- This topic has 1 reply, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 2 months ago by Anonymous.
July 7, 2012 at 5:07 am #2119AnonymousInactive
Why do Mormans stick to their religion so much when it’s clear that they cannot trace their religion back to the apostles for one and two, they supposedly got the book of Mormon from a serpant. Isn’t that the devil?July 7, 2012 at 9:41 pm #10392AnonymousInactive
Mormonism is one of several dozen different religions that started up around the same time during a period of American History referred to by some as “The Great Awakening” a period of religious fervor in which they teach that lost truths of the early Church were re-discovered, and restored by or through their own perticular prophet or founder. These groups of Restorationists include the SDA, Jehovah’s Witness’, and the Church of Christ, and several other groups who share similar concepts.
First most denied the Divinity of Christ, the existance of the Trinity, and they believed that the “True” Church had long since disappeared from the face of the earth, (Despite what Jesus promised us.) They all have a very anti-Catholic bent to them. If one holds that their teachings are the true teachings lost for centuries because the Catholic Church or some other group conspired to take power, it is easy to dismiss historical and archiological facts, and create your own counter history. Mormons and others have been taught a history different from what most reputable historians hold, and are entrusted with what they think is the sacred obligation to hold the rediscovered truth.
As I mentioned, above Mormons deny Jesus is the Second person of the Trinity. They believe that the God of this world was once a man, who has progressed to becoming a god and has populated the earth by having sexual relations with his wives. They believe that they are blood brothers of Jesus, and one of his brothers was Satan, who was not evil per-se, but upset that in their “pre-earth” life Jesus was picked over him to be the savior. So they don’t really believe in a devil who is eternal, and surmise that Satan will one day become a god himself. I’ve heard the story that Joseph Smith was shown the plates on which the BOM was written by the “Angel Moroni” There was also a document in early Mormon History called the Salamander Papers, which the Church of Mormon once accepted, but after they were proven as a forged document, now denies. I’ve never heard that they were given by a serpant, but then again, there are so many things that Mormonism has changed, that it’s hard to keep up.September 20, 2012 at 5:37 pm #10533AnonymousInactive"LARobert":o9330rsh wrote:First most denied the Divinity of Christ, the existance of the Trinity, and they believed that the “True” Church had long since disappeared from the face of the earth, (Despite what Jesus promised us.) They all have a very anti-Catholic bent to them. If one holds that their teachings are the true teachings lost for centuries because the Catholic Church or some other group conspired to take power, it is easy to dismiss historical and archiological facts, and create your own counter history. Mormons and others have been taught a history different from what most reputable historians hold, and are entrusted with what they think is the sacred obligation to hold the rediscovered truth.
As I mentioned, above Mormons deny Jesus is the Second person of the Trinity. They believe that the God of this world was once a man, who has progressed to becoming a god and has populated the earth by having sexual relations with his wives. They believe that they are blood brothers of Jesus, and one of his brothers was Satan, who was not evil per-se, but upset that in their “pre-earth” life Jesus was picked over him to be the savior. So they don’t really believe in a devil who is eternal, and surmise that Satan will one day become a god himself. I’ve heard the story that Joseph Smith was shown the plates on which the BOM was written by the “Angel Moroni” There was also a document in early Mormon History called the Salamander Papers, which the Church of Mormon once accepted, but after they were proven as a forged document, now denies. I’ve never heard that they were given by a serpant, but then again, there are so many things that Mormonism has changed, that it’s hard to keep up.[/quote:o9330rsh]
We do agree that the LDS believe there was an Apostasy and they site several scriptural references to validate the anticipation that such was to occur.
I’m not sure what an “anti-Catholic Bent” is. If it references the distinctions in doctrines then I guess subject to personal opinion some would find them radically different and others would find them less so. Generally it has been my observation that this issue is less about scriptural precedent and more related to group – think bias. This is a condition of human nature that if we perceive someone is not of our team we simply discount them from that perspective alone and not for the finer points of topical discussion. This occurrs in groups in all organizations though it is a lamentable condition.
