Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

[majick275]

God’s pattern" for leadership and, in fact, all aspects of his Church seem to me to have changed over time as Men were able to handle more. (a growth from the carnal laws to the higher laws) I believe that LDS share this belief in general.

There was a time when the people were told to build a very specifically designed physical temple and the perform certain rituals there. That wasn’t always the case (although there were similitudes) My insight from the book of Hebrews is that Jesus became the once and always temple, high priest, prophet, etc. providing once and for all everything that was necessary to the point of BECOMING the church himself. I see this in the eucharist today.

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

I agree that defining the Apostasy in precise theological terms, and exactly how and when it occurred, is a bit difficult to do. But our observations lead us to the conclusion that it did happen. I can’t give you an accurate theological description for it, but I can for sure recognize it when I see it. And that is what I observe in the Christian world today.

No, what you observe in the Christian world today is apostacy with a small “a”–not THE GREAT APOSTACY. Do you see the difference? There has alwasy been apostacy, and there always will be until the second coming. Look at the history of the Mormon church and you can clearly see apostacy that has resulted in about 40 break-away offshoots from the original church started by Joseph Smith. Now do you think this invalidates the authority of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Of course not. Catholics believe the same of our church. Just because over time groups have broken off and new ones have arisen, that doesn’t mean there was a loss of the original authority given by Christ to the church. It just means that at various points in time, individuals have rejected the authority of the established church and ventured off to start their own. The results of 2000 years of this is what you see today.

There are biblical passages that LDS understand as pointing to the restoration of the gospel in the latter days, but they are open to interpretation, and I am sure you would not agree with them.

None of them points to the complete loss of authority of Christ’s church.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the Catholic Church and its teachings, but I don’t think I need to be in order to come to that conclusion. I come to that conclusion as per what I stated above.

What you see when you look at all the churches is chaos because there are so many with so many different beliefs. That’s completely understandable. But that doesn’t mean that one of them couldn’t be the original church that Christ established. In order to make a sweeping statement like you did, you would have to evaluate each one on its merits. You cannot make such a claim about the Catholic Church unless you dive into its history and find out for yourself–just like I couldn’t say the Mormon church suffered a “great apostacy” just because there have been many offshoots from it. I would have to judge it on its own merits.

God’s true church must be led by revelation from God. That has been the pattern throughout sacred history. And people who receive revelations from God are normally called prophets!

There was not always a prophet at the head of the Old Testament “church,” and the New Testament church did not define its leader as “the prophet.” The Church was and is headed by Christ through the priesthood. Prophets were called by God at various time for specific purposes, but they were not a requirement for the church to continue. Furthermore, each of the Old Testament prophets pointed the way to the ultimate, definitive, and unsurpassable prophet–Jesus Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment of everything the Old Testament prophets communicated to the people.

Where does it say that they aren’t necessary? That has been the pattern of God’s dealings with mankind throughout sacred history. What has changed?

I’ll tell you what changed. Christ came. He perfectly fulfilled and completed everything the Old Testament prophets communicated. He was the culmination of it all.

Has God suddenly changed? Has God’s behavior towards men suddenly undergone a fundamental metamorphosis that He no longer wishes to communicate with them by revelation any more?

No, but what the prophets communicated in pieces, Christ did in totality when He took on human nature and established his church through the priesthood.

If God has spoken to mankind by revelation from the dawn of creation, why should He not want to do so now? Are we less in need of His direction and guidance now than we were before? I think not!

We have His direction. We have His guidance. Why are you looking for more than what Christ delivered? The end goal for all of us is eternal salvation. That’s what this is all about. Christ gave us everything necessary for salvation. He gave what the prophets could not. Is there anything Christ did not give us that we need for salvation?

Since that has been God’s pattern of behavior towards mankind throughout history, we must assume that pattern must continue, unless God had revealed to us by another public revelation in the Bible that that pattern was to change; and I see no such revelation in the Bible

We must assume that Christ was and is the definitive revelation of God the Father. We are in no need of anything more than that.

