Views on Mormonism?

[bz5]

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

bz5: Why do you say that? I’m thinking of Jesus in Matthew 16:18 establishing a church, or the church being called the “pillar and foundation of truth,” or Jesus telling people with a dispute to go to their brother …with the church being the final authority in the matter. It all points to a physical, visible church with authority. But even if you are certain ‘church’ did mean merely some like-minded people, wouldn’t you have proven too much? Again, Joseph Smith did believe that such a church existed and that he was restoring it.

QUOTE by ParkerD: 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.

bz5:We Catholics would agree with the idea of sincere people doing their best to follow God being blessed. I believe a big reason you (LDS) are baptized in proxy for the deceased is that you want them to be saved in the next world. But Catholics believe in baptism of desire - if the kind of person you described above dies without baptism, we believe God saves them anyway - had they known the necessity of baptism, they would have done it.

Sorry about the text - I didn’t know how to put in multiple quotes with my answers in between

 

[mtolympus]

Salt Lake City is a City and yet many know by saying I’m from Salt Lake they understand it to be a city…

Yes, but maybe I’m from New York City. I may not be from Salt Lake but I’m still from a city!

The Catholic Christian Church is the Catholic Church although not always stated so…to say you are not Catholic is to say you are not Christian…

We just say “I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior and try to follow his teachings,” and therefore assume people know we are Christians. I know some people don’t believe this just like some people don’t believe that Catholics are Christians. Really’ it’s just a matter of what is your definition of a Christian.

Since the Catholic Church produced the Bible and we are not Bible alone but rather Bible/Tradition/Magesterium in our teachings and you refer to your fallible interpretation of the Bible, this would equate you as a deranged form of Protestant thought…since Mormons sprung forth from a deranged Protestant…

Joseph Smith was niether deranged nor protestant.

 

[truthsave]

Yes, but maybe I’m from New York City. I may not be from Salt Lake but I’m still from a city!

We just say “I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior and try to follow his teachings,” and therefore assume people know we are Christians. I know some people don’t believe this just like some people don’t believe that Catholics are Christians. Really’ it’s just a matter of what is your definition of a Christian.

…at this point even rational satanism if somebody says it is in name of Jesus is Christian!
No matter what you believe. You can believe gravity doesn’t exists, if you jump out from the fifth floor gravity doesn’t care if you believe in it or not! It is there. Like the truth. Truth is not what we feel to be true, but what is true even though we feel cannot be true. It is not a matter of taste, emotions or what is more convenient to believe.
I don’t think it is so difficult to understand…

 

[KathleenGee]

It is pretty clear in reference to the Trinity…that Christ begins His ministry at the River Jordan, baptized by St. John, a voice from heaven speaking out, ‘This is My Beloved Son…’ and the Holy Spirit in the shape of a dove…

Which the Mormons have been told over and over again…

The answer to the Holy Trinity is founded very well with the teaching of St. Athanasius…who the Mormons are now using to prove their idea of becoming gods…St. Athanasius said Christ is of the same substance with the Father – divine…Christ in spirit but taking on human form at the Incarnation.

This Advent, English speaking Catholics are going back to the original Latin wording…we will be using new Missalettes…much like the Latin to English we prayed at Mass when I was a child.

I am afraid that no matter what you say, what documents and writings you present, the Mormons will deny and deflect…they have a different way of looking at things. Soren explains it well on the new post, ‘Theosis’.

 

[CopticChristian]

Yes, but maybe I’m from New York City. I may not be from Salt Lake but I’m still from a city!

We just say “I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that we believe in Jesus Christ as our Savior and try to follow his teachings,” and therefore assume people know we are Christians. I know some people don’t believe this just like some people don’t believe that Catholics are Christians. Really’ it’s just a matter of what is your definition of a Christian.

Joseph Smith was niether deranged nor protestant.

Joseph Smith’s mother was a Presbyterian, Joseph Smith’s wife was a Methodist. Joseph Smith attended some Methodist services and his father was a Bible thumper. This sounds pretty Protestant to me. Deranged is what his teachings are and they sound deranged to me.