If “anti-Catholic Bent” references a bias against Catholics in general again that falls to individual maturities. Every organization has people who are less than generous with others they feel competitive with or challenged by. Typically I perceive that to be the result of lack of comfort with their own depth and belief and less about the “other guy”/” gal”. Some tend to get defensive because they really aren’t sure about somethings and don’t like the feeling that generates inside. Nonetheless as a body I have found them more generous than most with tolerating outsider review, especially when the discourse is thoughtful and considerate.
Reputable historians is a difficult thought to respond too without examples , so I’ll just leave that alone.
From the perspective of an Apostasy and then a claim of restoration one can only expect that they feel a sacred trust to assist anyone who was really interested in why they feel the restoration was a necessary event. I think we can expect that most religious minded folks regardless of denomination are similarly motivated from their perspectives.
The LDS believe that God the Father had a son. He is Jesus Christ and is considered a divine being. They believe in a third individual entity referred to as the Holy Ghost and he also is a divine being. This three are one in purpose but are three distinct individual entities. The LDS differ in the concept of trinity and that is where most of the debate occurs.
God of this world, once a man, populated this world by having sex with his wives….this is a general observation that I would prefer to see some sort of specific reference on to validate what is really being said. They do believe in a spiritual pre-existance where each person that comes to this earth exists in spirit form. They do not espouse any specifics as to how spirit bodies are formed by God the Father and his wife or wives, which ever the case may be. However each of those spirit children is born in this existence through the acts of intimacy associated with procreation.
This world is populated through that function. I suspect that details are not required…but those acts themselves that create the physical tabernacle do not involve anyone but the men and women that bear the children. The exception being they have a different perspective in God the Fathers role with Christ’s mother Mary – A view not generally shared by other religious denominations.
LDS are blood brothers of Jesus? You’ll have to provide a source for this one as it is completely untenable in its current form.
Satan – Christ’s brother, not evil, upset, will become a God, not eternal??? Wow – this one is a little bit of everything but overall a great distortion and grievous mis-statement of LDS Theology. Satan was upset, he was spiritually created by the same father that created the Savior as were the spirits of mankind – one can work with these points. Not evil, will become a God, not eternal are categorically, completely untenable as they are stated in LARoberts post.
The Gold plates, the origin of the Book of Mormon, was delivered and retrieved by Moroni.
The Salamander Letter was purchased in behalf of the church. It was never “accepted” as implied and simply represented one more of thousands of such purchases by the Church of potentially historically significant documents and memorabilia that they retain – much like the vaults of the Vatican house significant relics of Catholic history.
The timing of the find and subsequent sale are simply factors that are the way it is with antiquities. The document was purported to be genuine. The window to purchase was then and it appeared to be an artifiact of religious significance to the LDS church. It is much like the James ossuary of a few years ago, or even the Coptic papyri currently in the news. If they go up for sale and you are interested you buy while you can and hope it pans out as genuine as it is purported to be.
