Views on Mormonism?

[tqualey]

Hi, KathleenGee,

Now, really, Kathleen… you are pointing to the fuse and asking Tony to strike the match and light it … and thereby just blow up his own argument!

I am not sure how to coax him to get the match out of the water first … but, there is this reluctance that is obviously showing up in his posts.

Come on, Tony - I think you have read the other material by now - maybe you would like to comment?

God bless

Tony,

I already told you to continue reading the catechism on Christ…all the passages leading up to the one you draw out or phrases you emphasize. You continue to refuse to study.

Why not draw on the rest of the CCC’s since you are beginning to access it, and begin to share what else you are trying to manipulate using our teachings.

Last night on EWTN, the priests were talking of the Divine life, that we as Catholics give glory to God alone and nothing else. ‘We don’t want to glorify anything else.’

 

[KathleenGee]

Catholicism is all about context, Tony.

Continue reading…because hopefully, as you begin to study the catechism, it may draw you back into the truth of Jesus Christ, and the nature and mission of the Church.

Sometimes people leave because of personality or lack of catechesis, or as what happened so many years back, defective catechesis of our young. It is all straightened out now in the USA.

 

[sallybutler]

While I think the majority of individual members would be against abortion, I don’t believe it’s the official position of the church. It used to be, but now there are exceptions for incest, rape, the health or life of the mother, and severe defects in the unborn baby. The dad and mom must consult each other, the bishop or brach president,and pray about it, but still, that’s a stark difference from the Catholic position. If what I described is true, I find it disturbing that the absolute prohibition against the taking of human life didn’t last longer than the prohibition against certain drinks

I think we’ve just about beat the appoach of LDS to the afterlife. They are not going to change their POV, nor are non-LDS people.

Could we discuss a different item taught by the LDS church. This was brought up in #659 and I haven’t really seen a response. I realize individual members may not have the same opinion, but is this the official position of the LDS church?

 

[Tony888]

I think we’ve just about beat the appoach of LDS to the afterlife. They are not going to change their POV, nor are non-LDS people.

Could we discuss a different item taught by the LDS church. This was brought up in #659 and I haven’t really seen a response. I realize individual members may not have the same opinion, but is this the official position of the LDS church?

Here is what I see stated under Abortion on LDS.org

Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

So, I don’t see any confusion on the Church’s position.

Not on LDS.org, I’ve seen the below statement, as a 1973 response to Roe vs. Wade
I don’t see this as a case where the exception changes the norm.

In response to this liberalization of abortion access, Harold B. Lee, N. Eldon Tanner, & Marion G. Romney of the Church of Jesus Christ and Latter-day Saints’ First Presidency issued a statement on abortion in 1973. 3 It restated the historical LDS Church’s position on abortion.
“The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer.”
“Abortion must be considered one of the most revolting and sinful practices in this day, when we are witnessing the frightening evidence of permissiveness leading to sexual immorality.”
“Members of the Church guilty of being parties to the sin of abortion must be subjected to the disciplinary action of the councils of the Church as circumstances warrant. In dealing with this serious matter, it would be well to keep in mind the word of the Lord stated in the 59th section of the Doctrine and Covenants, verse 6, ‘Thou shalt not steal; neither commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it’.”

 

[Miriam1947]

I think we’ve just about beat the appoach of LDS to the afterlife. They are not going to change their POV, nor are non-LDS people.

Could we discuss a different item taught by the LDS church. This was brought up in #659 and I haven’t really seen a response. I realize individual members may not have the same opinion, but is this the official position of the LDS church?

"We have no revelation on abortion"

Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.

**Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156). **

This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).

It appears that this “unalterable” position, constantly “affirmed,” is just another in a series of doctrinal and moral teachings that Mormons have reworded, reworked, rescinded, or reneged—though never officially renounced. Such is the quality of the Mormon belief in “continuing revelation.” Don’t expect dogmatic or ethical consistency. Rather, look for expediency and conformity with “the times.”

A further statement in the Handbook says: “The church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion (156).” While the Mormon prophet claims to speak the mind and will of God, he can neither figure out when the unborn child becomes human or if it is God’s desire that we protect the unborn unconditionally.

Your Mormon friend will offer the excuse that his church leaves many decisions to the free agency (free will) of its people, and that abortion is one such concern. You might point out the irony in the fact that the Mormon church has no hesitation or uncertainty in making the following declarations:

1. “The church opposes gambling in any form” (including lotteries). Members are also urged to oppose legislation and government sponsorship of any form of gambling (Handbook, 150).
2. The church also opposes [correctly, of course] pornography in any form (158).
3. Church members are to reject all efforts to legally authorize or support same-sex unions (158).

