Views on Mormonism?

[RebeccaJ]

I’m reading a book by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which is overall a very amazing read, but one point that I had not read before is, that the “knowing good and evil” is written in the Hebrew original as conveying deciding what is good and what is evil, for oneself.

I understand this then as Satan tempting Eve with self determination, rather than trusting and relying on God.

 

[Telstar]

I’m reading a book by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which is overall a very amazing read, but one point that I had not read before is, that the “knowing good and evil” is written in the Hebrew original as conveying deciding what is good and what is evil, for oneself.

I understand this then as Satan tempting Eve with self determination, rather than trusting and relying on God.

Excellent point! That’s exactly what our conscience does for us. It’s what helps us to decide for ourselves what’s right or wrong. We can be mistaken in what defines good & evil in our own minds, and that’s where things tend to get dicey. If we’re consistently taught that good is evil and evil is good, then we will never be able to know the real truth. At least, it would be extremely difficult for us to understand it after having such a poorly developed conscience taught to us from an early age. That’s the first tool used in brainwashing. The subject must be constantly reinforced in the intended development of conscience, so they’ll believe and do whatever they’re told about everything else, even if it’s completely backwards to the reality of the rest of the world.

 

[ParkerD]

Hello, Parker
I guess ‘general conference’ must be over, or winding down, since all of the LDS folks have been coming back to the forums after being gone for a while.

To tell you the truth, today was a tad better than yesterday. We had an early snowstorm yesterday and last night. Early in the day, they were saying we might get 10-12", but luckily we only got 3-4" around here. Since there were still a lot of leaves left in our two giant oak trees (about 4 ft diameter), and many of the other trees around us, there were a lot of fallen branches (some very big ones) all around the yard this morning. The snow was very heavy and wet, then the wind kicked it up another notch. That’s never a good combination. LOL

…
I totally agree that Satan is trying to destroy souls. He’ll never stop until he’s finally chained in hell, forever. We just disagree on how he does it, and how we become ‘perfect’. We’re supposed to become more like Jesus by following what He taught us, and not focus on gaining power. We should focus on loving all of the people that He’s placed in our lives, and by being a good example. I know I need to work harder on that, myself.

We all have moments when we lose our focus and our faith weakens. If we had faith the size of a mustard seed, we could all move mountains, but not everyone has that kind of faith. We all need to work on building our ‘faith muscles’ and praying for each other, so we can all make it through, one day at a time.

Hi, Telstar,

Sorry to hear about the broken branches and early snow.

'Glad to find something we agreed on, which I have re-quoted–thanks.

As far as the rest, it had no source from Genesis or from any New Testament writing, so it was either your personal view or what you were taught that was someone else’s personal view, so it made for interesting reading but is neither here nor there as far as the truth involved in the complex situation of both the motive behind Satan’s temptation and the motive behind Eve’s partaking, which latter motive is clearly written up in Genesis and is nothing like what you wrote.

Have a good day.

 

[bz5]

To our LDS brothers: I’m glad to see you on the forums. I know you’re here because you want to know and serve the Lord and want to share that with us. I’ve read with interest what you’ve written on this and some other posts. I have many questions about LDS teaching, and I’d love to ask them as long as you’re willing to answer, but before a lot of back and forth on specifics and the correct interpretation of the Bible, etc…I’ll say I think our differences come down to one basic thing: the great apostasy. If Joseph Smith was right that all churches of his day were in apostasy, that the true church had all but disappeared from the face of the earth, that there was no visible church to go to settle disputes or to be guided into truth by as Jesus promised, and that Smith was to RESTORE the true church, then you must agree that the true church must have existed before. It must have been the church Jesus founded,and that if we could time travel, we could go back in time and see his disciples and their followers teaching baptism of the dead, several levels of heaven, and all the distinctly Mormon teachings. Leaving aside for the moment all the church fathers and reasons I don’t believe that, let’s just say that it happened, that the true church went into apostasy very early on. Now, we know that the Bible was written in the first century, as were many other writings about Jesus, as were many other letters, but they weren’t put together into the canon we have today until around the year 400. In the meantime, they were in dispute. We also will agree that you do not accept the Nicene Creed of 325. By the time the Catholic church decided on the canon of the bible around AD 400, it’s clear that if Joseph Smith was right, this church was in apostasy. These men who put together the Bible believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, original sin, infant baptism, the Trinity, for example. You can read volumes “straight from the horse’s mouth” to confirm this.
So one of my questions is, why do you accept the canon of the Bible at all? It seems to me like that would be exactly like me saying “I don’t believe in reincarnation, or in the caste system, or in multiple gods, or anything but the tiniest bit about Hinduism, but the Vedas! I’m going to base my beliefs on the Vedas, the Holy Word of God.” (Please don’t get caught up in correcting my impression of Hinduism - I freely admit I know not much about it, but I think you’ll understand my analogy)
I’m truly curious. Thank you for answering.