Changing Mormonism? This has become a mantra in recent years by anti-LDS groups, and rates rite along with “they aren’t Christian because they believe in a different Jesus and other type statements. They are designed to provide sound bites to discourage an active and intelligent effort to truly understand LDS theology by “poisoning the well” prejudicing people with group think logic that will shut down any further inquiry. Many accept them at face value without seeking further evidence. In essence LDS changes are more fluid as they accept that ongoing revelation still exists between man and God but its impact is no different than Vatican II was to the Catholic church which clarified, sharpened, and addressed issues that were required to further the cause and good of the Catholic Church.September 23, 2012 at 5:03 am #10535AnonymousInactive
Well when it comes to anti-Catholic bias, we read from the writings of the Third President of the Mormon Church…
[quote:27vs3rfn]”The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. [i:27vs3rfn]The old church is the mother[/i:27vs3rfn], and the protestants are the lewd daughters. Alas! alas! what doctrine, what principle, or what scheme, in all, what prayers, what devotion, or what faith, `since the fathers have fallen asleep,’ has opened the heavens; has brought men into the presence of God; and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to an innumerable company of angels? The answer is, not any: `There is none in all christendom that doeth good; no, not one.” John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811[/quote:27vs3rfn]
He also wrote
[quote:27vs3rfn]”Babylon, literally understood, is the gay world; spiritual wickedness, the golden city, and the glory of the world, The priests of Egypt, who received a portion gratis from Pharaoh; the priests of Baal, and the Pharisees, and Sadducees, with their “long robes,” among the Jews, are equally included in their mother’s family, with the Roman Catholics, Protestants, and all that have not had the keys of the kingdom and power thereof, according to the ordinances of God.”
John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.939[/quote:27vs3rfn]
He lovingly tells us…
[quote:27vs3rfn]”Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them,[/quote:27vs3rfn]
More than a few converts to the Catholic Church I know who were fromer Mormon’s regail tales of when they were in the Missionary Training Center preparing for their missionary service in the 1960’s and 1970’s that the Catholic Church was ridiculed and the Pope to be held in the highest contempt, with predictions that very soon Mormonism would take the place of the Catholic Church and wipe it off the face of the earth.
Now obviously if one believes his sect to be true, he must defend it. But these are some of the more tame quotes I’ve read, and stories from exmormons, lead me to believe that Mormonism is soft soaping their past and taking on new tactics in their “missionary” efforts.
We have to also remember that Mormonism developed after a time of general disbelief during a period of “revival” among Protestants in General, but was among groups like the SDA, Jehovah’s Wittness’ and others who denied the Traditional idea of the Trinity, and were competing for new converts. In rejecting much of what Christianity has taught for 2000 years and promoting new novel teachings, they began telling their converts that they re-discovered the lost teachings of a Church that once had existed but no longer held, amd needed to be restored. Once the contradiction to Christ’s promise that He would remain with the Church until the consumation of the world was pointed out, there appeared in their story a secret body of belivers who lived in hiding (at least according to these new religious sects)
for somewhere between 1600 and 1800 years until the prophets of each othe the new sects was chosen to re-discover and re-establish what Jesus had failed in.
Some of the other teachings odd to Mormonism include that Jesus and Satan were brothers in their pre-earth life, and Satan became upset and envious of Jesus when he was not chosen to become the messiah, causing emnity. The Jesus of Mormonism was like all of us in that he was one of many children of God who with his many wives was a product of a physical/sexual relationship. That like Jesus, and the “Father God” of this earth we can by following Mormonism become a god of our own planet and with our wives populate it too.
Mormonism claims, despite evidence to the contrary that these were the original doctrines of Jesus and the Apostles, but the Catholic Church suppressed them, and at some time during what we would call the era of the Early Fathers, that they rather than passing on the teachings of Christ that were recieved by them from the Apostles, they were Apostates and suppressed the truth. Too bad Jesus did not preserve the Church, nor the Holy Spirit guide it so that Joseph Smith during his wanderings through various religions and Masonry could be chosen to restore what nobody had ever heard of before.September 24, 2012 at 4:42 am #10536AnonymousInactive"LARobert":3mh60vij wrote:Well when it comes to anti-Catholic bias, we read from the writings of the Third President of the Mormon Church…
[quote:3mh60vij]”The present Christian world exists and continues by division. The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of harlots and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. [i:3mh60vij]The old church is the mother[/i:3mh60vij], and the protestants are the lewd daughters.[/quote:3mh60vij]
[quote:3mh60vij]”Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness.[/quote:3mh60vij]
Ahh, yes. When you spoke of an anti-Catholic bias, I wasn’t thinking in a grand enough way. In this sense, I certainly cannot disagree that we have what we as LDS would call a distinction between the church of God and anything that is not of God. We would heap any and all disciplines that were not aligned upon God’s pattern and denied his living sustainment of the organization into one large order of those arrayed in opposition to Him. Thus you shouldn’t feel to make the slight as if it is predicated upon your particular brand of religion as we embrace all disciplines such as atheism, science without god, psychology or any facet of idolatrous behavior that seeks to supplant the truth with a counterfeit.