 

[ardet]

I had the privelage of talking in depth with neighbors of ours that were born and raised mormon. My father was extremely worried that they would try to “convert” my husband and I. I stressed to them that if they wanted to talk about their religion, I would listen and respond but I WOULD not under ANY circumstances convert to mormonism. We agreed that neither one of us would force the issue. This friendship grew and we on many occasions debated religion, respectively. If anything it helped me to delve deeper into my faith and I learned so much. I pray for my friends every day that they will find truth and that is only fully thru the Catholic church. There is no reason that we cannot coexist with other religions, we just need to take the opportunity to educate ourselves to respond to their questions. If my neighbors (who recently moved back to Utah) take away anything from our friendship, I hope they will see that my family lives our faith everyday. I believe being an example is the best way to combat the lies that other religions tend to spread and teach about Catholicism.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

PaulDupre:

Hi BJ,

As a former LDS missionary I can tell you that the “Elders” are instructed that Catholics are easy targets. LDS missionaries are also very active in predominantly Catholic countries, trying to lure gullible people away from the faith of their fathers.

We are just defending the truth and informing the unsuspecting. Hopefully those who read these forums will not fall for the missionaries’ tricks.

God love you,
Paul

Looks like you had an uninspired mission president who did not understand that the message of the Restored Gospel is a message for all not just Catholics. My experience is that fully committed spirit filled Catholics are not easy to convert quite the contrary, such are intelligent and astute.

In my own case I am absolutely obsessed with the Roman Catholic Church, I only study the Holy Scriptures with the aid of Catholic exegesis and commentary, so much so that I have developed a love and appreciation for Catholics. I would convert if it were not for some of the doctrine/dogma that is not supported by Holy Scripture.

One day God will bring together into one fold the faithfull who are scattered abroad and riveted to the creeds of churches that are only inspired by vain gloroius and self appointed and evil and conspiring individuals.

I love Pope Bendict XVI, great choice!

Regards,

Asa Ben Judah

 

[PaulDupre]

Asa Ben Judah:

Looks like you had an uninspired mission president who did not understand that the message of the Restored Gospel is a message for all not just Catholics. My experience is that fully committed spirit filled Catholics are not easy to convert quite the contrary, such are intelligent and astute.

It wasn’t my mission president that taught us this (there were very few Catholics in Taiwan at the time), but rather the instructors and priesthood leaders in the LTM (Language Training Mission) in Provo (later called the MTC - don’t know what they’re calling it these days). They made fun of Catholics all the time. When I spoke up and corrected my LTM branch president, telling him that Catholics do not worship statues, he became very angry and suggested I go join the Catholics and leave missionary work to the faithful Elders. That was the last time I spoke up.

I love Pope Bendict XVI, great choice!

Thanks! I like to think it was my vote that put him over the top.

God love you,
Paul

 

[Jerusha]

I had the privelage of talking in depth with neighbors of ours that were born and raised mormon. My father was extremely worried that they would try to “convert” my husband and I. I stressed to them that if they wanted to talk about their religion, I would listen and respond but I WOULD not under ANY circumstances convert to mormonism. We agreed that neither one of us would force the issue.

Your experience was very positive. I do know that LDS culture varies in different parts of the country, and part of the problem with LDS people for me has been a matter of religion X ethnicity.

I wish all LDS people had the same attitude as your friends. I apologize for my rant of a few days ago.

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

There was not always a prophet at the head of the Old Testament “church,” and the New Testament church did not define its leader as “the prophet.”

There was, and they did! After Moses, Joshua led Israel, who was a prophet. After that, for about 400 years the judges ruled, all of whom were prophets. Their last judge, Samuel, was one the greatest prophets of all time. After the judges, the kings ruled. The first couple of kings, David and Solomon, were both prophets! After that, all the kings were unrighteous, and so none of them were prophets. But they did have many great prophets in all their generations, who effectively led their “church”.

The Church was and is headed by Christ through the priesthood.

That priesthood, if it is a true priesthood, and genuinely led by Christ, then they must be prophets, otherwise they are no priesthood, and cannot be lead by Christ. If they are a true priesthood and a true church, they must lead it by revelation, and the spirit that enables them to receive that revelation is the spirit of prophecy.

Prophets were called by God at various time for specific purposes, but they were not a requirement for the church to continue.

The Twelve Apostles were all prophets! St Paul boasted that he had more of the spirit of prophecy than anyone! If they were able to communicate directly with God, they were prophets, because that was the spiritual gift that enabled them to do it.

