Views on Mormonism?

[ParkerD]

I did a search on LDS.com and found the Gospel Principles Manual on there. I found that same description…

Telstar,

If you read the post provided by Paul as the quoted Gospel Essentials manual, and the following from the current manual that was revised and is being studied in Relief Society and priesthood quorum meetings last year and this year, then there is a change which one can compare and see the change:

Blessings of Exaltation
• What are some blessings that will be given to those who are exalted?

Our Heavenly Father is perfect, and He glories in the fact that it is possible for His children to become like Him. His work and glory is “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39).

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76:62).

1. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

1. They will be united eternally with their righteous family members and will be able to have eternal increase.

1. They will receive a fulness of joy.

1. They will have everything that our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have—all power, glory, dominion, and knowledge (see D&C 132:19–20). President Joseph Fielding Smith wrote: “The Father has promised through the Son that all that he has shall be given to those who are obedient to His commandments. They shall increase in knowledge, wisdom, and power, going from grace to grace, until the fulness of the perfect day shall burst upon them” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols. [1954–56], 2:36; italics in original).

As far as the idea of “milk before meat”, what Paul was writing about was indeed quite applicable on this thread, but it doesn’t have the connotation that has been used. Here is the quotation from 1 Corinthians 3, from Paul:

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

 

[hosemonkey]

Yes, I am quite aware of all you have stated. My point is that there we are under no moral obligation to obey laws that directly contradict the laws of God. If polygamy was, indeed, a law given by God to Joseph Smith, then we must assume that if he did away with it for the purpose of compliance with human laws then He has made Himself subject to human laws. To believe that God gave a “new revelation” for this reason is ludicrous.

Agreed. If God had truly mandated polygamy as necessary for salvation, then those practitioners would have suffered death rather than give up the practice. I believe though, that Joseph Smith practiced polygamy to satisfy his own unnatural lusts and to bind his male followers more closely to him by controlling their access to females. Joseph Smith had this “revelation” all on his own, God did not have anything to do with it. Just as God had nothing to do with the abolition of earthly polygamy when statehood became the issue.

 

[hosemonkey]

Telstar,

If you read the post provided by Paul as the quoted Gospel Essentials manual, and the following from the current manual that was revised and is being studied in Relief Society and priesthood quorum meetings last year and this year, then there is a change which one can compare and see the change:

 

[SteveVH]

So, why was the change necessary? Has mormon “doctrine” changed yet again?

 

[hosemonkey]

D’accord. True doctrine does not change like styles of handbags nor is it added to or subtracted from. If it is the truth, it stands on it’s own. It may be expounded upon or explained more clearly, but it never changes. Ever thought about loose-leaf notebooks, mormons?

 

[CalChristian]

it’s a little strange how I see a lot of Catholics said “Mormons are not Christians!” and then they whine and complain when Protestants say that about them. I’m Catholic but hey, who am I to judge?

That’s just my two cents. :twocents:

David

I think it’s worth at least a dime.

.

 

[CalChristian]

hosemonkey;8555219:

An interesting comparison would be to look at all of the catechisms that the Catholic Church has published over the years and try to find even one change in basic doctrine. Our current “Catechism of the Cathoic Church” is, to date, the most comprehensive gathering of Catholic doctrine and belief that we possess. But it has not changed anything that we have believed for 2000 years and one will not find any conflict with prior catechisms.

Nearly every morning, I have cooked oatmeal for breakfast. But today, for some reason, I felt like pancakes. Probably because I had some buttermilk (I made biscuits last night) and I very RARELY do. Knowing I had such in the refrig made me think of pancakes…

I took a bowl.
I added to it 2 eggs (lightly beaten)
THEN I added 2 cups (a bit more) of buttermilk.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 tablespoons of melted butter.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 cups of flour
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 teaspoons of baking powder
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 4 tablespoons of sugar
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added a bit of salt
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?

To agrue, as my Catholic teachers did, that Catholic teachings have never changed, it is necessary to show that my 800 page Catechism existed in the same form in 31 AD. This, however, is not the case. It MAY be that nothing taught in 31 AD is taught differently today (a point I won’t argue since there’s no way to know what was taught in 31 AD), but to admit, “We’ve ADDED much” is an admission that what is taught has been changed. IMO, to argue otherwise is simply not honest (and Protestants pick up on it immediately).

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Manualman,

If I may make a suggestion…

But by that principle, I can invent a new and novel religious system myself and proclaim that catholics, protestants AND Mormons are all apostates and that only I have the revealed truth of God. At some point, you have to examine factual credibility.

If you do decide to go this route … use platinum tablets to write your revelations on … gold has already been used!