However, part of the challenge for why I did not have any means of understanding what you could be referencing is because I don’t see you as a Catholic the same as the Catholic organization. In my mind, (limited playground that it is) in daily interactions, it is not with organizations but with people – People who may be aligned with any number of distractions that prevent them from advancing in spiritual concerns. So I see you as a person. Probably a very kind man or woman, whichever the case may be, who while trying to be sincere is aligned with one of many organizations that I might consider corruptions and or abominations of God’s word. As an individual, I can only see you as one, who like all of us, is in varying degrees of distance from God. Some are closer and some are further. I do believe with all my heart that it is possible to benefit the most in coming unto Christ by being LDS, however, you can start the process of coming unto Christ in any number of ways.
Indeed there are any number of LDS that fail to take advantage of the opportunity and also do not draw to Christ as much as they do an organization. That is as grievous an error as any.
As people and individuals, though, I do not consider you the abomination that I might consider the organization as a body that offends God unless it is that you choose this in pure understanding and not ignorance. I think in a way we might all view one another somewhat in this fashion. Yet as in all things, some people choose to despise another simply without knowledge of who they are but based on the umbrella they fit under. I myself make every effort to be forgiving of all and not create unnecessary obstacles to interaction."LARobert":3mh60vij wrote:Now obviously if one believes his sect to be true, he must defend it. But these are some of the more tame quotes I’ve read, and stories from exmormons, lead me to believe that Mormonism is soft soaping their past and taking on new tactics in their “missionary” efforts.[/quote:3mh60vij]
Surely we represent, as LDS, the gamut of imperfect behaviors as do all groups. Nonetheless, it is practically always not a good idea to seek council or truth about an organization from its detractors.
Generally agreement is founded upon personal bias over a genuine desire to understand the truth. In which case we are not striving to understand truth, we are simply loving the lie of judgment that we so often feel to cast. I abhor certain counter lifestyles that are common in this world, but I would be completely dishonest if I didn’t recognize that in some cases the individuals involved in the behavior are in many other ways wonderful people just lost in a serious way that I someday hope they will overcome. It is not my place, in other words, to judge the people, though I may the behavior.
Soft soaping , really? Please.. Just as the Catholics have had to play down events of their pasts that might be misunderstood or be an affront to the public image there is an ongoing process that is for ameliorating public reaction in both our organizations. It is not necessarily wrong in and of itself to feed the milk before the meat. Though, I am not saying to cover up or lie about anything there is a time and a place to deal with the questionable issues.