 

[mtolympus]

…at this point even rational satanism if somebody says it is in name of Jesus is Christian!
No matter what you believe. You can believe gravity doesn’t exists, if you jump out from the fifth floor gravity doesn’t care if you believe in it or not! It is there. Like the truth. Truth is not what we feel to be true, but what is true even though we feel cannot be true. It is not a matter of taste, emotions or what is more convenient to believe.
I don’t think it is so difficult to understand…

I will never be a Christian according your definition because I am not a Catholic nor a Trinitarian, that is fine. But I am a Christian according to Webster Dictionary and according to the Bible, Acts 11:26. It is a matter of who is difining the term. I don’t think that is so hard to understand.

 

[mtolympus]

Joseph Smith’s mother was a Presbyterian, Joseph Smith’s wife was a Methodist. Joseph Smith attended some Methodist services and his father was a Bible thumper. This sounds pretty Protestant to me.

I guess that means we are Christians after all!

 

[truthsave]

I will never be a Christian according your definition because I am not a Catholic nor a Trinitarian, that is fine. But I am a Christian according to Webster Dictionary and according to the Bible, Acts 11:26. It is a matter of who is difining the term. I don’t think that is so hard to understand.

there is something that you forget when you talk about Act 11:26
They were following Christ’s teaching, you mormon follow what you think is Christ’s teaching through Joseph Smith. It is not the same thing! You are confusing that in Act was Peter with ohter who really met Jesus, and that Joseph Smith just claimed it. It is more credible if I know somebody from his life then from a supposed apparition or revelation.
This can be applied to St. Paul. But St. Paul experience of Christ had to meet the confrontation of the experience who really met Christ in person.
So for me it is hard to believe your point. It is “justificational”.
If Joseph Smith would have talked to Peter about his vision I doubt Peter would have recognized Christ in Smith’s version.
But of course you can believe what makes you feel better.
I just think we are not so pure to consider what we feel the truth to be the truth. I think we average sinners are like daltonians. We cannot rely in our own perception of colours.

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker, and thanks for your reply. The example of St. Stephen that you gave which you believe disproves the Catholic view of the Trinity - would you know if this is a widely accepted view in the LDS?

Denise,

Yes, the example of that passage about Stephen is commonly cited, and disproves the Catholic view of the Trinity, except for those who explain away the simple concept of the Father being seen, with His glorified body, and the Son being seen, with His glorified body. It means that when Jesus said He was like His Father, He meant it.

LDS is so different than Catholicism, in that mormons seem to be allowed to have private interpretations of many aspects of the LDS faith. Please correct me if I’m wrong about that.

I would say that the words “a few aspects” would be more correct.

Also, I looked through St. Stephen’s testimony last evening, but I couldn’t find where he said anything about the Holy Ghost testifying truth to individuals. Could you point out where this is?

Acts 7:51 is specific about the Jewish leaders and about “as your fathers did, so do ye.” That is talking about individuals and their receiving a testimony of truth, or not–because they resisted the Holy Ghost, and thus didn’t believe in Jesus Christ who had fulfilled the prophecy of Moses as Stephen cited as recorded in Acts 7:37 and 52. It was all the more important because Stephen was talking to the Jewish leaders, and they of course were supposed to know the scriptures and the promises, and supposed to heed the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord and lead the Jews in the way of truth.

I’m not trying to disprove what you say; I’m just trying to understand the Mormon view at this time. Also, how aware where the Jews at that time that the Holy Ghost exists - do you happen to know? I don’t know anything about that.

They were aware of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the “still small voice”, in their scriptural heritage, and would have been able to relate those teachings to the term used by the Savior of the “Holy Ghost”, or “Holy Spirit”. See for example Mark 12:36 about a prophecy of David which Jesus was teaching that David “said by the Holy Ghost”.

 

[ParkerD]

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

Hi, bz5,

'Hope you are well.

