Views on Mormonism?

[Telstar]

Are you trying to suggest that any mortal man has/had more power or authority than Jesus Christ? It is His priesthood that all men act in, therefore nobody holds a higher station in that priesthood than He does.

When Jesus walked the earth, He humbly subjected Himself to all existing men of authority that all other men of that time were subject to, including the High Priest and Pontius Pilate, even though He knew that He held full authority over the whole of creation, as God.

Why is the nature of God of any relevance to whether we should follow His teachings? All we really need to know is that He exists, and what His will is. The outcome will be the same for us in the end, whatever His nature.

Because the nature of the true God is completely different than that of any of His creatures. If you have no interest in understanding or at least recognizing what that difference is, then you may never know Who God really is. As a result, you can never be really sure how to do His will, instead of your own, no matter how much you might think you can. If you have no real interest in getting to know the real Him, why would you ever think He’d want to know the real you?

We invite all to come to Christ.
All of our teachings are centred on Jesus Christ
The Book of Mormon mentions Jesus Christ more often than the Bible does

I call BS on that last remark. Search on LDS.org: “Jesus Christ” in the Book of Mormon: (128) results (not all of which include the name “Jesus”)

Search of the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible: 535 results (272 of them include both the name and title, either as “Jesus Christ”, “Christ Jesus” or with them used separately within the same sentence or passage): with 8 more mentions of “Christ” in the Old Testament for a total of 543.

Yes, there is some logic and reason to how you interpret scripture: but logic and reason alone can produce many different interpretations, and they have done for many years: if logic and reason had only one possible outcome, there would be only one denomination and one church. As it is there are some 38000 Christian denominations alone…

And, only one of them is the Original, True, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that has been in existence for 2000 years, while the rest are all those that splintered off due to the failure of certain people to continue in following the truth.

 

[Tony888]

this hosemonkey knows the difference between the leader of the world’s two billion Catholics and the successor of St. Peter and a convicted felon who died in a gunfight after killing two men with a smuggled pistol. Sorry, but Joseph Smith is not in the same league as the Holy Father, despite your fond beliefs.

 

[pablope]

As pointed out by myself and others, this is not at all what we believe.

Yes, there is some logic and reason to how you interpret scripture: but logic and reason alone can produce many different interpretations, and they have done for many years: if logic and reason had only one possible outcome, there would be only one denomination and one church. As it is there are some 38000 Christian denominations alone…

.

Aren’t you aware of Sola Scriptua and private interpretation…started by the Reformation in the 1500s?

The LDS is one of those denominations…spawned by private interpretation of scriptures…in addition to your own addition to Scriptures.

Have you not heard of the other wanna be prophets and what they spawned…like Ellen G White and the 7th day adventists…the JWs and Charles Taze Russell? (to name just a few)…David Koresh? Rev. Jim Jones?

Read up on Martin Luther, john Calvin, Zwingli…and the Reformation.

 

[hosemonkey]

Regardless of the number, Pope Benedict the sixteenth is still leader of the largest Christian Church in the world, the successor of St. Peter and Joseph Smith is still a convicted felon who died in a gunfight.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Joseph Smith in "Times and Seasons, vol 5. p.615 reprinted in History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 310-11:

 "...the soul, the mind of man, the immortal spirit.  All men say God created it in the beginning.  the very idea lessens man in my estimation.  I do not believe the doctrine.  I know better...I am going to tell of things more noble....

The mind of man is as immortal as God himself…God never did have the power to create the spirit of man at all."

Simply breathtaking!

The book of Abraham mentions “the noble and great ones” in the “preexistence” - apparently these are born into the world as “Mormons”. Those “less noble” were born as Blacks. Bruce McConkie rambles on about the anti-Black doctrines. Although prior to 1833 not much is mentioned at all about Blacks, but early Mormons had neighbors with slaves.