I’m not going to toss out the obvious sound bites and tedium’s that speak to sweeping under the carpet the undesirable results of the behaviors of men. We both know they exist in yours and my organizations. Battles over such things only divert us from speaking of more pressing matters of Christ and the atonement that is availed of all. Will you or I be saved any more surely because we want to chronicle the acts of men and dwell upon the obvious that it is a good thing God provided repentance so we could overcome our evil tendencies? I think not."LARobert":3mh60vij wrote:We have to also remember that Mormonism developed after a time of general disbelief during a period of “revival” among Protestants in General, but was among groups like the SDA, Jehovah’s Wittness’ and others who denied the Traditional idea of the Trinity, …[/quote:3mh60vij]
Well…since we aren’t talking trinity specifically in this post, I’ll not go there for the moment, more than to say trinity as it tends to be understood by most Christians and Catholics is one of the unifying principles upon which the idea of abomination rests. If trinity is right then yes the LDS are an abomination as we do not accept the traditional views. If however, it is as it appears to me, a doctrine birthed from the void of darkness that could only exist without the corrective influence of revelation and Apostolic correction, then it must be one of several collective principles that is an egregious affront to God the Father, his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. The internal strife and conflict that existed in the early church that fought to stop that aberration of true understanding finally failed, however, it stands as a testimony of the initial lack of universal acceptance of the change in doctrine of what and who is the Godhead."LARobert":3mh60vij wrote:Some of the other teachings odd to Mormonism include that Jesus and Satan were brothers in their pre-earth life, and Satan became upset and envious of Jesus when he was not chosen to become the messiah, causing enmity. The Jesus of Mormonism was like all of us in that he was one of many children of God who with his many wives was a product of a physical/sexual relationship. That like Jesus, and the “Father God” of this earth we can by following Mormonism become a god of our own planet and with our wives populate it too.[/quote:3mh60vij]
Tell me how we can have a sincere conversation about the nature of this theology when you lack the line upon line precept upon precept mandate of understanding that is required. That was Paul’s whole point of not teaching the Corinthians, Hebrews and others more than just the introductory material. They simply were unable to comprehend more than the milk he offered though he lamented so much that that was the case of things. I can only say that in this second iteration of this material you still do not have the LDS approach understood and I suspect that is just going to be the case of it. My real issue is why you wrest the concept of enmity when we believe it just as you should from the Old Testament Genesis introduction of the concept in Gen 3. Enmity was implemented by God prior to casting Adam and Eve from the Garden for a particular purpose.
How can we speak of a preexistence and the conditions thereof and hope that it will make any sense to you, if you are only going to ignore the scriptural clues of Job and Jeremiah and Romans? Etc…"LARobert":3mh60vij wrote:Mormonism claims, despite evidence to the contrary ….what nobody had ever heard of before.[/quote:3mh60vij]
I am not going to presume that you are unaware of the true historical evidences that objectively call into question the claim that there were no changes of doctrine, no addition of doctrine, no suppression of doctrine in the Catholic church. The writings of the early church fathers are replete with the wrestling’s and turmoil that ensued as the churches began to teeter on the precipice of collapse. The infighting and the crisis between Arius, the Bishop of Alexandria, Clement, each in their time, and all of the others who worked tirelessly to unite and defend as best they could as the people wandered further and further from agreement on core principles of doctrine are much too available in the historical record for you to simply cast them aside as “the Mormons claim.”
When I see these kinds of statements I know the heart of the person who speaks them all too clearly. You aren’t looking for truth, as much as you are looking for a safe place that will not challenge your peaceful world view. Mormons, did not subvert the 1800 +- years of events that spawned the creation of Catholicism and bore the daughters of the reformation (as you earlier referenced).
Why did Luther feel compelled to split from the church? Did Mormons encourage his path? Was William Tyndale persecuted by the Church in Rome because he was a Mormon? Or what did he mean when he stated,” I defy the Pope, and all his laws; and if God spare me, I will one day make the boy that drives the plough in England to know more of Scripture than the Pope himself!” Would the Pope really enforce laws to keep the Bible out of the hands of the people? Was Tyndale wrong in blazing the trail that put the Bible that you and I read in our very own hands? Was that a mistake? The church at the time thought it would be and yet when the heretics prevail in their cause and it is so obviously in hindsight correct, are we willing to acknowledge that God prevailed against a few men at the top of an organization that sought to keep the masses in darkness?
All I can say is that long before Mormons became a force to be reckoned with, your history was being written and if you wanted to explore it and be objective about it, then perhaps we could dialogue on such things. However, if we ignore the lives shattered, the sufferings endured, the terror inflicted upon those that rose up to defend the causes that so obviously needed to be addressed then we proceed with blinders that ignore a history that seems too uncomfortable for you to acknowledge. I consider their sacrifices to great to overlook in defense of a straw man Mormon who did not write your history. Our own history is sufficient for my apologetic needs without dwelling on others denial of theirs.September 24, 2012 at 8:35 pm #10537AnonymousInactive
Some of your critique of the Catholic Church would be valid, if only the sources you used were.