You may be familiar that Latter-day Saints believe that when Jesus said “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter…” (John 3:5) that He wasn’t making exceptions, and thus baptism for the dead is very much necessary for the opportunity for its acceptance to be offered to those who didn’t have the full opportunity. My family has had personal experiences to know that there are impressions given from ancestors to find them and have their temple work completed, and we (including I with research I have been blessed to be able to do) have been led to indeed find the necessary record about them.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, Thomas Aquinas relied upon Aristotle to develop a distinctly Christian philosophy of the First Cause and Prime Mover. Thomas lived centuries after the trinitarian dogma was first propounded. My original question still stands, Parker. Your assumption is that trinitarianism came from Aristotle. If true, this development must have occurred prior to the 3rd Century (of course, we know trinitarianism is part of the Christian Revelation, but let’s explore your position further and assume, for the sake of argument, that it is not). Can you demonstrate this development with documentary evidence and name the Christian philosopher(s) who is/are responsible? Or is this development just an assumption on your part?

NewSeeker,

I suppose one could call it an assumption. As you are probably aware, the word that became translated to “Trinity” was not in use before 150 AD or so. The words of the Nicene Creed, being non-Biblical in the very important description of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, shows that there was a development of what you called a “dogma”.

I looked today at an article by Stephen Robinson in the LDS Ensign magazine that discussed the Greek philosophy influence on the Trinitarian doctrine. But it doesn’t “name the Christian philosopher responsible”–it’s just evident in the outcome.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I believe that both Catholics and Mormons agree on one thing, that Stephen was a martyr.

Mormons define “martyr” differently so I don’t know if that is saying much.

Debby Downers? I don’t know what that means, but I’m sure that is not the worst name we have been called. Maybe we are making some progress!

Debbie Downer is a name of a fictional Saturday Night Live character which debuted in 2004, and who was portrayed by Rachel Dratch. In Debbie’s first appearance, she is given the last name Matousek.

The character’s name is a slang phrase which refers to someone who frequently adds bad news and negative feelings to a gathering, thus bringing down the mood of everyone around them. Dratch’s character would usually appear at social gatherings and interrupt the conversation to voice negative opinions and pronouncements. She is especially concerned about the rate of Feline AIDS, a subject that she would bring up on more than one occasion.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debbie_Downer

Mormons are especially concerned about a mythical great apostasy.

 

[Denise1957]

Denise,

Yes, the example of that passage about Stephen is commonly cited, and disproves the Catholic view of the Trinity, except for those who explain away the simple concept of the Father being seen, with His glorified body, and the Son being seen, with His glorified body. It means that when Jesus said He was like His Father, He meant it.

I would say that the words “a few aspects” would be more correct.

Acts 7:51 is specific about the Jewish leaders and about “as your fathers did, so do ye.” That is talking about individuals and their receiving a testimony of truth, or not–because they resisted the Holy Ghost, and thus didn’t believe in Jesus Christ who had fulfilled the prophecy of Moses as Stephen cited as recorded in Acts 7:37 and 52. It was all the more important because Stephen was talking to the Jewish leaders, and they of course were supposed to know the scriptures and the promises, and supposed to heed the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord and lead the Jews in the way of truth.

They were aware of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, the “still small voice”, in their scriptural heritage, and would have been able to relate those teachings to the term used by the Savior of the “Holy Ghost”, or “Holy Spirit”. See for example Mark 12:36 about a prophecy of David which Jesus was teaching that David “said by the Holy Ghost”.

I probably didn’t make my question clear earlier regarding St. Stephen, and why he is so important to Mormons in relation to what you said about St. Stephen emphasizing the importance of the Holy Ghost as a testifyer of truth to individual people. I can’t see that St. Stephen emphasizes the Holy Ghost as a testifying of truth to individual people. that’s what I was looking for. St. Stephen of course relates that the Jewish leaders are resisting the Holy Ghost, but he does not place an emphasis specifically the testifying of truth to individuals by the Holy Ghost.

Is it that Mormons see an importance to ‘individual’ truths being given to people by the Holy Ghost? Because I’m not seeing that St. Stephen is relating or emphasizing individualism at all.

 

[mtolympus]

Mormons define “martyr” differently so I don’t know if that is saying much.