 

[SteveVH]

So one of my questions is, why do you accept the canon of the Bible at all? It seems to me like that would be exactly like me saying “I don’t believe in reincarnation, or in the caste system, or in multiple gods, or anything but the tiniest bit about Hinduism, but the Vedas! I’m going to base my beliefs on the Vedas, the Holy Word of God.” (Please don’t get caught up in correcting my impression of Hinduism - I freely admit I know not much about it, but I think you’ll understand my analogy)
I’m truly curious. Thank you for answering.

Their answer will be that not all truth was lost at once, but that “priesthood authority” was lost upon the death of the last Apostle. Of course, they also believe that the last Apostle (John) is still walking the earth somewhere and never died. They do not believe that bishops were successors of the Apostles. Somehow, the early Church forgot to ordain new Apostles and that is what threw us into apostasy. Assuming, for the moment, that the Mormons are correct, that new Apostles had to be ordained in order for the Church to survive, I have always tried to picture the scene upon the death of the last Apostle. After they had dried their tears, it must have been like a V-8 moment; “Dang it, you know what we forgot to do? We forgot to ordain new Apostles? Now what are we going to do?” The entire notion that the one thing necessary in order to keep the priesthood intact was just overlooked by the early Church is beyond ridiculous.

There were no more Apostles ordained because they had to have been actual witnesses to the life of Christ. After a certain time this becomes impossible which is why bishops were ordained and given the authority of the Apostles.

 

[truthsave]

I’m reading a book by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, which is overall a very amazing read, but one point that I had not read before is, that the “knowing good and evil” is written in the Hebrew original as conveying deciding what is good and what is evil, for oneself.

I understand this then as Satan tempting Eve with self determination, rather than trusting and relying on God.

That is a good point that is not well understood by average Christians and forget mormons not because they are more stupid but since shaped by their doctrine to see it in another way.

The desire to “became like God” is the desire to be separated from Him. Is to affirm his own individuality. Individuality cannot survive separated from God, individuality is death. Separation from God is death. This is how come Jesus said: if you want to find **your life **you will loose it if you want to loose itm in my name you will find it.

I think this stating is extremely important and apparently not very considered nor understood. Since our perceived life is death the more we want to go after our individual life the deeper will find ourself in the condition of death. If we want to loose our life in the name of our Saviour (it is very important this passage: He sais: in MY NAME), then we will find life. Not our life. But life. Since there is no a separate life no life separate from the Lord.
This is also why Jesus say to His apostoles that HE wanted them to be with Him like He was one with the Father. He never speak of separation, never, but unification in His divinity, not that they have to became gods.

This is extremely difficult to understand for mormons and of course to accept to understand since if they accept it is rejecting their doctrine.

The role of Satan it completely changed and badly understand from mormons.
I won’t say anything here since would be too long but please mormon reads Job story.
Satan asks the Lord to…

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I quoted the entire page, even though realizing that that first paragraph was pure speculation on the part of Brigham Young. He had an opinion, and shared his opinion, but that doesn’t mean I share that same opinion on the topic of that first paragraph, although I do know that Heavenly Father has a body, and do believe that He lived on an earth just as Christ lived on this earth and was God with us while living on this earth.

 

[ParkerD]

To our LDS brothers: I’m glad to see you on the forums…

Now, we know that the Bible was written in the first century, as were many other writings about Jesus, as were many other letters, but they weren’t put together into the canon we have today until around the year 400. In the meantime, they were in dispute. We also will agree that you do not accept the Nicene Creed of 325. By the time the Catholic church decided on the canon of the bible around AD 400, it’s clear that if Joseph Smith was right, this church was in apostasy. These men who put together the Bible believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, original sin, infant baptism, the Trinity, for example. You can read volumes “straight from the horse’s mouth” to confirm this.
So one of my questions is, why do you accept the canon of the Bible at all? … I’m truly curious. Thank you for answering.

Hi, bz5,

Thanks for your explanation and the sincerity shown in your question.

