture at large. A lot can be excused by deceptively using the Holy Spirit as your scapegoat for change.) Our God, however, doesn’t require “theological evolution” and would not be so mean-spirited to withhold “divine revelations” from His people for 1,800 years. I agree that you hear a spirit, but I think the spirit whispering in your ear has nothing to do with our God.
 
40.png
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
Well said, CatholicRCIA! “Engrafted upon Christ” is an interesting way of describing what we become through Him.
 
mormon fool:
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.
Again, Christ is not correcting any previous revelation, nor is he correcting any previous prophet. As the fulfillment of all previous revelation, he is simply clarifying and increasing their understanding. Yes, he is correcting misunderstandings, but he’s not correcting/changing previous revelation nor the prophets.

Also, you must have a proper understanding of the old testament Mosaic law to properly understand Christ’s reasons for ending certain practices. After all of Israel’s shortcommings in the old testament leading up to Christ, God instituted certain lesser laws as a probationary condition upon Israel for their inabilty to keep the covenant. Interesting to note here that God never removed priesthood authority even with all of Israel’s violations of the covenant. Think of all the horrible things Israel did in the old testament worthy of punishment. Yet God always provides a way back to grace. Yet the LDS church would have us believe that all authority was lost very early after death of the apostles. Why was God so quick to take it all away, given his seemingly endless patience with Israel over thousands of years in the old testament?
mormon fool:
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 burden here is on the LDS to show that it hasn’t, because the Catholic Church has more than enough ample evidence to show otherwise. Most LDS simply assume the Great Apostacy happened without really examining the issue, which is the starting point for believing in the rest of all things Mormon.
mormon fool:
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.
My point was that after opening heaven to us with his death and resurrection, Christ would not all of a sudden now require a temple marriage to live with him and the Father in heaven, and then require us to go back in time on behalf of our ancestors to make sure they could get there too. That just doesn’t make sense.
 
mormon fool:
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.
No problem. I figure that’s the only way to make sure I get it right. And yes, private revelations are still alive and well. You might be interested in looking up some of the many apparitions of Mary that have occurred throughout the ages–perhaps especially Our Lady of Guadalupe in 1531. You might find that one interesting because it occurred in the Americas (Mexico). Many Christian saints throughout the ages have experienced private revelation. In many cases these revelations were accompanied by miraculous events.
mormon fool:
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?
That one is difficult to nail because you would have to know exactly when each book of the new testament was completed. But yes, it includes everything in the New Testament. Remember that Christ wasn’t another prophet in a long line of prophets, he was the prophet. The church would say that public revelation ended with the apostles. In order to be an apostle, one had to personally know Christ, (which Paul did after his famous encounter).
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.?
CCC para 77:
"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them ‘their own position of teaching authority.’ "35 Indeed, the "apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
If you look up look up the history for yourself, you will find the story of these bishops, what they believed, and how the message was passed on. It’s no secret. There is even 1st century historical records of these men, who themselves were students of the Apostles. I can point you in the right direction if you’re interested. Also, notice “full and living Gospel.” We believe that the Gospel was complete with the Apostles. What remained was to make sure it was passed on.
mormon fool:
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.
You’re assuming that further revelation was required. Why? As far as Heb 1:1-2 goes, Paul is pointing out that this revelation is the fulfillment and climax of the everything the prophets of old pointed to. Notice Paul’s contrast of the “in times past, God spoke in partial and various ways” versus what Christ revealed to us now “in these last days.” Does the bible contain any evidence that Christians were expecting more revelation?
 