There is no need for a member to pray for divine guidance or seek church approval for such activities, for there will be no divine or ecclesiastical finessing of morality to permit even an occasional bingo game. A prayerful game of poker, unrepented, will bar the member from the temple and ultimate salvation; a prayerful, by-the-book abortion, unrepented, won’t.

catholic.com/tracts/mormon-stumpers

 

[TheExorcist]

"We have no revelation on abortion"

Didn’t you assume Mormons were pro-life? That’s certainly the image their church attempts to broadcast, and most Mormons, in fact, mistakenly believe their church opposes abortion and regards it as an objective evil. But not so.

**Indeed, the Mormon church accepts abortion for a number of reasons. The Church Handbook of Instructions, approved in September, 1998, states that abortion may be performed in the following circumstances: pregnancy resulting from rape or incest; a competent physician says the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy; or a competent physician says that the “fetus” has severe defects that will not allow the “baby” to survive beyond birth. In any case, the persons responsible must first consult with their church leader and receive God’s approval in prayer (156). **

This same Handbook, the official policies of the Mormon church to be followed by all local church leaders throughout the world, also claims: “It is a fact that a child has life before birth. However, there is no direct revelation on when the spirit enters the body” (156). Previous teachings by former Mormon prophets referred to the unborn child as “a child,” “a baby,” a “human being,” and decried abortion as “killing,” “a grievous sin,” “a damnable practice.” Spencer W. Kimball, the prophet who died in 1985, taught, “We have repeatedly affirmed the position of the church in unalterably opposing all abortions” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, 189).

It appears that this “unalterable” position, constantly “affirmed,” is just another in a series of doctrinal and moral teachings that Mormons have reworded, reworked, rescinded, or reneged—though never officially renounced. Such is the quality of the Mormon belief in “continuing revelation.” Don’t expect dogmatic or ethical consistency. Rather, look for expediency and conformity with “the times.”

A further statement in the Handbook says: “The church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion (156).” While the Mormon prophet claims to speak the mind and will of God, he can neither figure out when the unborn child becomes human or if it is God’s desire that we protect the unborn unconditionally.

Your Mormon friend will offer the excuse that his church leaves many decisions to the free agency (free will) of its people, and that abortion is one such concern. You might point out the irony in the fact that the Mormon church has no hesitation or uncertainty in making the following declarations:

1. “The church opposes gambling in any form” (including lotteries). Members are also urged to oppose legislation and government sponsorship of any form of gambling (Handbook, 150).
2. The church also opposes [correctly, of course] pornography in any form (158).
3. Church members are to reject all efforts to legally authorize or support same-sex unions (158).

There is no need for a member to pray for divine guidance or seek church approval for such activities, for there will be no divine or ecclesiastical finessing of morality to permit even an occasional bingo game. A prayerful game of poker, unrepented, will bar the member from the temple and ultimate salvation; a prayerful, by-the-book abortion, unrepented, won’t.

catholic.com/tracts/mormon-stumpers

Also the Church Handbook of Instructions was revised this year and (I’ve been told) there were some major revisions. It would be interesting to see what those were.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TheExorcist,

WHAT!!! Another doctrine change… this is getting to be a ritual within a ritual! But, don’t worry - Hosemonkey has properly prepared us for these changes…

Best wishes on your efforts to leave LDS. Since you are on CAF, have you had a chance to look at the Catholic Church?

God bless

Also the Church Handbook of Instructions was revised this year and (I’ve been told) there were some major revisions. It would be interesting to see what those were.

 

[mtolympus]

Hi, Tony888,

It may be good to take a look at what actually preceeded this item you seem to enjoy misunderstanding.**

458 The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him."72 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."73

459 The Word became flesh to be our model of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."74 On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!"75 Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one another as I have loved you."76 This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.77

460 The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "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."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "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."81 **
Now, here are the footnotes that have been referenced:
72 1 Jn 4:9.
73 Jn 3:16.
74 Mt 11:29; Jn 14:6.
75 Mk 9:7; cf. Dt 6:4-5.
76 Jn 15:12.
77 Cf. Mk 8:34.
78 2 Pt 1:4.
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

God bless

Hi tqualey,

Thank you for the showing the previous verses and references. Maybe I’m just looking through LDS glasses but I think all three could pass as LDS doctrine. The first two are from the Bible but I still don’t see how this context changes the meaning of #460. Here are a couple Bible verses that seem to support your above doctrine.

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Rom. 8:16-17)

 

[mtolympus]

No…because the Catholic understanding is different than the LDS concept of becoming a god…who rules their own planets.

I’m pretty old and I’ve been going to church all my life and no one has every taught me that I would rule my own planet. The emphasis on this teaching is wildly exagerated in the non-LDS literature about what we teach. #460 is much closer to what we are taught than what you think we are taught.