As a lover of the Bible, a student of English literature and of translated world literature such as the writings of Homer, and one who appreciates the hand of God in many, many events in the world perhaps unbeknownst to the participants in the events, I am comfortable giving an opinion from a personal perspective.

Latter-day Saints believe babies are born innocent and have an inherent goodness, plus have the light of Christ given to them that shines in their countenance and their eyes and is a primary source of love among loved ones.

A reader of a great work of literature who is also a student of great literature, usually would find delight in that literature–the use of words, the language, the genuinity, the complexity of the themes, the character development, the truths about human nature and the human experience, and so forth.

The Jews were the keepers of the record that became compiled as what we now have as the Old Testament.

Put together all of the above, then move to the time of the compilation of what became compiled as the Bible, and from the Latter-day Saint perspective bridge to John Wycliffe and William Tyndale (who was influenced by Martin Luther), then also bridge to the King James council that brought forth the King James Bible using much of what William Tyndale had done for an English translation rich in literary significance, and you have a back-drop to understand why it is not surprising at all that God could have a work done by sincere men who desired to do His will, had the light of Christ, and had the tools, the resources, the education, and the capacity to compile a record that they delighted in.

There is no reason not to appreciate the works that were done to compile and also to translate the Bible into beautiful, eloquent English. Nor is there reason to think that God could not have a hand in the coming forth of the Bible, even if there was something lacking in the “church” at that point.

I placed “church” in quotes because the word “church” when used in the New Testament meant “congregation of believers”.

A believer in 400 AD could very well be doing the best they could do and be totally sincere, while having been taught incorrect teachings, and I have no doubt that their sincerity is recognized by God and their efforts in living the gospel of Jesus Christ as they did so to their best, and making contributions to the betterment of humankind were praiseworthy in His sight. God could inspire their work through their sincerity and through the light of Christ they were given at birth.

 

[blueadept]

Latter-day Saints believe babies are born innocent and have an inherent goodness, plus have the light of Christ given to them that shines in their countenance and their eyes and is a primary source of love among loved ones.

Catholics believe this as well. Do you understand that we are not judged by Original Sin and only by actual sins? New born babies cannot commit actual sins.

 

[Stephen168]

"bz5:

These men who put together the Bible believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist, original sin, infant baptism, the Trinity, for example. You can read volumes “straight from the horse’s mouth” to confirm this.
So one of my questions is, why do you accept the canon of the Bible at all?

Hi, bz5,

Thanks for your explanation and the sincerity shown in your question.

As a lover of the Bible, a student of English literature and of translated world literature such as the writings of Homer, and one who appreciates the hand of God in many, many events in the world perhaps unbeknownst to the participants in the events, I am comfortable giving an opinion from a personal perspective.

Latter-day Saints believe babies are born innocent and have an inherent goodness, plus have the light of Christ given to them that shines in their countenance and their eyes and is a primary source of love among loved ones.

A reader of a great work of literature who is also a student of great literature, usually would find delight in that literature–the use of words, the language, the genuinity, the complexity of the themes, the character development, the truths about human nature and the human experience, and so forth.

The Jews were the keepers of the record that became compiled as what we now have as the Old Testament.

Put together all of the above, then move to the time of the compilation of what became compiled as the Bible, and from the Latter-day Saint perspective bridge to John Wycliffe and William Tyndale (who was influenced by Martin Luther), then also bridge to the King James council that brought forth the King James Bible using much of what William Tyndale had done for an English translation rich in literary significance, and you have a back-drop to understand why it is not surprising at all that God could have a work done by sincere men who desired to do His will, had the light of Christ, and had the tools, the resources, the education, and the capacity to compile a record that they delighted in.

There is no reason not to appreciate the works that were done to compile and also to translate the Bible into beautiful, eloquent English. Nor is there reason to think that God could not have a hand in the coming forth of the Bible, even if there was something lacking in the “church” at that point.

I placed “church” in quotes because the word “church” when used in the New Testament meant “congregation of believers”.

A believer in 400 AD could very well be doing the best they could do and be totally sincere, while having been taught incorrect teachings, and I have no doubt that their sincerity is recognized by God and their efforts in living the gospel of Jesus Christ as they did so to their best, and making contributions to the betterment of humankind were praiseworthy in His sight. God could inspire their work through their sincerity and through the light of Christ they were given at birth.

Was there an answer in there some where?.