Oh Rebecca, I was trying to say something uplifting and positive here. Don’t be a Debbie Downer!

 

[mtolympus]

there is something that you forget when you talk about Act 11:26
They were following Christ’s teaching, you mormon follow what you think is Christ’s teaching through Joseph Smith. It is not the same thing!

Niether you or I will ever prove which of us is really following Christ’s teachings. However, the non-believers of Antioch likely knew little about Christ’s teachings when they called the disciples of Jesus “Christians”. You prove from the Bible that the disciples were called “Catholics”, and I will prove from the Bible that they were called “Saints.” We will then know whether Catholics or Latter-day Saints are the real Christians.

 

[Miriam1947]

Hi, bz5,

'Hope you are well.

You may be familiar that Latter-day Saints believe that when Jesus said “except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter…” (John 3:5) that He wasn’t making exceptions, and thus baptism for the dead is very much necessary for the opportunity for its acceptance to be offered to those who didn’t have the full opportunity. My family has had personal experiences to know that there are impressions given from ancestors to find them and have their temple work completed, and we (including I with research I have been blessed to be able to do) have been led to indeed find the necessary record about them.

Parker this is beyond hypocritical. Your group baptized priests!! You’ve baptized Pope John Paul II six times!! That is outrageous.

 

[Miriam1947]

Niether you or I will ever prove which of us is really following Christ’s teachings. However, the non-believers of Antioch likely knew little about Christ’s teachings when they called the disciples of Jesus “Christians”. You prove from the Bible that the disciples were called “Catholics”, and I will prove from the Bible that they were called “Saints.” We will then know whether Catholics or Latter-day Saints are the real Christians.

The saints in the Bible have absolutely no relation to your present name. Latter-day Saints is a way to quietly renounce Mormonism as the name of your religion.

 

[Miriam1947]

Parker this is beyond hypocritical. Your group baptized priests!! You’ve baptized Pope John Paul II six times!! That is outrageous.

salamandersociety.com/temple/mormon_jewish_temple_baptism/pope_john_paul_II_mormon.pdf

salamandersociety.com/temple/mormon_jewish_temple_baptism/

 

[mtolympus]

The saints in the Bible have absolutely no relation to your present name. Latter-day Saints is a way to quietly renounce Mormonism.

The term Saints in the Bible was what members of Jesus’ church called themselves. Many of Pauls epistles were addressed to the “Saints.” I realize that the term has a very different meaning in you church today. The name of our church, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe was received by revelation. The term Latter-day Saints was to distiguish members of Jesus’ latter-day church from members of His church of New Testament times.
The name “Mormons” was given to Latter-day Saints by non-members, much in the same way that the name “Christians” was given to the former Saints by non-believers.

 

[ParkerD]

I probably didn’t make my question clear earlier regarding St. Stephen, and why he is so important to Mormons in relation to what you said about St. Stephen emphasizing the importance of the Holy Ghost as a testifyer of truth to individual people. I can’t see that St. Stephen emphasizes the Holy Ghost as a testifying of truth to individual people. that’s what I was looking for. St. Stephen of course relates that the Jewish leaders are resisting the Holy Ghost, but he does not place an emphasis specifically the testifying of truth to individuals by the Holy Ghost.

Is it that Mormons see an importance to ‘individual’ truths being given to people by the Holy Ghost? Because I’m not seeing that St. Stephen is relating or emphasizing individualism at all.

Denise,

What the Jewish leaders had missed out on is understanding Moses’ prophecy, which they should have understood by hearkening to the Holy Ghost, and that prophecy was the prophecy about the “prophet like unto Moses”, who was Jesus Christ. The Holy Ghost testifies of the reality of Jesus Christ. Just because Stephen said “ye” doesn’t mean he wasn’t addressing each individual there–on the contrary, he was addressing each individual there.

Yes, Latter-day Saints do see an importance to individual truths being given to people by the Holy Ghost, the most important of which is the knowledge that Jesus is the living Christ, the Son of the living God, and that He fulfilled or will yet fulfill all the Messianic prophecies including of His coming to reign on earth in the Millennium.