God bless

 

[SteveVH]

Nearly every morning, I have cooked oatmeal for breakfast. But today, for some reason, I felt like pancakes. Probably because I had some buttermilk (I made biscuits last night) and I very RARELY do. Knowing I had such in the refrig made me think of pancakes…

I took a bowl.
I added to it 2 eggs (lightly beaten)
THEN I added 2 cups (a bit more) of buttermilk.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 tablespoons of melted butter.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 cups of flour
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 teaspoons of baking powder
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 4 tablespoons of sugar
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added a bit of salt
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?

To agrue, as my Catholic teachers did, that Catholic teachings have never changed, it is necessary to show that my 800 page Catechism existed in the same form in 31 AD. This, however, is not the case. It MAY be that nothing taught in 31 AD is taught differently today (a point I won’t argue since there’s no way to know what was taught in 31 AD), but to admit, “We’ve ADDED much” is an admission that what is taught has been changed. IMO, to argue otherwise is simply not honest (and Protestants pick up on it immediately).

Your argument is just silly. As you very well know we received the fullness of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. The fact that one may expound upon a truth after contemplating and studying this truth over a 2000 year period does not change that truth, it simply helps us understand it. We have added to our understading of revealed truth, we have not changed it. In order for your argument to hold water you will have to show where any doctrine of the Church has changed, not that the exact wording of the Catechism did not exist in 31 A.D. (It would have to be 33 A.D., by the way, as Christ had not fully revealed himself unitl after his resurrection.)

In other words, Christ gave us the pancake, not the recipe. We didn’t make it. Studying it and breaking it down into its various ingredients does not change the pancake, only our understanding of how it was made.

 

[CalChristian]

CalChristian:

Nearly every morning, I have cooked oatmeal for breakfast. But today, for some reason, I felt like pancakes. Probably because I had some buttermilk (I made biscuits last night) and I very RARELY do. Knowing I had such in the refrig made me think of pancakes…

I took a bowl.
I added to it 2 eggs (lightly beaten)
THEN I added 2 cups (a bit more) of buttermilk.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?

Then I added 2 tablespoons of melted butter.
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 cups of flour
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 2 teaspoons of baking powder
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added 4 tablespoons of sugar
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?
Then I added a bit of salt
QUESTION: DId the contents of the bowl CHANGE?

To agrue, as my Catholic teachers did, that Catholic teachings have never changed, it is necessary to show that my 800 page Catechism existed in the same form in 31 AD. This, however, is not the case. It MAY be that nothing taught in 31 AD is taught differently today (a point I won’t argue since there’s no way to know what was taught in 31 AD), but to admit, “We’ve ADDED much” is an admission that what is taught has been changed. IMO, to argue otherwise is simply not honest (and Protestants pick up on it immediately).

.

Your argument is just silly.

…you didn’t answer the questions.

To ADD to something is to CHANGE it.
Obviously. Undeniably.

Christ gave us the pancake, not the recipe.

Then the burden of proof is for you to show that all 2,875 points of my Catechism were taught in 33 AD. As such. Good luck.

.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CalChristian,

I hope the pancakes turned out to your liking…

As I see it you probably had better results with the actual pancakes then you did with the analogy you attempted… let me explain …

To agrue, as my Catholic teachers did, that Catholic teachings have never changed, it is necessary to show that my 800 page Catechism existed in the same form in 31 AD. This, however, is not the case. It MAY be that nothing taught in 31 AD is taught differently today (a point I won’t argue since there’s no way to know what was taught in 31 AD), but to admit, “We’ve ADDED much” is an admission that what is taught has been changed. IMO, to argue otherwise is simply not honest (and Protestants pick up on it immediately). .

Here is what was tuaght in 33AD and is taught to this day.

Christ founded His Chruch on Peter and gave him full authority with the Keys (Matt 16:18) and Peter’s current Successor is Benedict XVI. Christ also promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church - and that would be the Catholic Churhc - so that no doctrinal error would ever be taught (John 14 - 16).

John 6 - Christ taught that we must eat His Flesh if we are to have life in us - Catholics believe this today and every celebration of the Eucharist is a focus on this Sacrament of Christ being physically present on the altar. That was taught in 33AD and continues to be taught to this day.

John 20:21 - Christ delegated the Power to men to forgive sin - a Power up to that time totally reserved to God. This is the Sacrement that was established after Christ’s Resurrection and is still in effect today. Sinners go to the Priest for God’s Grace of forgiveness.

Matthew 28:16-20 - Christ commanded that we go out and preach the Good News and baptize all nations in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is the Sacrament of Baptism and this is done for every Catholic from 33AD to today.

To continue on with your pancake analogy … after your pancakes were made,
Did you put the pancakes on a plate?
Did the pancakes CHANGE?
Did you put butter on the pancakes?
Did the pancakes CHANGE?
Did you put syrup on the pancakes?
Did the pancakes CHANGE?
Did you have coffee with your pancake breakfast?
Did the pancakes CHANGE?