O. Kendall White, Jr. stated in the Journal of Religious Thought, Autumn-Winter, 1973, pp.57-58 (and this was six years before the “prophet” Spencer Kimball “received” the revelation allowing Blacks into priesthood)

 "Since they believe in "continuing revelation," Mormons have a mechanism that enables them to reverse previous positions without repudiating the past....That the Church will invoke such a mechanism to resolve the racial issue is not too unlikely...this approach has a serious drawback.  It is the tendency not to acknowledge the errors of the past.  While a revelation could be used to legitimate a new racial policy and to redefine Mormon relations with black people, Mormons might still be unwilling to condemn the racism involved in their history.   They might be inclined to argue that Mormons in earlier periods were under a different mandate than the one binding them.  This obviously implies that the church is never wrong.  Thus, change may come through the notion of continuing revelation, but the racist aspects of Mormon history will not necessarily be condemned."

A mechanism of convenience indeed.

Has the LDS Church ever produced in writing recent “revelations”? Especially Spencer Kimball’s.

Smith published many of his in Doctrines & Covenants and other publications. Publishing a “revelation” from God would give it official standing would it not? If Modern “revelations” contradict one of Smith’s or Young’s, then what? If all revelations are from God directly and but are contradictory, which aspect of a doctrine is right, which is wrong? How can anything be wrong if from God?

 

[zag4Christ]

I am stunned, saddened, and accepting of the multitude of posts dealing with mormonism. I think that I have a insight that is unique. I grew up in the 1960’s and 1970’s in the heart of mormonism. I lived in Bountiful Utah. I went to a Catholic school called St. Olaf’s. It is still there. I do not think that are any Daughters of Charity there now. When I was there, the entire faculty of the school were nuns save one teacher. Father Pollack was the pastor and the guiding force for the school and the parish. Our student body consisted of Catholic kids and all the kids who had been kicked out of the local public schools, which were essentially mormon schools. It was a real learning experience. We wore uniforms. To this day I refuse to wear salt and pepper corduroys, or a grey vest or a red vest. They made us stand out, and on the way to school, we were targets. At the end of 8th grade, for some reason, my mother gave me the option of going to the public schools (mormon), or continuing in the parochial school system. My sisters did not or at least to my knowledge, chose not to go to the public schools. I chose the public (mormon) schools. It was interesting. Several of my classmates also joined me. We were treated as oddities. Because of our educational foundation, the schools were a breeze. Not good! I made many mormon friends. I met a wonderful girl. All abandoned me when we were seniors. My male friends because they had to go on missions. My girl, well, it boiled down to it was either me or the family. I went to USU for college. I soon found out that if you were not mormon, professional school would not be in your future. I met many good mormons, but they were rightly concerned in keeping their whole cultural place intact, that they did things that they did not believe in, simply to be able to continue to hang onto their place in life. It was very stressful, for them especially, but also for me as a young person trying to find my place in life. The priest who was at the Newman Center at USU, told me to remember that there are a lot of good people who happen to be mormon.
My bottom line is that mormonism is one of the most successful cults of all time. Given all of the cults that have afflicted humanity, one could say it is one of the least damaging. But it is a cult. Baptizing for the dead. 7 levels of heaven. Black people are cursed. Living prophets who get things wrong numerous times. I perceive it as a pseudospirtual pyramid scheme. I do not condemn those who get caught up in it, or stay in it, but I do pray for them.
Peace and God Bless, and may Jesus Christ always be the center of your life.

 

[Naf623]

This is exactly what I mean by the misuse of the word “nature.” If by “nature” you meant physis, then these would be incoherent statements. The reason I used the word *physis *over and over again, rather than just “nature,” was to keep it distinct from the alternative ways in which “nature” is used in Mormon theology. Physis encompasses only those characteristics of a subject that can neither come to be nor pass away without that subject being destroyed. You cannot change the *physis *of anything without destroying its old *physis *and creating a new one. Every other kind of change is accidental, even the acquisition of perfections, and that would include immortality. To acquire a new physis would require the human nature to annihilate. *Physis *as such is not subject to progress. Anything that can be attained by progress is outside the boundaries of what the word is able to signify.

