Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[Stephen168]

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.

I would have to agree. I went to school with three Mormon boys. Two of them each had a parent who converted to Mormonism while the third’s parents were both raised Mormon. Whyme reminds me of one of the three. Yes, I have a hard time believing Whyme was ever Catholic just by the things Whyme says.

 

[Stephen168]

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?

unique - existing as the only one or as the sole example

I think so.

Yes, you are Mormon.

There is nothing uniquely positive about Mormonism.

 

[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.

When Clement and the others of his time and later, dropped the use of the word “prophets,” it was a wise move on their part because they could not claim to be such, just as they couldn’t claim to be “apostles”, so they had to focus on the word “bishop” and make it into the leadership position that would legitimize their authority in the eyes of those they were seeking to lead. At that point, they could change any teaching they wanted to change and insert their own version of the doctrine, such as baptism by submersion being changed to baptism by sprinkling, or teaching that reasoning and tradition were more important than revelation and following the Holy Spirit.

It is no wonder that “reasoning” and “tradition” became emphasized early on. As the disputes inevitably arose, the ones who were the classiest debaters would naturally assert that they had the authority while the humble followers of Christ’s teachings, who may have even refrained from the debates at all because Christ and the apostles had clearly taught against doing that, would become the self-made “winners” of the debates and would take over the leadership. It is a predictable pattern. The roots of the church were still good because the roots were true, but the changes were significant and the insertion of human authority in place of divine authority was inevitable.

 

[cthulhubryan]

If there is nothing positive about mormonism then there must not be anything positive about mormons. Right? If you believe this then you will need to go to confession. The sacrament of reconciliation asks: Do I despise people of other creeds…? Your post would make me understand that you do despise mormons. Correct? Since it is impossible to separate someone from their faith’s influence.

You argument is a logical fallacy. It does not logically follow that a thing true of a belief system must be true of all adherents.

 

[sweetnay]

Mormons on this thread: (other than Whyme) do you believe one can be fully Catholic and fully LDS?
Thx

 

[cthulhubryan]

no you didn’t. i can prove that he was a fraud: 1) BOM is false. science tells us american natives were not decendents of jews/semetic people.

This is accurate. While some studies at BYU come to the conclusion that science cannot tell us if the native americans were of Hebrew lineage they are dodging the point. Science has proven that they were of East Asian origin.

[CAVEAT] It is possible that another group of another lineage may exist outside the anthropological record. It is very difficult to prove a negative.

1. BOM has zero credibility as a book of fact–as joe smith and the mormons present it as–all historical evidence proves it to be false. joe smith or whoever made it all up

This statement is correct as far as it goes. There is no physical evidence to back any of the BoM. Again, it is hard to prove a negative.

1. BOA is a fabrication. we have the original manuscripts joe smith used to interpret the BOA. we know he made it up. this is fact. we know he had a warrant for selling scams. we know he had a history of scaming/grifting. the only conclusion was he did this for the power, money and women. the mormons would not allow blacks to be clergy. mormons use to teach dark skin is a curse–STUPID!!!

It is true that the “Joseph Smith Papyri” were rediscovered in NY in 1966. It is also true that with the use of the Rosetta stone scholars have shown that Smith’s translation of the Papyri was entirely wrong. It is also true that Smith was arrested and tried for claiming to be able to find treasure and water (For those who live in the SLC area, this is on the top floor of the UofU library in a restricted section. You may have to be a student to access this, I do not recall as I was a student)

It is also true that Mormon theology teaches of a war in heaven when Jesus and Satan (spiritual brothers) presented their plans to god for men. Satan wanted to force men to worship god and Jesus wanted to give men free will. When Jesus’ plan was accepted, Satan and his followers rebelled. 1/3 of the heavenly host rose against God. 1/3 fought valiantly for God and because white people, 1/3 fought but not so valiantly and these became people of color.

joe smith was evil and was murdered by an angry mob and flashed a masonic sign for help. he was shooting back, unlike our glorious martyrs and early church fathers who died for the faith without shooting back.

mormonism should be illegal, reguardless of what our secular multicultural society thinks.

It is true that he was killed in a shootout and did shoot back.

 

[ParkerD]

Mormons on this thread: (other than Whyme) do you believe one can be fully Catholic and fully LDS?
Thx

If by “Catholic” you mean “a person who belongs to the universal Christian church,” as the dictionary defines “Catholic”, then yes. The word was chosen deliberately and meant and means “universal”, and the LDS certainly believe in Christ and His divine mission.

 

[cthulhubryan]

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.

Days of Obligation that fall on a day of the month (not a specific day of the week) than happen to fall upon a Saturday are normally abrogated because the obligation is met by Sunday mass

 

[cthulhubryan]

If by “Catholic” you mean “a person who belongs to the universal Christian church,” as the dictionary defines “Catholic”, then yes. The word was chosen deliberately and meant and means “universal”, and the LDS certainly believe in Christ and His divine mission.

I believe the question was can you be Catholic (big C) and LDS and had nothing to do with the catholic (little c) which is the universal church.

 

[ParkerD]

Bryan,
You have taken the common approach to these issues, but it is not a very scholarly approach, though I suppose it works for you.

While some studies at BYU come to the conclusion that science cannot tell us if the native americans were of Hebrew lineage they are dodging the point. Science has proven that they were of East Asian origin.

So you mean to say that every one of the hundreds of tribal groups in the Americas has DNA originating in East Asia, and you have complete and accurate proof of that?

And you also have complete and accurate proof that those whose DNA has been compared who are in East Asia did not migrate there from another part of the world?