Maybe if you viewd the cooked pancakes as the fullness of divine revelation,it may make it easier to understand that there has been no change in Catholic teaching.

God bless

 

[SteveVH]

…you didn’t answer the questions.

To ADD to something is to CHANGE it.
Obviously. Undeniably.

Then the burden of proof is for you to show that all 2,875 points of my Catechism were taught in 33 AD. As such. Good luck.

Do you think we might have a better understanding of the human brain then we did 2000 years ago? Does that mean that the human brain changed or that our understanding of it has deepened? Give me a break. The truths we believe in today are the same truths revealed to us 2000 years ago. They have not changed, period. Your argument is nothing but a straw man and not a very good one.

Do you want me to admit that the Catechism of the Catholic Church did not exist in 33 A.D. You’ve certainly got me there. I’ll do you one better. It didn’t exist prior to 1993. So what? Your Bible didn’t exist in 33 A.D. either. Does that mean that the revelation received from Christ changed?

Again, please show me a Catholic doctrine that has changed. You cannot.

 

[KathleenGee]

Zag,

Thank you very much for your sharing…So many years ago, we went to Salt Lake City to check things out, as the company was really encouraging my husband to go there.

I decided to call St. Olaf’s, and asked the priest if there was a concern that my children would be pressured on becoming Mormons. He said yes that would happen. When we got back home, my son’s first grade teacher came from SLC, part of the Catholic community centered at the Madeleine and the Dominican St. Catherine Siena center. She in the strongest terms advised absolutely not to go there, and that we as a family would be pressured all the time to become Mormons.

We really liked the Madeleine, and met a very nice priest there. That is where my four year old was given the Eucharist, mistakenly by the priest…and my son’s eyes got so wide…‘Mom, there was so much power!!’…I would have made it my parish if we did go.

I later worked with a Mormon professional here in town and liked him very much. But he was into these deals of making money on the side…and that is where I met some of his Mormon friends. I liked them, and this one particular man whose father was a bishop, and as a family they had visited the Vatican and spoke very nicely about it.

The work ended and most of them moved out of state. I went to the Deseret bookstore by the Temple and then encountered some older materials. It got me to look at Mormonism on line. I also went to a program to study about grants…and it was headed by someone from Salt Lake City. I decided not to go into it, alot of emphasis on making the money, like the Mormons I had met…it very important to have nice cars and houses. I read several articles, as well as aware of a Mormon ward, where people were pulled into a ponzi scheme, and yes, these articles traced most Ponzi schemes back to Utah. Another from 2001, was how the highest use of Prozac was in Utah among its women.

 

[KathleenGee]

Switch and bait is what Mormon ’ wisdom’ is when dealing with Gentiles…many have said that what they are initially told what Mormonism is, come in and are quickly baptized within 6 months, and then after they are ‘in’, they are then told what the real beliefs are.

Mormon ‘wisdom’ is more about the tact used to draw people into Mormonism, because the truth would shock them and they want the transition to be smooth and with the least bumps…this wisdom being ‘charitable’.

It also reflects on how the Eve’s tasting the ‘Forbidden Fruit’ of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil’ in Mormon interpretation…is that Eve was actually wanting ‘wisdom’ like the gods had. Such ‘wisdom’, according to God, would lead to death.

Yet God also showed Adam and Eve the Tree of Life among those they could eat.

Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit and their eyes were opened and what they saw was their nakedness, and hid themselves.

On the Road to Emmaus, the Catholic emphasis is not the Mormon’s ‘burning in the bosom’, but the apostle and follower having their eyes, once blinded by the sin of Adam and Eve, now opened by Christ Himself to understand the depths of Scripture.

So if people believe they have the truth, then they should be convinced as well that they can bring forward their full beliefs, and not just half of them as that is being ‘wise’. I don’t think we can consider that wise, but not totally honest.

 

[truthsave]

Now I have realized one thing: in mormonism there is nothing to learn; is a progression from a lie to another lie that before changement is considered truth.

May the Lord bless you all.

 

[Chipper]

1. They will become gods (see D&C 132:20–23).

.

I thought these last few threads were about becoming gods.

Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

**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: so 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 in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Well, I must admit, that I have learned something here. I never knew the CCC said anything like this???

Does this mean the Catholic Church is in agreement with the LDS on this matter?

 

[Telstar]

Telstar,

If you read the post provided by Paul as the quoted Gospel Essentials manual, and the following from the current manual that was revised and is being studied in Relief Society and priesthood quorum meetings last year and this year, then there is a change which one can compare and see the change:

As far as the idea of “milk before meat”, what Paul was writing about was indeed quite applicable on this thread, but it doesn’t have the connotation that has been used. Here is the quotation from 1 Corinthians 3, from Paul:

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able.