Furthermore, each of the Old Testament prophets pointed the way to the ultimate, definitive, and unsurpassable prophet–Jesus Christ. Jesus is the fulfillment of everything the Old Testament prophets communicated to the people.

I agree that prophets and priests in the Old Testament typified Christ. But that did not mean that the institution and the gift of prophecy was to discontinue after Christ. There are plenty of examples of prophets and prophesying in the NT long after Christ.

I’ll tell you what changed. Christ came. He perfectly fulfilled and completed everything the Old Testament prophets communicated. He was the culmination of it all.

Christ came, among other things, to fulfil the Law of Moses; but not to do away with the gift or institution of prophecy. There are plenty of examples of prophets and prophesying in the NT. If what you say is true, there should be no prophets in the NT after Christ. But there are.

(Continued in the cext post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

We have His direction. We have His guidance. Why are you looking for more than what Christ delivered? The end goal for all of us is eternal salvation. That’s what this is all about. Christ gave us everything necessary for salvation. He gave what the prophets could not. Is there anything Christ did not give us that we need for salvation?

The spirit of prophecy and revelation, both public and private, gifts, visions, ministering of angels etc. were never meant to be done away with. See below.

We must assume that Christ was and is the definitive revelation of God the Father. We are in no need of anything more than that.

Jesus came to “set some in the church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues” (1 Cor. 12: 28). Just as “teachers,” “miracles,” “healings,” “helps” and “governments” were never intended to be done away, “Apostles” and “prophets” were never intended to be done away either. Each are as necessary as the other. You have in your church all the lesser offices, so why not the first two most important ones? Where does it say that the first two must be discontinued, and the rest only remain? In Ephesians 4:11-12 Paul further adds: “And he gave some, apostles; some, prophets; and some evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ.” Again, just as “evangelists,” “pastors,” and “teachers” were not to be done away, “Apostles” and “prophets” were not to be done away either. Each are as necessary for the “perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ” as the other. They are all mentioned in the same sentence, in the same breath. You can’t say that the lesser offices were necessary, and were meant to be continued, but the higher and most important offices were not necessary and were to be done away. That is illogical. It doesn’t make any sense.

In conclusion, let me add that I sympathize with your views. I am not trying to bash Catholicism. I quite agree with you that Protestantism is an apostate sect of Catholicism. If there were no LDS Church, and I wanted to join a Christian church, I would probably choose the Catholic Church. If you strongly feel about your particular faith, then stick with it. There is no need to change religions if you are genuinely satisfied with what you already have. Religion is something that shouldn’t be forced on anyone. If you stay close to the basic teachings of your own church, the Lord has His own ways of getting round it. Truth has its own ways sinking in through mysterious routs. The reason why I am a Mormon is not because I believe the Catholic Church is apostate. It is the other way. The reason why I am a Mormon is because I have a spiritual witness that it is true; and there can only be one true Church at any one time. If the LDS Church is true, then the Catholic Church can’t be! That is how I look at it. Although the Catholic Church also has its own honorable place in Christian history.

amgid

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

PaulDupre:

…They made fun of Catholics all the time. When I spoke up and corrected my LTM branch president, telling him that Catholics do not worship statues, he became very angry and suggested I go join the Catholics and leave missionary work to the faithful Elders. That was the last time I spoke up.

Paul

My real concern regarding the LDS missions is that the missionaries are trained to focus upon giving a specific message rather than opening up dialogue with others faith groups. I suppose there is wisdom in this because on threads like this one there is a lot of nonsense that has to be sifted through so dialogue/debate can be very very inefficient.

True dialogue has to be honest, we need to recognise that which is important and the other stuff which isn’t. The bottom line is that there is no salvation without Jesus Christ.

Resorting to ridicule and name calling and spinning doctrine out of context is the resort of the charlatan. God is LOVE and we must love one another.

Be assured Paul, and all Catholic participants, that I do love you and pray that we will soon be gathered into the one true fold whichever it is!

Asa

 

[BJRumph]

FROM AMGID:
The spirit of prophecy and revelation, both public and private, gifts, visions, ministering of angels etc. were never meant to be done away with.

To which every Catholic and (for the most part) Protestant will agree.

The difference in observation is, it is only your position that asserts that such has (or “had”) stopped, and that due to what non-lds see as a mistaken assumption on the part of the LDS.