The Modesto Bee quotes Grant Palmer saying:
“In a strange way, to me, (excommunication) would be saying - since I would be forbidden to take the sacrament - that somehow Jesus Christ is subordinate to Joseph Smith.”
Wow, too bad it took him 64 years to figure that out.
Paul
 
I was once told to focus on Jesus when speaking to them otherwise you might end up deep in the mud. I would ask a Mormon if it is ok to lie if it helps another convert to their religion. The Church Christ established is of the Truth. We have the gift that can be brought without deceiving as Truth does not deceive.
Who deceives and Lies?
Who tells the Truth?
In the garden God said we would die if we disobeyed Him, The devil said we would be as gods and live. Do we die? Who’s lying? For a Mormon God lied while satan told us the truth.
Something to consider while you are speaking to them.
Talk about Jesus from your heart, tell them who he is to a Christian.
But remember, there is one who cannot stand him.
 
Lumen Gentium:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or of His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience, those too may achieve eternal salvation.
A. They believe they already have the True Gospel of Christ.
B. They truly believe they are already in the True Church.
C. They were either born into their faith or converted from a False religion, or no religion.
  1. They seek God with a sincere heart.
  2. They, moved by grace, try to do His Will.
  3. They follow the dictates of their conscience.
Therefore,
They may achieve eternal salvation.

So, why try to debate their beliefs, if they too may achieve eternal slavation?
It can risk hard feelings.
They can be saved right where they are, as long as they are sincere of heart.

That is Council Teaching.
They ought to be informed of this teaching; that the Church has ruled that they can be saved as Mormons or any other religion.

Unitatis Redintegratio:
The life of grace, Faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit can exist outside the visible boundaries of the Catholic Church.
 
Some speculations on why someone would choose to remain Mormon after coming to the conclusion that much of Smith’s teachings came from other sources or were created by Smith:

Palmer himself mentions in the book his own reason for remaining Mormon. Part of the reason, if I remember correctly, is that Palmer sees Smith’s creativity as something that Smith thought was necessary given the profusion of theologically warring Protestant sects, especially in upstate New York and antebellum American in general. If Catholicism was out of the question for Protestants, then some other source of Christian unity would be necessary – thus, the Book of Mormon and its claim to represent the original teachings of Jesus and its claim that the New Jerusalem will be in America (quite flattering for us Americans!).

Palmer, it seems, would also adopt a very liberal stance towards the Bible – a rejection of various miracles, just like he rejects the miracles claimed by Mormonism. Palmer does not seem to have any patience for any claims of the supernatural – Mormon or otherwise. Thus, Smith is no more to blame for what he did, than Luke or Matthew are for what they did – all used miraculous and supernatural language to describe and explain an encounter with divinity unexplainable in any other sort of language. For Palmer, Smith did encounter something divine, and Smith did his best to translate his experience in the language of his time. Smith’s details may have been proven wrong, but for Palmer, such a perspective misses the reason why Smith did what he did: to provide a unifying set of scriptures and practices for Christians, free of the confusion of Protestant, and independent of the historical accretions Protestants often claim as part of Catholicism.

For Palmer, it isn’t the supernatural or historical claims that keep him Mormon. What keeps him Mormon is his realization that Smith’s sole purpose was to point people back to Jesus, back to an actual living of the gospel. Smith, of course, like any human, was imperfect, and not all Mormons may be ready to face that fact, but for Palmer, Smith remains the unsurpassed religious genius of the last two thousand years.
 
I am simply amazed astounded and dumbfounded that you actually believe any of that! 😦
 
40.png
Toni:
I am simply amazed astounded and dumbfounded that you actually believe any of that! 😦
By “you” do you mean “me”? If so, I never said I believed in (1) Smith, (2) LDS, (3) Palmer, or (4) my speculations on why Palmer remains LDS.

😉
 
Ahimsa:
Seemed like a pretty good analysis of the Palmer situation. Well said!

I just checked out your “signature”. Interesting. What does it mean?
 
40.png
tkdnick:
Ahimsa:
Seemed like a pretty good analysis of the Palmer situation. Well said!