The reality is, despite what the Mormon Church or Protestant writers claim, Protestant Churches are not daughter Churches, but are sects which broke away from the Catholic Church because their founders denied various teachings preserved from the time of the Apostles by the Catholic Church.
Arius and others you cite were not valliant defenders of the secret underground Mormons who the LDS leadership claims went underground, but were various men, many who recieved a good Catholic education who went astray because of their own personal desires to accomodate the scriptures to their own way of believing things. If you wish to condemn me for using those who have defected from Mormonism, then you must do the same for those who have ruptured their own union with the Church founded by Jesus, and His vicar the Pope.
As a bit of background you seem unaware of, I too am a convert to the Catholic Faith, the information from former Mormons was not delivered at an Anti-Mormon bashfest, but in conversations with them at mixers for converts to the Catholic Faith. I did look into several religious groups including the LDS, but was drawn to the Catholic Church not by it’s claims, but rather because of it’s many detractors. I heard while a student at an SDA University all sorts of misrepresentations of the Catholic Faith, and history, half facts, which painted the Church as barbaric and Protestants as angelic saviors of civilization. So I investigated history, and the teachings of the Catholic Church and found out for myself the facts. I was not alone, I read the lives and Apologiae of J. H. Newman and others who started life anti-catholic and were persuaded by reading in history the real events, and not the distortions which they had been taught. I found that the Catholic Church did not invent any new doctrines, as did Mormonism and other sects. However when there was a crisis or question which arose by dissent, to prevent the fiathful from falling prey, it defined what had always been taught. Recent examples of the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption can be found in the Early Church both East and West, and became “hot topics” only when they were denied by some. Mormonism on the other hand has changed it’s teachings over time. It matters not if it was to gain Statehood for Deseret, later whittled down to become Utah, or the early teachings of Jesus marriage and children to the current idea that he remained single. Nor the current Anti-Tobbacco stance when in the first days of the “Tabernacle” in SLC the problem with chew staining the floors and causing problems was so bad that signs had to be placed around the building reminding men to spit their tobacco into the spittons. So we need some academic and historical honesty here.
In the case of William Tyndale, the protestant claim is that he was a giant champion by translating the Bible into the common language, and that very fact was an affront to the Catholic Church which was opposed to allowing the people to read the Bible on their own. However if you look into the facts of the times there were several translations of the Bible into English which the Church had approved. The problem with Tyndale was his tinkering with the Bible to say what he wanted it to. Tyndale influenced by others had the idea to change the Bible translations that existed and make them say what he believed, not belive what the Bible said. The reality is about 80% of the Mass is taken from the Scirptures, including the reading from the Bible which occur at every Mass. On Sundays and Holy Days, Catholics where also instructed in the Bible during the sermon. Most Cathedrals have stained glass windows and carvings depicting biblical scenes, because until recently most people were illiterate. Tyndale’s hatred of the Church and his comments about the Pope reflect more his prejudices than the reality of the Church.
The Catholic Church provided for the poor, part of the founding documents for Monastic communities all around Europe and into the colonial countries after Europe expanded required that the monks provide health care and feed, as well as clothe the needy in their area. The tracts of land overseen by the monastic communities not only fed the monks, but provided employment and food for the local people. This afforded not just basic social services but was able to keepin check the local civil authorities who did not always treat the people Spiritually monastaries preserved the Bible and other sacred writings before the printing press, and provided a haven of prayer, and sanctuary for those in need. If you read anti-catholic histories, you will see stories that decry the Church as always and everywere corrupt, overlooking the majority which were good and holy people, living in times we ourselves find hard to comprehend.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.