I have answered only the last sentences of your post, because they represent the error that runs through your whole argument. The whole point of “physis” is that it is not subject to change. So that you cannot even say “the ressurection is a change to our nature” without commiting a contradiction in terms…

As I pointed out; we are a combination of two parts; our physical, mortal body; and our eternal spirit.
It is necessary for resurrection that our mortal body in its current state suffer death and be destroyed. it is then recreated by God’s power in its new, perfect nature; the full glory of which will depend on our behaviour in life. Everybody’s resurrected body is of flesh & bone, just like God the Father and Jesus Christ’s are.
Our spirit, just like God’s, never changes its nature, and has not since its beginning.

this hosemonkey knows the difference between the leader of the world’s two billion Catholics and the successor of St. Peter and a convicted felon who died in a gunfight after killing two men with a smuggled pistol. Sorry, but Joseph Smith is not in the same league as the Holy Father, despite your fond beliefs.

But as SteveVH pointed out above, when Jesus Christ was on the Earth, the roles of those who previously received revelation on behalf of the people were not in effect as Jesus Himself revealed it. The discussion was not over authority/social position/hierarchical position within the church leadership etc. It was solely to do with who would receive revelation.

I call BS on that last remark. Search on LDS.org: “Jesus Christ” in the Book of Mormon: (128) results (not all of which include the name “Jesus”)

Search of the New Testament of the Douay-Rheims Bible: 535 results (272 of them include both the name and title, either as “Jesus Christ”, “Christ Jesus” or with them used separately within the same sentence or passage): with 8 more mentions of “Christ” in the Old Testament for a total of 543.

I didn’t say that it mentions Him more. I said more often. Look at the number of verses in the Bible vs. book of Mormon, and then you need to compare the number of times He is mentioned; this does not have to be by name(s) alone.
The Book of Mormon comes out at a mention of Christ on average every 2.7 verses.
I can’t find the bible one offhand unfortunately, but will keep looking. I believe it was around 3.1.

And, only one of them is the Original, True, One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that has been in existence for 2000 years, while the rest are all those that splintered off due to the failure of certain people to continue in following the truth.

You know, Judaism has been around much longer; if this is your argument of truth, you’re still in the wrong place.

Have you not heard of the other wanna be prophets and what they spawned…like Ellen G White and the 7th day adventists…the JWs and Charles Taze Russell? (to name just a few)…David Koresh? Rev. Jim Jones?.

Not claiming to be an expert here, but I’m not aware that any of these claimed to be prophets?

Regardless of the number, Pope Benedict the sixteenth is still leader of the largest Christian Church in the world, the successor of St. Peter and Joseph Smith is still a convicted felon who died in a gunfight.

In Columbus’ time the largest portion of people believed the Earth was flat - did that make them right?
In Copernicus’ and Galileo’s times the majority subscribed to a geocentric model of the universe - oddly enough they were wrong also.
Numbers of people who subscribe to a particular belief or opinion doesn’t lend any extra credibility to the claims.

 

[jediliz]

Jesus is the only part of God, part of the TRINITY, who became man. God the Father is NOT a man. God the Holy Spirit is not a man.

Sorry, but Mormonism IS a cult. I have NO interest in becoming a GOD of my own planet. I’d rather be able to go to Heaven and someday be reunited with my grandparents, especially the one I never got to meet. Baptism for the dead is NOT in any document available from the early church. I’ll go with the early writings of the Church fathers like Augustine instead of someone who followed Free Masonry.

 

[Naf623]

Jesus became man.

Christ took upon His divine, Godly spirit a physical body with both divine and human attributes.

God the Father is NOT a man.