I just checked out your “signature”. Interesting. What does it mean?
It’s the first line of Richard Bach’s Illusions, a very “New Agey” novel, a type of novel which isn’t too popular in these parts. 😃
 
That novel cannot possibly have any truth in it. Everyone knows that “masters” don’t come from Fort Wayne Indiana, they only arise from south of Indianapolis, most notably Newburgh Indiana:)
 
GKB Protasius:
That novel cannot possibly have any truth in it. Everyone knows that “masters” don’t come from Fort Wayne Indiana, they only arise from south of Indianapolis, most notably Newburgh Indiana:)
You’re right. Those darn New Agers keep seducing me with their pro-Fort Wayne ideologies.:rolleyes:
 
TNT said:
Lumen Gentium:
A. They believe they already have the True Gospel of Christ.
B. They truly believe they are already in the True Church.
C. They were either born into their faith or converted from a False religion, or no religion.
  1. They seek God with a sincere heart.
  2. They, moved by grace, try to do His Will.
  3. They follow the dictates of their conscience.
Therefore,
They may achieve eternal salvation.

So, why try to debate their beliefs, if they too may achieve eternal slavation?
It can risk hard feelings.
They can be saved right where they are, as long as they are sincere of heart.

That is Council Teaching.
They ought to be informed of this teaching; that the Church has ruled that they can be saved as Mormons or any other religion.

Unitatis Redintegratio:

Why debate their beliefs? Because the LDS church claims that the Catholic Church is an apostate church. Missionaries all over the world are teaching this to Catholics all over the world in an attempt to convert them. What the council said doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to spread the truth. Some people have erroneously interpreted the council in this way, which has led to ecuminical efforts that say “I’m o.k., you’re o.k.” This was not the intent of the council at all.

Risking hard feelings should always take second place to the truth.
 
40.png
Chris-WA:
Why debate their beliefs? Because the LDS church claims that the Catholic Church is an apostate church. Missionaries all over the world are teaching this to Catholics all over the world in an attempt to convert them. What the council said doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to spread the truth. Some people have erroneously interpreted the council in this way, which has led to ecuminical efforts that say “I’m o.k., you’re o.k.” This was not the intent of the council at all.

Risking hard feelings should always take second place to the truth.
If a Mormon asks my opinion about their church and why I left it I will certainly tell them. I will not, however, go around telling every Mormon I see that their church is wrong. That would be counterproductive. If a Mormon is seeking truth and he comes to me then I will certainly explain my positions with respect for him and the LDS church. When I was LDS, had a Catholic approached me in an aggresive way I would have not heard a thing they said. When I was ready I started searching. Until that happens, until a person is looking for answers, nothing you say will change their heart. God has to start that process, then we, as good and faithful Catholics can humbly help.
 
40.png
Tmaque:
If a Mormon asks my opinion about their church and why I left it I will certainly tell them. I will not, however, go around telling every Mormon I see that their church is wrong. That would be counterproductive. If a Mormon is seeking truth and he comes to me then I will certainly explain my positions with respect for him and the LDS church. When I was LDS, had a Catholic approached me in an aggresive way I would have not heard a thing they said. When I was ready I started searching. Until that happens, until a person is looking for answers, nothing you say will change their heart. God has to start that process, then we, as good and faithful Catholics can humbly help.
So you take no “active” part in educating LDS regarding the truth?
 
I have found that it is not necessary to challenge a Mormon’s religion. No one who knows me is unaware that I am an active and devout Catholic. If an LDS mentions his faith, all I have to do is to let him know that I used to be LDS.

One of two things then happens:
  1. He avoids me because he assumes that I (as a “son of perdition”) am a miserable raving drunk or am enslaved by some other heinous sin and will end up dead in the gutter. That is what Mormons are taught about ex-Mormons. As he observes me over time, he will see that this is not the case and that I am a very happy man. This may set him to doubting what his church has told him.
  2. He is curious as to why I left - and especially why I became Catholic - unthinkable to a Mormon, so he asks. That opens the door to a respectful dialogue.
Either way, just letting him know makes a difference.
God bless you,
Paul
 
Richard Bach is so passe these days. What with the Da Vinci code and all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top