Just as the lds here feel that the non-lds expectation on the Holy Spirit led Doctrinal Infallibility of the lds prophets is a mistaken assumption on their part; the lds position that all other churches reject or teach that all those supernatural events you mentioned do not occur or somehow are “discontinued” because of the Fullfllment of Christ makes a mistaken assumption both about what is being taught, and what the purposes of those events are.

Do a little research on the internet regarding Catholics, and you are virtually (no pun intended) inundated by visions, prophecies, and other such supernatural events.

As a protestant growing up, I have been to many a meeting wherein the homily delivered was a testimony based upon and relating various supernatural vision and ministerings of angels. So many of these meeting, in fact, that I became jaded about it, as it seemed to me that every wanna-be evengelical had some “super” story, and (again, my own myopic and immature observation) didn’t deal enough with doctrinal principle, or even with Christ.

The mistake, doctrinally, as non-lds will see it, is in your “assumption” that these supernatural events govern, override, or otherwise trump what Jesus (God) gave us. Your church teaches you that these events are meant to reveal new things, and take you to new places; the Christian veiw is that these things all are meant for directing us to Christ. Anything new or “innovative”, upon careful analysis, is not “new” but simply a reiteration or expounding of known doctrine that allows the recipient and/or intended audience to a better knowledge of Christ’s teaching and Way.

From the lds perspective, however, these things are expected to teach new doctrines, introduce innovations, and “create” new spiritual realities for them, as your Articles of Faith, as well as your D&C, attest. This belief is associated closely with the lds veiw of the Keys of Binding found in the NT, another point of belief that separates the lds from “historic” Christianity.

In conclusion, it is the *lds who insist that they were done away * with, not Christianity! And then this position is “supported” by an equally mistaken assumption as to the purpose of these things.

At any rate, this is *one of * those points of lds belief that cause me to assert that “At my best, most charitable, assessment, the CoJCoLDS does not offer anything to me as a Christian, or to anyone of Christ, that I (or they) did not already posses, or is promised to them by God.”

Caritas numquam excidit
Inter arma caritas

 

[majick275]

I agree with BJRumph on this subject and would add to this that only the LDS church “restricts” this to a single prophet. (and even then only in certain areas as Apostles are all “prophets” in a sense and personal revelation/inspired guidance within the scope of one’s “calling” are all part of LDS doctrine).

Scripture does not appear to back such a restriction. Joels words in the old testament which are repeated in the acts of the apostles indicate that many will receive prophecy as a result of the Holy Spirit.

King David was said by amgid to be a “prophet” while leading his kingdom but he also had Nathan as a prophet. The BoM would have us see “prophets” leading the nephites at the same time that “prophets” led the Jews. The early history of the LDS church had many receiving visions and prophecy concurrently.

That one individual (backed by a quorum of Apostles and with the “comon consent” of the members) was designated and authorized to declare which prophecies would be canonized and to determine which prophecies were “of God” does not appear to be so very different from Catholic Popes and doctrinal councils.

That Catholics do not specifically “call” prophets is not a problem in my view as I see plenty of scriptural evidence for God calling prophets directly as he sees a need. (not to mention granting revelation as required to many individuals not filling the “prophet” slot in the “org chart”)

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Jerusha:

It is bizarre in that no American Indian in contact with his/her heritage believes this. The white man has no right to say that the Indians were recent arrivals when this flies in the face of archeological evidence, DNA, and tradition. We have always been here, whether we believe in the literal “always”, or that 14,000 years is close enough.

Yes, there is a general belief in some diffusionist influences, a FEW visitors who stayed, perhaps Chinese, Polynesians, Phoenicians, Vikings, Irish, West Africans.

To believe that American Indians are all descendants of recent arrivals is to attempt to rationalize and justify the injusticies heaped upon them. There is no justice to that, and it is all a confabulation to ease the collective white conscience.

Here is a link to a piece of fiction, a parable:
indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411422

The BOM is just as much a piece of fiction, with no redeeming meaning, other than perhaps presenting a diffusionist theory.

I agree, and my great grandmother’s tribe I doubt would have absolutely no idea what Joseph Smith was talking about.

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

majick275:

…only the LDS church “restricts” this to a single prophet. (and even then only in certain areas…

Scripture does not appear to back such a restriction. Joels words in the old testament which are repeated in the acts of the apostles indicate that many will receive prophecy as a result of the Holy Spirit.