In your opinion and belief: although I have no clue where this idea comes from. You’re entitled to hold it, but you’re wrong.

God the Holy Spirit is not a man.

Not a mortal man, no.
He is a spirit, which spirit holds the form of a man.

Baptism for the dead is NOT in any document available from the early church

Letter to the Corinthians? Its there, clear as day.

I’ll go with the early writings of the Church fathers like Augustine

Glad to hear you hold the same opinion on polygamy as we do: Augustine certainly did.

 

[Tony888]

Sorry, but Mormonism IS a cult. I have NO interest in becoming a GOD of my own planet. I’d rather be able to go to Heaven and someday be reunited with my grandparents, especially the one I never got to meet. Baptism for the dead is NOT in any document available from the early church. I’ll go with the early writings of the Church fathers like Augustine instead of someone who followed Free Masonry.

I’m saddened when Catholics find a catchy phrase and just keep repeating it, regardless of the bigotry and hypocrisy.
In fact, here you are proof-texting scripture from the bible and catechism. Using your approach I can state the below:
**

All Catholics expect to be gods and master of their own posh Mansion, located by Christ’ and God’s residence.

**
I know Catholics don’t focus on this, but the scriptural references are there for me to proof-text. (John 14:2 & CCC 460) As a metaphor, one can readily extend God has prepared a place for you from a ‘Mansion’ to one of the trillions of planets in God’s many universes. Net, all you can accuse the LDS of is extending the metaphor in John 14:2 to represent a more modern view of God’s realm.

Any Catholic or LDS who is prideful on how they will be ‘partakers of the divine nature’ and reside in God’s presence is at a minimum exhibiting the sin of pride, not emulating Christ-like humility. I believe they are sadly mistaken that somehow they will ‘fit through the eye of the needle’

 

[Naf623]

Mormonism IS a cult

No more than Catholicism.

ryanbyrd.net/rambleon/2011/11/03/pastor-jeffress-cultist-or-just-dumber-than-a-bag-of-hammers/

Particularly:

But your narrow definition would exclude anyone who:

1. Does not believe in a closed canon of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible.

1. Does not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.

1. Believes in living prophets and apostles as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

1. Believes in continuing revelation from God to man.

I could go on. I’m very familiar with the standard arguments against “Mormonism”.

But the Bible says that believers in Christ were first called Christians at Antioch (Acts 11:26). I would respectfully submit that those Christians:

1. Did not believe in a closed canon of scripture. (some of the New Testament had not yet been written.)

1. Did not accept the Nicene Creed as an accurate description of the nature of God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. (it would not be written for 300 years)

1. Believed in living apostles and prophets as the “foundation” of Christ’s earthly church.

1. Believed in continuing revelation from God to man.

So if you’re going to say that Mitt and I are not Christians based on those reasons, you’ll have to say that the believers in Antioch were not Christians either according to your definition.

You said in your Hardball interview that “Mormonism” is a “cult” because:

1. “Mormonism came 1800 years after Jesus Christ”

1. “Mormonism has its own human leader, Joseph Smith”

1. “it has its own set of doctrines”

1. “it has its own religious book, The Book of Mormon, in addition to the Bible”

But following your own definition of “cult” for a moment, I’d like to respectfully submit that:

1. Roman Catholicism came 300 years after Jesus Christ.

1. Roman Catholicism has its own human leader, the Pope (or Peter if you accept the Catholic claims that he was the first Pope)

1. Roman Catholicism has its own set of doctrines (Mariology, transubstantiation, priestly celibacy, veneration of “saints”, indulgences, etc.)

1. Roman Catholicism has its own religious books (9 deuterocanonical more than those found in the Protestant Bible – also used in Eastern Orthodox churches)

And even your own Baptist flavor of Christianity in some ways fits your definition of what makes a cult;

1. “Baptistism” came 1609 years after Jesus Christ

1. “Baptistism” had its own human leader John Smythe – a Church of England minister (see footnote below from the website of the Baptist History and Heritage Society)

1. “Baptistism” had its own unique doctrines, including the “believer’s baptism” of adults.

