Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[RebeccaJ]

Yep, that was me. Monsignor told my mom not to worry about it…when I was old enough to care I would find my way back. And 18 years later, here we are.

:extrahappy:

 

[Convert66]

Imagine yourself, coming to a religious discussions forum, over the world wide web no less, and disagreements and distortions breaking out.

LDS theology, in my admittedly cursory understanding, is decidedly heterodox, and I diasagree with LDS theology because of it. I need to know nothing more than that the God of Mormon revelation is anthropomorphic, co-eternal(??–excuse the clumsy language) and was once a man. I am decidedly orthodox, so theologically speaking never we twain shall meet.

On a personal level, Mormons are great neighbors. Salt of the earth. I have family members, friends, and former co-workers that are LDS and we all manage to get along quite well. We do so at the expense of theological discussions, however. We agree to disagree, and I am sure they pray for my conversion as I do for theirs. My wife has LDS history, hails from the great state of Utah, where I also lived and worked by choice for a couple of years, I have a copy of the BoM, but I haven’t read it in years. I am kind to missionaries, and the elders are always kind to us in return. My beloved Sooners kick off the college football season against the mighty BYU Cougars, and I tell my Sooner Nation not to take these guys from Provo lightly. BYU can bring some ball, now!!!kpeople: And I happen to know (or heard rumor of years ago, anyway) that Mormons by and large are heavily recruited by the FBI because of their fierce patriotism and physical strength that exceeds that of mere mortals.npatrol:

I love Mormons! Heck, I even like the Cougars. I just wish they were Catholic Cougars.

All my best . . .

 

[mjf001]

Let’s see whether you can deliver.

No it doesn’t.

mi.byu.edu/display/topical.php?cat_id=488–

Synneve,
I read two of your links. This is what you call evidence? Sorry, I’m not impressed. One of the links discusses examining the manuscript. This is supposed to be a translation. What possible good is the manuscript without the original source material, the Gold Plates. Which God conveniently sent an angel to take to heaven, so there can be no examination of the source material. So, we are left with witnesses who are either related to Joseph Smith, friends of Joseph Smith, or had a profit motive for giving their testimony. This is supposed to be credible?
For sixteen or seventeen years I’ve had conversations with my family, with friends and acquaintances, and conversations on these boards. The only “evidence” anyone has ever provided me is empty, unproven assertions, speculation, and subjective arguments. Can any LDS provide anything other than that?
I already know the answer to my question. That’s why I left the LDS faith, became an athiest, then through the Grace of God, was led home to the Catholic church. I pray and will always pray, that those who do not know that Grace, will come home to the one true faith.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[Elric]

translation: I got caught in a fib/exaggeration/error, proving that I don’t know as much about Mormonism as I claim to; let’s just ignore what this indicates and change the topic.

Was there really any need for that?

You have not shown that Moronis presence actually matters to the translation of the BoM.

BTW, YOU changed the topic.

Your sarcasm doesn’t change the fact that I AM right about this, and for reasons that I have already given.

Right about changing the subject?

Care to list a few?

You mean that there has not been enough mentioned?

What you would have done under the circumstances is duly noted.

???

What I would have done?

That really says a lot about what you believe about Gods new word. Nice change of tactic though.

Your opinion of it is also duly noted, and given every inch as much consideration as you have given my arguments.

So its ok to deliberatly mislead people?

I wouldnt get on my high horse about giving consideration to others arguments, after the ammount of questions/statements that you didnt answer of mine.

Just because you dont like what someone says, doesnt mean that they are showing you a lack of consideration.

You had so much consideration for me that you couldnt even get my name right.
I guess that I am dismissed then, just when we were getting to the pattern of fraud part (looks convienent).

 

[ParkerD]

Could you point out where Peter is called a Prophet? I don’t think I see that in Acts.

Religio71,
The King James translation of Acts 15 has the discussion about the apostles, led by Peter, considering the matter of circumcision of the Gentile converts. The council sends Judas and Silas, “chief men among the brethren” (v. 22), along with Barnabas and Paul, to Antioch and Syria and Cilicia to deliver the message about the answer to the dispute over circumcision. Verse 32 in the King James says, “And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words,…” This is clearly referring back to the statement of 'chief men among the brethren," of which Peter was certainly one of those who was also “chief men among the brethren.”

This was not a dramatic statement. It was stated as though it was a “given”. The word prophets is used several times by Paul (1 Cor. 12:38, Eph. 2:20, 3:5 and 4:11) in conjunction with the word “apostles”. The two words seem to go together in Paul’s mind, based on how he writes the words. Peter’s epistles also are prophetic writings, without any hesitation about testifying of things to come. It is clearly understood that he was a prophet among the people of his time.

When John writes, “the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy”, he is stating a given (Rev. 19:10), and it is obviously supposed to be understood as a given for the church to have that.

 

[ParkerD]

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Rick,
Sorry to rain on your parade, but Peter had been killed by AD 80. Clement was stating his case, but he already misspoke when he said “there would be strife for the office of bishop.” Being bishop was not a status symbol, and not something over which there would be “strife”. It was an important calling, but a very demanding one.