 

[TheExorcist]

Hi, TheExorcist,

WHAT!!! Another doctrine change… this is getting to be a ritual within a ritual! But, don’t worry - Hosemonkey has properly prepared us for these changes…

Best wishes on your efforts to leave LDS. Since you are on CAF, have you had a chance to look at the Catholic Church?

God bless

Yes indeed I have. If my wife said ok tomorrow I would ALMOST be ready to convert immediately. Unlikely since my wife is the hardest core of hard core TBM. When she is out of town I attend an FSSP parish which happens to be the closest to my house and I kinda wanna join Opus Dei one day. Is that looking enough? LoL

The CHI change isn’t really a doctrine change per se but that’s the golden book that rules the masses in the LDS church. I know that the church’s stance on homosexuality was softened as well as the insistence on being married to obtain the church’s highest blessings in the next life.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mtolympus,

You are quite welcome.

Let me try a different approach.

God is complete and perfect in Himself. Creation is a free and generous act of God - there was no requirement that God create, God just chose to do this. God then created man in the Image of God so that our humanity is forever stamped with this Divine Image that distinguishes us from the rest of creation. God gave man an opportunity in the Garden and man chose to pit his will against the Divine Will and this was the first sin. In fact, we call it the Original Sin - and it greatly wounded us so that our desire to do good and our vision of even doing good are not easy for us. The Old Testament, as it prepares us for the Messiah’s arrival in the New Testament, shows us God’s constant Paternal care for His People.

Now, in the commands of Christ we the fulfillment of the old covenant and the introduction of the new. Part of Christ’s command is that we be baptized (in the Name [not names] of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) and this makes us adopted sons of God - not gods. There are many differences between the Saints in Heaven and God - and here are a couple:

1.) God is infinite - the saints are finite
2,) God is the Creator - the saints were created
3.) God is totally sinless - all men are born in sin [it is only through the special Grace of God that Mary was conceived without sin. If this special grace had not been granted, Mary would have had Original Sin. She did not earn being conceived without sin.]

Ultimately, there are major differences between what the Catholic Church teaches and what the LDS organization teaches. The use of some similar words may be confusing if the matter is not thoroughly investigated. Here is a link that may be helpful:

2011.saintmarthayouth.com/journey-confirmation/field-guide-two-sacraments/fg2-chapter-2/

There are some superficial similarities that should be considered… but when you look beyond the superficial you will see major and unbridgeable differences. The Holy Trinity is an example. Christ identified in the NT the Three Divine Persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism is to be given using the Trinitarian formula identified by Christ. The Catholic Church dogmatically declared that the Three Divine Persons are not mixed, confused or a contradiction. The Divine Persons are co-equal and none was created.
Here is a link that may be helpful:

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

God bless

Hi tqualey,

Thank you for the showing the previous verses and references. Maybe I’m just looking through LDS glasses but I think all three could pass as LDS doctrine. The first two are from the Bible but I still don’t see how this context changes the meaning of #460. Here are a couple Bible verses that seem to support your above doctrine.

“The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.” (Rom. 8:16-17)

 

[tqualey]

Hi, TheExorcist,

My wife will keep you and your family in our prayers. Next time your wife is out of town … … see the local parish priest and tell him about your situation… if you have not done so already. In my opinion, you are in need of specific counseling in this matter. Please continue your prayer life.

God bless

Yes indeed I have. If my wife said ok tomorrow I would ALMOST be ready to convert immediately. Unlikely since my wife is the hardest core of hard core TBM. When she is out of town I attend an FSSP parish which happens to be the closest to my house and I kinda wanna join Opus Dei one day. Is that looking enough? LoL

The CHI change isn’t really a doctrine change per se but that’s the golden book that rules the masses in the LDS church. I know that the church’s stance on homosexuality was softened as well as the insistence on being married to obtain the church’s highest blessings in the next life.

 

[TheExorcist]

Hi, TheExorcist,

My wife will keep you and your family in our prayers. Next time your wife is out of town … … see the local parish priest and tell him about your situation… if you have not done so already. In my opinion, you are in need of specific counseling in this matter. Please continue your prayer life.

God bless

Thanks for the prayers. I can use all the grace I can get. I’ve spent a couple hours with the asst pastor at the parish and he told me about what you’d expect an FSSP priest to say, “if your conscience is Catholic, you must tell your wife and let what happens happen”. If it werent for my six year old son I would do that. However if I did my wife would leave and take him.

In Christ
Charles

 

[mwok]

mwok, and in a seperate thread, I tried to reference all the releated teachings on the subject. Please feel free to add authoritative sources, to more clearly represent official Catholic doctrine.

As did I.

 

[KathleenGee]

One of the disciplines of Catholic thought is the study of perfection. Tonight on EWTN, there was reference to St. John of the Cross, who said the deepest inner parts of us were caverns…of intellect, our emotions, our senses…and they are always seeking things of this world…but only God alone can feel the deepest parts of these recesses…God alone.