1. “Baptistism” was considered a cult by the “orthodox” or “traditional” or “historic” Christian denominations of the time. In fact Baptists suffered severe persecution from other Christians who believed in the “mainline” doctrine of infant baptism prevalent in that era. Thousands of Baptists were martyred for baptizing adults.

 

[Telstar]

As I pointed out; we are a combination of two parts; our physical, mortal body; and our eternal spirit.

Actually, we’re a combination of a physical body and a soul. I believe there is a slight distinction in the terminology used in the original text. People have a tendency to use them interchangeably, much like the word ‘god’ in some instances, but they are actually different. A ‘spirit’ indicates a pure ‘heavenly’ creature that was created by God to exist in the ‘spiritual’ realms (i.e. angels), while a ‘soul’ is that special part of a human being that gives him a small share in the spiritual life of God, and also distinguishes him as a man, as opposed to other ‘earthly’ creatures, such as animals.

It is necessary for resurrection that our mortal body in its current state suffer death and be destroyed. it is then recreated by God’s power in its new, perfect nature; the full glory of which will depend on our behaviour in life.

While our physical body may be temporarily ‘destroyed’ when we die, our souls never are. Once they’ve been created by God, they can never be destroyed, completely. They continue to exist and at that point, enter into the spiritual realms to receive the first Judgement of God, which determines if we are worthy of Heaven or Hell. The resurrection of the body only occurs at the end of the world, when Jesus returns to the earth for the Final Judgement of the living and the dead. That’s when we will be reunited with our original bodies, which will then acquire the added benefit of glorification if we are found worthy of it, or not if we’re damned to hell for all eternity. In the interim, we will exist as souls in a spiritual form, either in Heaven, Purgatory, or Hell, to await the Second Coming of Jesus and the Final Judgement. In the end, we will all be rejoined to our bodies, but not all of us will have a glorified body that will live on the ‘new earth’, forever. The rest will spend the remainder of eternity in Hell.

Everybody’s resurrected body is of flesh & bone, just like God the Father and Jesus Christ’s are.

Jesus, yes, but the Father, no. God the Father and the Holy Spirit are pure Spirits of the highest order, that of possessing a totally Divine Nature. They do not have physical bodies, at all. Jesus is a combination of God and man. He will always have His Physical Body as well as His Human Soul. Jesus is God that lowered Himself to become our example of what a perfect man should be, because He really does love us, that much.

Our spirit, just like God’s, never changes its nature, and has not since its beginning.

That isn’t exactly correct. God’s never changes because He is a pure and perfect Divine Spirit that is incapable of doing anything evil. But, our imperfect souls can become more refined by doing good, or they can become more corrupt by doing evil. Otherwise, there would be no purpose for us living on this earth to be tested by God.

But as SteveVH pointed out above, when Jesus Christ was on the Earth, the roles of those who previously received revelation on behalf of the people were not in effect as Jesus Himself revealed it. The discussion was not over authority/social position/hierarchical position within the church leadership etc. It was solely to do with who would receive revelation.

Only those worthy of receiving true ‘revelation’ will be favored with it. But, all can be inspired by God, according to His Grace, while not all who are inspired by Him will follow His inspirations. That all depends on the state of their soul.

I didn’t say that it mentions Him more. I said more often. Look at the number of verses in the Bible vs. book of Mormon, and then you need to compare the number of times He is mentioned; this does not have to be by name(s) alone.
The Book of Mormon comes out at a mention of Christ on average every 2.7 verses.
I can’t find the bible one offhand unfortunately, but will keep looking. I believe it was around 3.1.

Somehow, I knew you’d have some way to justify it. Why am I not surprised?

You know, Judaism has been around much longer; if this is your argument of truth, you’re still in the wrong place.