…The early history of the LDS church had many receiving visions and prophecy concurrently.

That one individual (backed by a quorum of Apostles and with the “comon consent” of the members) was designated and authorized to declare which prophecies would be canonized and to determine which prophecies were “of God” does not appear to be so very different from Catholic Popes and doctrinal councils.

That Catholics do not specifically “call” prophets is not a problem in my view as I see plenty of scriptural evidence for God calling prophets directly as he sees a need.

Before I respond so many believe they understand the LDS but in actual fact their observations are sceptical and unenthusiastic at best. Perhaps ‘Catholic Answers’ is not the best place to find out what LDS actually believe.

Yes, the LDS Church claims to have a prophet who is called by Jesus Christ to maintain orthodoxy for the church as a whole.

Every member of the church is a prophet in his/her own right – Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he *said to me, “Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” (Apocalypse Ch. 19, verse 10 NASB) – and as such is primarily entitled to personal guidance and instruction directly from God, but NOT for the church as a whole.

God is ONE, and therefore sectarianism is not of God but of the Devil who doesn’t care what we believe so long as it is NOT orthodox and is a catalyst for hate and conflict.

Of course in the early days of the LDS church the Prophet Joseph Smith’s calling was weakened and the church and undermined by those who claimed to receive revelation, unfortunately the revelation recieved by some was contradictory and lead to conflict, division and persecution so we must be careful about where revelation is coming from, its purpose, its effect on the church as a whole, and how we respond to it.

Whenever the prophet receives revelation for the church it must be received by common consent by the church. Many who are not happy often withdraw from the church but the sad truth is that they cannot leave the church alone.

Prophets were never popular and their lives were always at risk, why should it be different today? However, God does call prophets and should he call you don’t expect to be welcomed by the mainstream church.

May God bless you with the truth,

Asa

 

[majick275]

Asa,
I’m confused. I thought that I had qualified my statements about prophets sufficiently and I see your comments as agreeing with that.(what I had said)

Where are we in disagreement?

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I agree with BJRumph on this subject and would add to this that only the LDS church “restricts” this to a single prophet.

That is not quite correct. All the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators” to the Church.

(and even then only in certain areas as Apostles are all “prophets” in a sense and personal revelation/inspired guidance within the scope of one’s “calling” are all part of LDS doctrine).

I didn’t follow that one.

Scripture does not appear to back such a restriction. Joels words in the old testament which are repeated in the acts of the apostles indicate that many will receive prophecy as a result of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, all Latter-day Saints are entitled to the spirit of prophecy and revelation. But the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles have jurisdiction to receive revelation for the guidance of whole Church.

King David was said by amgid to be a “prophet” while leading his kingdom but he also had Nathan as a prophet. The BoM would have us see “prophets” leading the nephites at the same time that “prophets” led the Jews. The early history of the LDS church had many receiving visions and prophecy concurrently.

Prophets in the OT did have a hierarchical structure, but it is not made very clear in the OT. In the BoM, before the church was established among them by Alma, their kings were their chief prophetic leaders. After the organization of their church, and the establishment of the government by the judges, the chief leaders of their church were all high priests, Alma being the first among them.

That one individual (backed by a quorum of Apostles and with the “comon consent” of the members) was designated and authorized to declare which prophecies would be canonized and to determine which prophecies were “of God” does not appear to be so very different from Catholic Popes and doctrinal councils.

Yes, I would agree with that.

That Catholics do not specifically “call” prophets is not a problem in my view as I see plenty of scriptural evidence for God calling prophets directly as he sees a need. (not to mention granting revelation as required to many individuals not filling the “prophet” slot in the “org chart”)

We do not “call prophets” ether. We call “Apostles” and “Presiding High Priests”. We address the President of the Church as “prophet” because that is the favorite name for it in popular culture. But that is not the official title that is given to him in revelation. The correct title for him as given in the Doctrine and Covenants is “President of the High Priesthood of the Church,” or the “Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church”. He is a high priest who is appointed to preside over the Church, and is designated “prophet, seer and revelator” to the Church. Likewise the Twelve Apostles are designated “prophets, seers and revelators”. Having “one person” to rule over the Church is not much different to having the Pope to rule over the Catholic Church. There are no “Popes” mentioned in the NT!

amgid

 

[majick275]

My responses are in bold. My original remarks are in italics.