[CAVEAT] It is possible that another group of another lineage may exist outside the anthropological record. It is very difficult to prove a negative.

Yes, indeed.

This statement is correct as far as it goes. There is no physical evidence to back any of the BoM. Again, it is hard to prove a negative.

The book itself implies that it will not be proven by physical evidence.

It is true that the “Joseph Smith Papyri” were rediscovered in NY in 1966.

It was not the complete set of papyri, as you would know. It was only a part of the set of papyri.

It is also true that with the use of the Rosetta stone scholars have shown that Smith’s translation of the Papyri was entirely wrong.

Restate the date of the Rosetta stone. The translation for the Rosetta stone applied when the translation was actually done, which was over a thousand years after the Book of Abraham. We have already discussed on this thread that religious beliefs and doctrines can change in a few short years. The changes over a thousand years would be monumental, and any scholar who reads Egyptian history and says religious beliefs were a constant has not researched the history at all.

It is also true that Smith was arrested and tried for claiming to be able to find treasure and water (For those who live in the SLC area, this is on the top floor of the UofU library in a restricted section. You may have to be a student to access this, I do not recall as I was a student)

Yes, and the people who had him arrested had believed him and sought out his “gift” so they could make money from it. Of course they would have him arrested when his “gift” didn’t work for their purposes.

It is also true that Mormon theology teaches of a war in heaven when Jesus and Satan (spiritual brothers) presented their plans to god for men. Satan wanted to force men to worship god and Jesus wanted to give men free will. When Jesus’ plan was accepted, Satan and his followers rebelled. 1/3 of the heavenly host rose against God. 1/3 fought valiantly for God and because white people, “1/3 fought but not so valiantly and these became people of color”.

Mormon theology does not and has never taught that. One man gave something similar to that as his opinion, and others believed him, but that does not make it “theology” and such a teaching has been completely refuted by actual Mormon theology. Welcome to the years 1978 and beyond.

It is true that he was killed in a shootout and did shoot back

.
So you’re saying if you had a brother and a mob was about to kill him, you would not try and defend him? What would you do, exactly?

 

[ParkerD]

I believe the question was can you be Catholic (big C) and LDS and had nothing to do with the catholic (little c) which is the universal church.

So you’re telling the Catholic church that they used the wrong word to name their church? And that they are not the “universal church” as they have always claimed they are?

 

[zaffiroborant]

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.

What do their actions have to do with your gossiping?

 

[mjf001]

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.

So, in the new testament, Christ, who is God, did not once try to clearly let the Jews know who he was? He never once quoted scripture, for instance, prophesying of his coming? He never performed miracles and healing to show the Jews who he was? Come on, Parker. God does communicate to us through the Holy Spirit, but faith is not the only gift he gave us. God wants us to use all our gifts, including reason. Because God is truth, faith and reason shouldn’t contradict. Show me one instance in the bible, where God revealed something to the Jews, then hid the evidence. Show me one.

In Christ,
Michael

 

[mjf001]

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.

No, Whyme, the issue is your continued assertion that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that you received a witness of the BoM that you won’t deny. If you believe those two things in your heart, you have a problem as a Catholic, as a Catholic shouldn’t believe this.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Is it possible to inspect this “proof” somewhere?

Lengthy discussion with ample sources have been posted on the forum for years, one merely needs to do a bit of research to find them. One also needs to exercise rational thinking v. magical thinking.

If you’re sincere in your interest in this information, you’ll go off on your own search, and there is no need for me to do it for you. If you’re not sincere, then any effort I may expend to collect those references would be of no value. I guess we’ll see if you’re sincere soon enough.

 

[MelanieAnne]

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.

Good to see you!

 

[MelanieAnne]

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?

I trust that if WhyMe ever goes to confession he will also finally tell the Priest about his baptism into Mormonism, his firm testimony about the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and the general support of Mormon doctrine that he provides to anyone who engages in dialog with him.

But you see, WhyMe isn’t going to go to confession because he’s not a Catholic, he’s a Mormon & all these claims to the Catholic faith that he makes is a TACTIC.

 

[MelanieAnne]

No, Whyme, the issue is your continued assertion that Joseph Smith is a true prophet and that you received a witness of the BoM that you won’t deny. If you believe those two things in your heart, you have a problem as a Catholic, as a Catholic shouldn’t believe this.

MJF, you’re being diplomatic, but in matters this important, one needs to be direct and crystal clear.

In asserting Joseph Smith is a true prophet, in asserting that he has received a witness of the Book of Mormon that he will not deny, and in being baptised as a Mormon, WhyMe doesn’t have a “problem as a Catholic”. Instead, WhyMe is NOT a Catholic.

If WhyMe ever WAS a Catholic as he claims (which I doubt) he self-excommunicated at the time of his Mormon baptism. And then there’s the whole “testimony” aspect of his Mormon faith. The Catholic faith did not leave him, he left the Catholic faith. Unless and until he remedies this situation through reconciliation/confession, where he would have to give up his Mormon testimony and renounce his Mormon baptism, he is NOT A CATHOLIC. He excommunicated himself by his actions years go and has never done one thing to change that.

Bottom line ~ he doesn’t have a “problem as a Catholic”, he is NOT a Catholic, by his own choices.

 

[cthulhubryan]

So you’re telling the Catholic church that they used the wrong word to name their church? And that they are not the “universal church” as they have always claimed they are?

You are dissembling

 

[Religio71]

So you’re telling the Catholic church that they used the wrong word to name their church? And that they are not the “universal church” as they have always claimed they are?

Parker, you know perfectly well that the question was about the Catholic Church in union with the Bishop of Rome, seeing how we’re…on a Catholic forum.