True enough that there was a leadership vacuum as the apostles were killed and not replaced, and Clement would of course seek to establish his own legitimacy as an important leader if he wanted to be thought of as leader over a larger group than just his own area. If he called himself “pope” then one can tell that he was appointing himself to a role that was not in what the apostles had described as the church organization.

The office of bishop is clearly described in the New Testament. The man is supposed to be married, always, before being even considered to be chosen as a bishop. This was clearly taught by Paul. Nowhere does the New Testament say the bishops were to be the successors of the apostles.

 

[why_me]

LOL if you’re really trying to make a Catholic parallel (as your response to all LDS criticisms seems to be ), you’d need to compare the first Pope of the Catholic Church to the first President of the LDS Church.

Your posts are very entertaining btw.

I am not trying to make any comparisons at all. I am just saying that everyone can make similiar comments about other creeds or faiths that are general in nature, especially if they are in the negative. People seem to love making general negative comments that include no substance except the negative. And how to respond to a general negative comment? It is not easy.

 

[why_me]

I think we have had enough of you.

Rebecca made a comment that she did not trust a single mormon. I am not putting words in her mouth. I thought that such a comment was uncatholic and it shows that she despises mormons. I don’t think that I would meet a priest who would condone that type of comment.

 

[ParkerD]

Synneve,
I read two of your links. This is what you call evidence? Sorry, I’m not impressed. One of the links discusses examining the manuscript. This is supposed to be a translation. What possible good is the manuscript without the original source material, the Gold Plates. Which God conveniently sent an angel to take to heaven, so there can be no examination of the source material. So, we are left with witnesses who are either related to Joseph Smith, friends of Joseph Smith, or had a profit motive for giving their testimony. This is supposed to be credible?
For sixteen or seventeen years I’ve had conversations with my family, with friends and acquaintances, and conversations on these boards. The only “evidence” anyone has ever provided me is empty, unproven assertions, speculation, and subjective arguments. Can any LDS provide anything other than that?
I already know the answer to my question. That’s why I left the LDS faith, became an athiest, then through the Grace of God, was led home to the Catholic church. I pray and will always pray, that those who do not know that Grace, will come home to the one true faith.

In Christ,
Michael

Michael,
Earlier today you assured me that you have the Holy Spirit, and I agreed that you probably do. But this post goes a different direction. If one has the Holy Spirit, one understands how God communicates His messages to people, and is comfortable with the source of that communication. One such who is comfortable with that source would not think that God needed to “prove” His message by “showing” Gold Plates to people to demonstrate that the message was from Him. This would actually confuse His purposes, of course. He communicates through the Holy Spirit–that is His primary way of communicating, and establishes two-way communication.

It seems that you are asking for it to be “both ways”–“show me proof, but give me the Holy Spirit also.” I simply disagree, and think you can find ample teaching in the New Testament to understand that the Holy Spirit is to be trusted as the primary source of understanding truths from God. Of course the angel would not have the Gold Plates shown off to people. God simply does not work that way.

 

[why_me]

I think we have had enough of you.

I also called this catholic to confession since what he said was uncatholic and shows that he despises people of another creed:

Yes the MORmON church is an abomination and yes there congregation is damned but however when it comes to government, we cannot expect it to jump in and defend christ against such an heratic occult. It is up to us christians to fight against the MORmON occult. And if do not succeed then that’s ok, but the souls of this occult will surely meet thre false prophet Joseph Smith in the deepest part of hell! Even scientology is less offensive than the MORmONS! To say god was one a man and the an occult member and his wife can become a god is the most distasteful thing and is surely a product of an antichrist!

This post is really sad and it is not catholic at all. Not one priest would support such words. And yet, no catholic called him on it.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I also called this catholic to confession since what he said was uncatholic and shows that he despises people of another creed:

.

Since you’re calling people to confession here, I was just wondering if you will be going to confession for gossiping about people here, over on the other board?

 

[Religio71]

Since you’re calling people to confession here, I was just wondering if you will be going to confession for gossiping about people here, over on the other board?

LOL I noticed that too. Let’s just hope he called himself to confession after being baptized into the LDS Church.

 

[why_me]

Mormonism is irrational. For example:

The preceding rambling is another reason why I know you are not Catholic.

There is nothing uniquely positive about Mormonism. Anything you can say positive about Mormonism, you can say about another group; so unless you just want to engage in water cooler back slapping, I can’t think of any reason to say anything positive about Mormonism.

I think that I misread your post. I can say that there is much positive in the mormon faith as there is in the catholic faith. Now does that make catholics and mormons unique? I think so.

 

[why_me]

Since you’re calling people to confession here, I was just wondering if you will be going to confession for gossiping about people here, over on the other board?

Do you support what Jake wrote about mormon and the mormon church? He claims to be a catholic. I think that what he wrote was hateful and gives catholics a bad reputation. What do you think?