 

[Stephen168]

Since your beliefs about the Trinity derive from a Greek philosopher as one of their fundamental basis, …

Name the philosopher, his philosophy, and how it relates to the trinity.

…

Is the Greek Philosopher another Mormon myth?

 

[mtolympus]

You are not God and never will be.

Rebecca, Thanks for setting me straight on this matter. Actually, at this point in time I have no desire to be like God and I never have. However, when one really contemplates the meaning of eternity, there is no limit, no end to time. Why then would one chose to limit one’s own eternal progression?

“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2)

 

[Stephen168]

Rebecca, Thanks for setting me straight on this matter. Actually, at this point in time I have no desire to be like God and I never have

Actually she never said you would be** like** God. She said you would never be God.

 

[ParkerD]

Is the Greek Philosopher [a] myth?

No, not if the following article is somewhat correct:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Aristotle

 

[Stephen168]

No, not if the following article is somewhat correct:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Aristotle

How dishonest of you to change what I asked. The link may answer the question you asked but not the question I asked:
Name the philosopher, his philosophy, and how it relates to the trinity.

Until you can answer my question, the “Greek philosopher” is a Mormon myth.

You are not the first Mormon I’ve asked this question but you have a chance at being the first to answer it.

 

[mtolympus]

Actually she never said you would be** like** God. She said you would never be God.

And she is absolutly correct. For to me there is only one God. I know it is hard for trinatarians to understand or believe that Mormons believe in the “only true God.” (John 17:3). God the Eternal Father is my one true God and Jesus is my Lord and they will be so through all eternity.

“But to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

 

[truthsave]

And she is absolutly correct. For to me there is only one God. I know it is hard for trinatarians to understand or believe that Mormons believe in the “only true God.” (John 17:3). God the Eternal Father is my one true God and Jesus is my Lord and they will be so through all eternity.

“But to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

I don’t think this is mormon view or better it is missing something in your statement.
One God for our world, or better for our universe not the only one God. If not, what about the Father of God Ethernal Father, since for mormon doctrine He had one.
Why mormon want to make it sound Christian?
Just answer this question: is our God’s father another Ethernal Father?

 

[ParkerD]

How dishonest of you to change what I asked. The link may answer the question you asked but not the question I asked:
Name the philosopher, his philosophy, and how it relates to the trinity.

Until you can answer my question, the “Greek philosopher” is a Mormon myth.

You are not the first Mormon I’ve asked this question but you have a chance at being the first to answer it.

No, I was responding to your question by a link to an article, and disliked your misrepresentation so I didn’t repeat the misrepresentation.

You can read the article. It’s about Aristotle. He was the Greek philosopher, and the “First Cause” creation originated with him.

And I agree that that entire subject may well be a myth for you, but I have seen several Catholics refer to Aristotle and his views as supporting the Catholic belief in the “First Cause” and thus the “Trinity” dwelling outside of the universe and outside of space and time.

'Bye.

 

[RebeccaJ]

And she is absolutly correct. For to me there is only one God. I know it is hard for trinatarians to understand or believe that Mormons believe in the “only true God.” (John 17:3). God the Eternal Father is my one true God and Jesus is my Lord and they will be so through all eternity.

“But to us there is but one God the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

God is not a title that is held by many but for you, only calling one of all those gods, “God”.

There is but one God. Period.

St. Paul, who you have quoted, was teaching pagan converts. He wasn’t teaching them their pagan gods are real, existing gods, but for them they should only recognize the One True God of Christianity as God. He was teaching them that their pagan gods were not gods at all but demons masquerading as gods.

 

[ParkerD]

…
Actually, Parker…you understanding of God is different from what Paul, Peter, John, Stephen and James taught and understood and handed down to true Christianity.

…

Pablope,

Sorry to disappoint you, but the teachings of Paul, Peter, John, Stephen and James are very clear, and the Trinity is not in those teachings–nor would they agree with any of the approaches taken by those who don’t understand the word “Christian” as so readily explained in the New Testament. The word “Christian” pertains to being not only a true believer in Christ, but acting as a follower of Christ acts, from the heart–from a believing and changed heart, and with the Holy Ghost as a part of the ongoing sanctifying experience of their growth in the gospel, as taught by Paul and by Peter and by John and by James.

Stephen described seeing the Son of God, Jesus Christ, standing on the right hand of the Father, which means he also saw the Father and knew that he was seeing the Father, and also had the Holy Ghost with him as described in that experience.