Yes it has, and Jesus was a Jew that only came to earth to save them, because they were the Chosen People of God. But, they chose to reject Him, instead. We don’t, so we’ve become the new Chosen People of God, by default.

Not claiming to be an expert here, but I’m not aware that any of these claimed to be prophets?

They all claimed to have ‘revelations from God’, just like Joseph Smith. That would qualify them as being a false prophet, too.

In Columbus’ time the largest portion of people believed the Earth was flat - did that make them right? In Copernicus’ and Galileo’s times the majority subscribed to a geocentric model of the universe - oddly enough they were wrong also. Numbers of people who subscribe to a particular belief or opinion doesn’t lend any extra credibility to the claims.

Anyone can claim to have a ‘vision’, but never perform any kind of miracle to testify to the truth of their claim. That doesn’t mean he’s a true prophet. In fact, it means just the opposite.

 

[Stephen168]

My bottom line is that mormonism is one of the most successful cults of all time. Given all of the cults that have afflicted humanity, one could say it is one of the least damaging. But it is a cult. Baptizing for the dead. 7 levels of heaven. Black people are cursed. Living prophets who get things wrong numerous times.

Sorry, but Mormonism IS a cult. I have NO interest in becoming a GOD of my own planet… Baptism for the dead is NOT in any document available from the early church.

Mormonism can not be a cult due to its beliefs. Cult comes from the word ‘cultus’ which is a devotion to an individual. Clearly Mormonism was a cult under Joseph Smith. Until a couple of years ago, I viewed Mormonism as another non-Christian religion like Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, or Islam.

As I’ve learned how Mormons seem to follow their current leader and his teaches while rejecting their past leaders and their teachings, I’m thinking more and more they might still qualify as a cult: a devotion to an individual.

 

[TexanKnight]

Mormons are not a lot different from Muslims in that both started due to a man claiming to have a vision and needing a book in addition to the Bible.

In addition, the Mormon God and Jesus appear to be different than the God and Jesus that Catholics worship.

Please do not be offended by this comment. I do not believe LDS and Muslims are anything alike when it comes to their conduct. The similarity is only to its foundings

 

[pablope]

As I pointed out; we are a combination of two parts; our physical, mortal body; and our eternal spirit.

Originally Posted by pablope
Have you not heard of the other wanna be prophets and what they spawned…like Ellen G White and the 7th day adventists…the JWs and Charles Taze Russell? (to name just a few)…David Koresh? Rev. Jim Jones?.

First, read on the Restoration movement…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_Movement

Answer: The “restorationists” as they were called, were people from many different denominational backgrounds. **They all held one common belief, namely that Christianity had lost its way and had fallen into apostasy. ** Some of these groups were originally referred to as “Campbellites.” carm.org/restoration-movement-churches

See any similarity to the LDS claim?

From that sprang those who claimed who wanted to restore Christianity.

Ellen G White and the 7th day adventists…en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White

Ellen White reported to her fellow believers her visionary experiences. James White, and others of the Adventist pioneers, viewed these experiences as the Biblical gift of prophecy as outlined in Revelation 12:17 and 19:10 which describe the testimony of Jesus as the “spirit of prophecy”. Her Conflict of the Ages series of writings endeavor to showcase the hand of God in Biblical and Christian church history. This cosmic conflict, referred to as the “Great Controversy theme”, is foundational to the development of Seventh-day Adventist theology.[1]

In this vision she reportedly saw the “Advent people” traveling a high and dangerous path towards the city of New Jerusalem [heaven]. Their path was lit from behind by “a bright (light)…which an angel told me was the midnight cry.” According to her vision, some of the travelers grew weary and were encouraged by Jesus; others denied the light, the light behind them went out, and they fell “off the path into the dark and wicked world below.”

Again…one can see something akin to the LDS claims.