Rebecca claimed on a public forum that she doesn’t trust a single mormon. I am not gossiping, that is what she wrote. I say that is uncatholic too. I would not meet a priest who would support Jake or Rebecca in their comments.

 

[why_me]

LOL I noticed that too. Let’s just hope he called himself to confession after being baptized into the LDS Church.

Do you support what Jake wrote quoted above? As I said before, my first confession after decades of not going to confession last over 2 hours. I was baptized as a teenager into the lds faith.

Catholics on this forum do need to be held accountable about what they say about other people of other faiths. They are representing catholicism. I would hope that more catholics would hold them accountable.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

My my. Fortunately, I live in a country that respects freedom of religion and conscience. It appears that you do, too, and are infuriated by the fact.

i’m infuriated that religions can fuel the fire of atheism. any religion which is based only on faith and not truth as well is dangerous.

all of the links you posted were pathetic–you used mormon sites to refute scientific and historical facts against the BOM.

you can’t show us evidence that the fantasies in the BOM have any credibility just like you can’t show the catholic church changed doctrines that mormons changed like plural wives or that joe smith didn’t fabricate the BOA from an egyptian book of the dead.

lies and fantasies can’t be covered up forever.

by the way, i found some golden tablets in my back yard. an angel named baroni gave them to me and said that its the lost gospel of how the 12 apostles visited south jersey and planted the first tomatoes. i would show you the golden tablets but the angel took them away.

want to join my new religion? it makes about as much sence as mormonism but at least i haven’t sleep with married women and their daughters.

 

[ParkerD]

“Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God; consider the outcome of their life, and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever. Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings; for it is well that the heart be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited their adherents” (Heb. 13:7–9).

We are warned again about false teachings. The Gospel like Christ is the same yesterday and today and for ever, the teachings do not change.

Rick,
You are absolutely correct that the teachings should not have been changed. But they were changed, and Religio has given an example by the use (or non-use) of the word “prophet”. Prophets were a part of the true original church established by Christ and administered by the apostles.

I love the book of Hebrews. Here is also another important verse, apropos to the subject brought up on this particular thread as the heading;

“Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord:” (12:14) I think WhyMe has been attempting to “follow peace”, and establish it. I think he should not be rebuked for trying to do that. I hope we can all “follow peace with all men.” I don’t think the originator of this thread had that in mind at all, and cannot be said to be following that teaching at all.

 

[why_me]

WhyMe is a Mormon. The whole Catholic thing is obviously a pose he effects for the purpose of engaging in provocative dialog in this sort of forum. He was a Catholic until he was 18, according to his own story. It’s hard to know if even that is true. But it is very apparent that he is not a Catholic now. He must get quite a kick out of all the Catholics he stirs up by pretending to be Catholic. Perhaps we should all stop indulging him? At least make him come up with some other story to bait Catholics so he can continue to bash the Catholic faith?

Today is saturday. And we are celebrating the assumption of mary. I hope that you will attend mass because today is a day of obligation. Isn’t it strange…I have said nothing against the catholic faith on these forums but I have defended the lds church against attacks. And that makes me not a catholic. And I engage in provocative dialogue for doing so? If catholics wish to provoke mormons to defend their faith and then attack the lds faith when they do so, they are doing a good job. But I don’t consider that to be catholic. My catholicism is that of Mother Theresa and Saint Therese, the little flower. And lest I forget Dorothy Day and Mother Cabrini for doing miracles for all people regardless of their faith and background.

 

[Religio71]

Today is saturday. And we are celebrating the assumption of mary. I hope that you will attend mass because today is a day of obligation. Isn’t it strange…I have said nothing against the catholic faith on these forums but I have defended the lds church against attacks. And that makes me not a catholic. And I engage in provocative dialogue for doing so? If catholics wish to provoke mormons to defend their faith and then attack the lds faith when they do so, they are doing a good job. But I don’t consider that to be catholic. My catholicism is that of Mother Theresa and Saint Therese, the little flower. And lest I forget Dorothy Day and Mother Cabrini for doing miracles for all people regardless of their faith and background.

actually, today is not a day of obligation, though I will still be going.

 

[Elric]

Yes the MORmON church is an abomination and yes there congregation is damned but however when it comes to government, we cannot expect it to jump in and defend christ against such an heratic occult. It is up to us christians to fight against the MORmON occult. And if do not succeed then that’s ok, but the souls of this occult will surely meet thre false prophet Joseph Smith in the deepest part of hell! Even scientology is less offensive than the MORmONS! To say god was one a man and the an occult member and his wife can become a god is the most distasteful thing and is surely a product of an antichrist!

I guess that you didnt know that L. Ron Hubbard was a satanist who was an associate of Alistare Crowley.

Apparently he also claimed to have taken on the mantle of “The Beast” after Crowleys death.

According to his son, he continued to practice satanism after the CoS was founded.

Personally I think that Hubbard used Joseph Smith and his ideas as a template on building his own “religion”. There are quite a few similarities between the two.