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Paul’s reference is the reason that the Catholic Church doesn’t Baptize any potential convert until they are taught the most important doctrines that must at least be somewhat understood, and fully believed by all Catholics. They’re taught about things like Baptism, the Mass, the Creed, the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, the other Sacraments, as well as giving them at least some understanding of what the Communion of Saints means to a Catholic, along with many other things. They are all taught to them through weekly discussions over an extended period of time (usually from September to the Easter Vigil in RCIA).

The Church doesn’t withhold any critical beliefs from those studying the Faith, because it doesn’t want to mislead anyone into joining before they’re ready to fully accept those most important doctrines. If they can’t fully accept and believe them, then they’re not ready to be Baptized as Catholics. It’s always left up to the individual with no pressure for them to hurry. Sometimes, even though they might still be unsure about some things, they may decide to ‘take the plunge’ based on their determination that they really want to be Catholic. But, if they still have serious questions or doubts, they can just continue to study as long as it takes for them to be able to make a full commitment to the Church. Even if it takes another year, that’s not a problem.

When Paul was writing to the Corinthians, he was once again (as usual) admonishing them that they were still looking at the teachings of Jesus from a very ‘carnal’ (earthly) viewpoint. They were looking at it all, and living, in the ways of this physical world. You have to remember that they were mostly pagans, that had to shed their old misunderstandings about who God really is, and that took a lot more time to accomplish. Their understanding of spiritual things was severely lacking. They were still unable to fully grasp the true spiritual meaning of all that he, and others, had been teaching them. As a result, he had to teach them much more slowly (milk before meat) because they were still not capable of accepting the deeper, more spiritual side, of all those things. They were still trying to apply the ‘things of the spirit’ to this physical world, and that never works well.

Joseph Smith’s understanding of spiritual things was very much like the Corinthians, because he couldn’t grasp the difference between the physical and spiritual worlds, either. It’s very obvious in all of his writings, as well as what I see in the doctrines of the LDS. He tried to find a practical, earthly explanation for all kinds of things that have nothing to do with our physical existence on this earth. His definition of God is the first and biggest clue that he had little to no understanding of the spiritual realms, whatsoever. That’s the biggest difference between LDS and most of Christianity, especially the Catholic Church. Our Faith is built primarily on the spirituality of Jesus Christ and His teachings, while Mormonism is based more on the practical ‘realities’ of living according to the workings of this physical world. Joseph Smith tried to understand everything that’s supposed to be strictly spiritual, with his perception of the way things work in this world. So, he created his own version of how he thought God works and what Jesus came to accomplish, but he totally missed the mark by a long-shot.

BTW, thanks for making my previous point for me.

 

[SteveVH]

I thought these last few threads were about becoming gods.

Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

**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: so 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 in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.”

Well, I must admit, that I have learned something here. I never knew the CCC said anything like this???

Does this mean the Catholic Church is in agreement with the LDS on this matter?

No. The difference is between “theosis” (the Catholic view) and “exaltation” (the Mormon view). In the Catholic view, we become “partakers” in God’s divinity. He raises us up from our human nature to share in his divine nature. The Mormon position is that we possess our divine nature in and of ourselves. They make no distinction between the nature of God (divine) and the nature of man (human). The Mormon position is that we are not created by God, rather we are co-eternal with him and consist of the same nature; God is simply an exalted human being and we will become just like him through progression. As Catholics, our partaking in God’s divinity means that we will become one with him and share in the life of the Trinity as his adopted sons and daughters, not that we will become God independently of him, with our own universe to rule over, complete with our own spirit children who will take on human form and worship us. Remember, when they say they believe in one God, that is only relative to this universe. They believe in other gods who rule over their own universes as well. So to answer your question, we are not even close in our understanding of “becoming like God”.

 

[hosemonkey]

No. The difference is between “theosis”

(the Catholic view) and “exaltation” (the Mormon view). In the Catholic view, we become “partakers” in God’s divinity. He raises us up from our human nature to share in his divine nature. The Mormon position is that we possess our divine nature in and of ourselves. They make no distinction between the nature of God (divine) and the nature of man (human). The Mormon position is that we are not created by God, rather we are co-eternal with him and consist of the same nature; God is simply an exalted human being and we will become just like him through progression. As Catholics, our partaking in God’s divinity means that we will become one with him and share in the life of the Trinity as his adopted sons and daughters, not that we will become God independently of him, with our own universe to rule over, complete with our own spirit children who will take on human form and worship us. Remember, when they say they believe in one God, that is only relative to this universe. They believe in other gods who rule over their own universes as well. So to answer your question, we are not even close in our understanding of “becoming like God”.

Excellent answer.

 

[SteveVH]

Excellent answer.

If you would like it explained much better than I have I would suggest reading any of Soren1’s comments on the differences in our views. There is a thread entitled “theosis and exaltation” (I think, at least its close to that) that goes into great depth by people immensley more qualified than I.

But thanks for your kind words.