*Quote:
Originally Posted by majick275
I agree with BJRumph on this subject and would add to this that only the LDS church “restricts” this to a single prophet.
*
That is not quite correct. All the members of the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles are sustained as “prophets, seers, and revelators” to the Church.

Quote:
(and even then only in certain areas as Apostles are all “prophets” in a sense and personal revelation/inspired guidance within the scope of one’s “calling” are all part of LDS doctrine).

I didn’t follow that one.

I think if you keep reading we agreed on this point.

Quote:
Scripture does not appear to back such a restriction. Joels words in the old testament which are repeated in the acts of the apostles indicate that many will receive prophecy as a result of the Holy Spirit.

Yes, all Latter-day Saints are entitled to the spirit of prophecy and revelation. But the First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles have jurisdiction to receive revelation for the guidance of whole Church.

Okay. I don’t see us differing a whole lot on this.

Quote:
King David was said by amgid to be a “prophet” while leading his kingdom but he also had Nathan as a prophet. The BoM would have us see “prophets” leading the nephites at the same time that “prophets” led the Jews. The early history of the LDS church had many receiving visions and prophecy concurrently.

Prophets in the OT did have a hierarchical structure, but it is not made very clear in the OT. In the BoM, before the church was established among them by Alma, their kings were their chief prophetic leaders. After the organization of their church, and the establishment of the government by the judges, the chief leaders of their church were all high priests, Alma being the first among them.

I would ask you to look at how the great prophet Isaiah was called. I don’t see much scriptural support for calling prophets only within a rigid heirarchy. I think we both see examples of multiple prophets existing concurrently.

Quote:
That Catholics do not specifically “call” prophets is not a problem in my view as I see plenty of scriptural evidence for God calling prophets directly as he sees a need. (not to mention granting revelation as required to many individuals not filling the “prophet” slot in the “org chart”)

We do not “call prophets” ether. We call “Apostles” and “Presiding High Priests”. We address the President of the Church as “prophet” because that is the favorite name for it in popular culture. But that is not the official title that is given to him in revelation. The correct title for him as given in the Doctrine and Covenants is “President of the High Priesthood of the Church,” or the “Presiding High Priest over the High Priesthood of the Church”. He is a high priest who is appointed to preside over the Church, and is designated “prophet, seer and revelator” to the Church. Likewise the Twelve Apostles are designated “prophets, seers and revelators”. Having “one person” to rule over the Church is not much different to having the Pope to rule over the Catholic Church. There are no “Popes” mentioned in the NT!

Semantics. As you just pointed out we shouldn’t to get caught up in the titles for our leaders. Other than that we don’t seem to differ in the “what” regarding this point, just the “who”.

 

[TeriGator]

BJ Colbert:

Do you attend LDS meetings every Sunday for your entire life? How is it you claim to know more than a practicing Mormon?
Just curious…that is all…no offense intended BJ

BJ, I apologize that I don’t have much time to actually read this long thread. Normally I avoid all threads over a certain length because my time is rather limited. But this topic was too tempting. I hope I am not repeating what others have said, and I admit that I will probably not be able to continue in this thread for any prolonged discussion.

You probably remember that I once was a Mormon, and married into a Mormon family. I lived in Utah for 14 years. I know in exquisite detail just what the Mormon church taught. Since leaving the state in 1990, I lost touch with the changes that were occurring in teachings, so can no longer speak with certain knowledge as to what comprises Mormon belief these days.

One of the reasons Catholics are so interested in your church is that your missionaries are specifically trained to approach Catholics in certain ways so as to maximize the likelihood of their being invited in. I know, they are also taught how to approach members of other faiths in specific ways as well, but surely you can agree that this makes us interested in countering any Catholic-specific approaches.

The most recent example I can give is from a few years back, when the missionaries came to my door and talked to my daughter. Once they found out we were Catholics, they proceeded to follow their “Catholic” script.That, at least, has not changed substantially since I left Utah. She was polite and sent them on their way. I might have argued, which probably would have availed no one.

Another, very valid reason, for us to study you is that we wish to avoid losing members of the very Church that Christ Himself established. Your church has been targeting Catholics in South America with alarming success. Should we not learn how to counter your persuasions with what we view as the truth?