When one begins to see God as fulfilling all our deepest needs, and we begin to cultivate this deep devotion to God, our inner being becomes, as St. Theresa of Avila says, the inner castle.

It is in Jesus Christ, who exhorts us to be happy…in living out the beatitudes, a higher awareness…and losing our lives in Christ by giving His life away…

The Church does not exist for itself but for others. It gives out of itself for others, for all people, and each day we progress closer and closer to Divine unity with God.

The Beatitudes and virtues, finding God in the deepest caverns of our souls, can be the Only One Who can give us peace…this continual surrendering of self for the life of Christ to enter in. And then in turn, to give Christ away…

This interior life is divine, is sanctifying…the Lord – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – sharing His life by being in communion with us…now.

EWTN is now showing ‘Catholicism’…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Charles,

While I certainly can not argue with what the Assistant Pastor has said to you, there is a real chance you may be jumping to conclusions with how your wife will respond to this. My guess is that a lot depends on how this is presented - and the priest can really be helpful here. But, only you can break the news to her - and, if yours is anything like mine … (we will have been married 41 years in December) they have a sixth sense when something is not right. Seriously, she may be having similar concerns herself - but does not know where to look to get the right answers.

There are no easy answers. Our prayers are with you.

God bless

Thanks for the prayers. I can use all the grace I can get. I’ve spent a couple hours with the asst pastor at the parish and he told me about what you’d expect an FSSP priest to say, “if your conscience is Catholic, you must tell your wife and let what happens happen”. If it werent for my six year old son I would do that. However if I did my wife would leave and take him.

In Christ
Charles

 

[bz5]

I always thought before joining CAF that one thing LDS and we had in common was the belief in a physical, visible, authoritative church. I knew their views on polygamy, whether blacks could join the priesthood, etc…had changed over the years, but the abortion topic is even more confusing to me. If the church teaches that we’re human from conception but still allows abortions, and the individual members are allowed to decide for themselves with the advice of some individual bishops, that doesn’t sound like a lot of central authority. I know now from Parker that LDS considers different people to have different areas of authority (sounds reasonable), but again, how can the taking of innocent human life - clearly a basic moral issue - be left up to individuals while consuming caffeine cannot be? It does seem like a ‘caving in’ to the culture

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Bz5,

I, too, was distress when I read that previous post on abortion. Then I got to thinking. The LDS has made a pattern out of following the direction set by society in certian aras when it appears to be the way society is going or the way the LDS group has re-defined their mission or both. I think the polygamy and allowing blacks to do certain things speaks for itself.

But, look at the Protestant churchs that have caved in on divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexuality. In many ways this has been the obvious change going on in religion - and, my guess is the Mormons will ultimately follow these abominations,too. The basic issue is that if you have a man-made religion, whose traditions are you going to follow?

While there may be logical and doctrinal contradictions here - allowing abortion on demand and open homosexual behavior are the waves of the future - and, who is going to stand in the way? I propose that the Catholic Church continue to stand for God’s Word and become a visible sign to all that bad behavior is against God’s Will. About the only think we will not have to worry about is getting crowed out with people actually joining us!

God bless

I always thought before joining CAF that one thing LDS and we had in common was the belief in a physical, visible, authoritative church. I knew their views on polygamy, whether blacks could join the priesthood, etc…had changed over the years, but the abortion topic is even more confusing to me. If the church teaches that we’re human from conception but still allows abortions, and the individual members are allowed to decide for themselves with the advice of some individual bishops, that doesn’t sound like a lot of central authority. I know now from Parker that LDS considers different people to have different areas of authority (sounds reasonable), but again, how can the taking of innocent human life - clearly a basic moral issue - be left up to individuals while consuming caffeine cannot be? It does seem like a ‘caving in’ to the culture

 

[KathleenGee]

The Mormon Church was set up to condemn the Catholic Church and its priesthood…I mean who else was defining Christ after the last apostles died…

And to serve manhood, not God.

Mormonism is not really about God or a god but about every Mormon becoming one, and how he ends up is being disputed and questioned and worked on – again – within Mormonism.

 

[Tony888]

bz5
you missed this from the other page. Where do you see the taking of human life as acceptable to the church, or a matter of personal choice? It’s very **calous **and **superficial **of you to compare the words of wisdom with this grave sin.

LDS.org on Abortion:
Human life is a sacred gift from God. Elective abortion for personal or social convenience is contrary to the will and the commandments of God. Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church.

Kathleen,
It’s not always about you.
If you want to assume the LDS church is not guided by God, and is man made. How could you imagine it is a response to the RCC? Considering the time and location, it was a divergence from Protestant churches and their influence. I couldn’t find stats but I believe early converts were also from Protestant backgrounds