 

[bz5]

Your concepts are flawed, especially your ideas of x,y,and z here. Everyone can receive revelation, from the youngest child who prays. What revelation they might receive, though, is based upon their needs and their responsibilities. As far as doctrine and interpretation tjereof; anything that has already been revealed through the prophet, God could reveal to any individual: but the prophet will always receive such information and distribute it to the church first. Revelations regarding how the church is to be administered: use of funds, temple locations, callings: are received by those who have been called, set apart and given the necessary keys to perform these duties. The president of the church is the only person who is authorised to exercise all priesthood keys; but these keys are held collectively amongst the quorum of the twelve, and the authority to exercise some of them may be (and are) delegated throughout the church.

By the way, where did the term “president” come from? It seems you make such a big deal of having restored priesthoods and prophets, as they’re in the Bible. Where did ‘president’ come from?

 

[bz5]

I didn’t say that it mentions Him more. I said more often. Look at the number of verses in the Bible vs. book of Mormon, and then you need to compare the number of times He is mentioned; this does not have to be by name(s) alone.
The Book of Mormon comes out at a mention of Christ on average every 2.7 verses.
I can’t find the bible one offhand unfortunately, but will keep looking. I believe it was around 3.1.

Please don’t bother looking. If you had a thousand-page book that mentioned Jesus several times a verse, it wouldn’t prove the part in between was true.

 

[bz5]

And the fact that it takes so many failed attempts for your ‘so called leaders’ who you claim are led by God, to pick a new chap to wave his hand around in the vatican shows that your claims to any revelations are a joke.
Each and every member of the church should be counselling with God, and finding for themselves the truth of their leader’s teachings. Faith cannot, by definition, be blind: nor ought we to be led like sheep - this was (/is) the intentions of Satan, that we be robbed of our eternal right and ability to make choices.

.

If any of your decisions were deemed so important to the world that cameras and reporters were waiting and filming, might we notice it took a few days for you to discern?
One reason I love the Catholic church is that it values reason. No Catholic need ‘check brain at door.’ I don’t know whether you know anything about Catholicism or our understanding of what papal infallibility means, but it doesn’t keep me from being led privately by the Holy Spirit in some matters.

I’m a little confused by your whole attitude here: I thought one of the things Mormons and Catholics had in common was their belief in a physical, visible church with teaching authority. Why would you think it’s ridiculous for us to obey our church teachings? Do you drink coffee?
As for being led like sheep, well, you know the Good Shepherd is!

 

[sallybutler]

I’m saddened when Catholics find a catchy phrase and just keep repeating it, regardless of the bigotry and hypocrisy.{/QUOTE]

No offense meant, but just because a phrase is catchy does not mean it isn’t true. For example, “Common sense isn’t all that common” is catchy & true.

 

[Naf623]

God… is incapable of doing anything evil.

So not omnipotent, then?

As I’ve learned how Mormons seem to follow their current leader and his teaches while rejecting their past leaders and their teachings

Not true at all. Doctrines that have been made known to us by past presidents are held within the Doctrine and Covenants; anything else they may have said that is not included therein constitutes opinion, studied and considered, but opinion non-the-less.

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.
—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Approaching Mormon Doctrine (May 4, 2007)

Please don’t bother looking. If you had a thousand-page book that mentioned Jesus several times a verse, it wouldn’t prove the part in between was true.

The main point is that The Book of Mormon’s primary aim is to further testify that Jesus is the Christ, that He lives, and that He loves us. There is nothing found within its pages hat contradicts the teachings of the Bible: rather it is the ‘stick of Ephraim’, and when used in tandem ‘they shall become one in thine hand’ (Ezekiel 37: 16-17)

Oh, I’m fully aware that Greeks, Egyptians, possibly Aztecs were well aware of the curvature of the earth, and that the educated in Columbus’ time also knew. I was purely bringing it up to point out the fallacy of a numbers argument where something holds credibility because a great number of people believe it: clearly this argument is nonsense.