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

majick275:

Asa,
I’m confused. I thought that I had qualified my statements about prophets sufficiently and I see your comments as agreeing with that.(what I had said)

Where are we in disagreement?

Sorry if I have been obtuse. I felt that you were suggesting that the LDS church only accepted revelation through a single prophet whereas the church as a whole functions as a prophet to the world. The First Presidency hold a role that could be described as the final arbiter between true and false teaching/revelation.

Many argue that the LDS church is a cult, which it is. However, the central figure, or intellect behind it is Jesus Christ not the Prophet Joseph Smith of his successors.

May I add that the basic unit of the church is the family organised around the husband/father who functions as prophet, priest and king in respect to his ‘Eternal’ Companion/spouse, and the children they are blessed with. In a perfect world/church there will be no need for a body of General Authorities/Magisterium to regulate the church, rather every individual person or family unit will be governed/ministred to directly by God.

Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the old heaven and the old earth had disappeared. And the sea was also gone.
And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven like a beautiful bride prepared for her husband.
I heard a loud shout from the throne, saying, "Look, the home of God is now among his people! He will live with them, and they will be his people. God himself will be with them. (Apocalypse 21:1-3 NLT)

 

[Asa_Ben_Judah]

PS. I forgot to add the most important thing, the head of every man and unmarried woman is Christ, not the Pope nor the Prophets and Apostles who are indeed only men themselves.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

TeriGator:

BJ, I apologize that I don’t have much time to actually read this long thread. Normally I avoid all threads over a certain length because my time is rather limited. But this topic was too tempting. I hope I am not repeating what others have said, and I admit that I will probably not be able to continue in this thread for any prolonged discussion.

You probably remember that I once was a Mormon, and married into a Mormon family. I lived in Utah for 14 years. I know in exquisite detail just what the Mormon church taught. Since leaving the state in 1990, I lost touch with the changes that were occurring in teachings, so can no longer speak with certain knowledge as to what comprises Mormon belief these days.

One of the reasons Catholics are so interested in your church is that your missionaries are specifically trained to approach Catholics in certain ways so as to maximize the likelihood of their being invited in. I know, they are also taught how to approach members of other faiths in specific ways as well, but surely you can agree that this makes us interested in countering any Catholic-specific approaches.

The most recent example I can give is from a few years back, when the missionaries came to my door and talked to my daughter. Once they found out we were Catholics, they proceeded to follow their “Catholic” script.That, at least, has not changed substantially since I left Utah. She was polite and sent them on their way. I might have argued, which probably would have availed no one.

Another, very valid reason, for us to study you is that we wish to avoid losing members of the very Church that Christ Himself established. Your church has been targeting Catholics in South America with alarming success. Should we not learn how to counter your persuasions with what we view as the truth?

I had never heard that there were specific lessons for Catholics versus other religions, there may have been, but that would have been difficult since the 6 lessons were basically memorized and presented with corresponding scriptures which also had to be studied and known by the missionaries, who have varying levels of study habits and knowlege of the gospel for boys 18-23 years old.
There is a new plan recently, which give the missionaries 4 lessons to present from the heart, they are not memorized anymore, and they present what the spirit guides them to present to the individual they are teaching. If the persons being taught the gospel are not receptive by the third lesson, the missionaries go on to someone else.
My husband is taking the new lessons and they are really much more interesting, than the former method. He is Catholic and the lessons are the same as they were for friends who are not Catholic. I do not know of any reason why there would be different lessons for Catholics, as most missionaries do not have knowlege of Catholic beliefs. My husband shares with them the beliefs in saints and the Eucharist , the Rosary and all the beliefs of the Catholic Church, they are very polite and listen intently to all he says.
Since I have never been on a mission, I may be wrong. But I have listened to the lessons many times and never noticed the difference of lessons for Catholics versus Protestants or Athiests, or Islamic persons. There is only one message and it may be presented in an individual way by the missionaries presenting it, but the message is always the gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in the Bible and the Book of Mormon together, and of equal importance to the truth that God lives, and that He sent his only begotten Son, Jesus Christ to sacrifice his life as an atonement for our sins, that we might not suffer spiritual death, but have everlasting life, if we accept his gift and repent of our sins, and follow the commandments He has given us.
These are my personal comments, not from any book. I hope I have written in a way that is clearly understood.
BJColbert