Mormons; explain to me why you will not be Catholic.

[Rescued One]

WORSHIP OF IMAGES.
According to their own official statement, Catholics worship images---not just false gods or a concept of Deity which is false and untrue---but out and out, plainly and simply stated, they worship the actual images of the so-called saints which are everywhere found in their cathedrals and other buildings. In their own encyclopedia they make careful recitation of their belief that there are two kinds of worship, the supreme adoration reserved for deity only and the lesser adoration and worship given the images of their saints and such symbols as the cross.
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, c. 1966, p. 849-850

Now this sounds really odd considering the fact that LDS worship both God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and some even mention the Holy Ghost. How many gods do they worship or this there a supreme adoration for the Father and a lesser adoration for the Son?

D. God is the Supreme Being in the universe.

1. God the Father is greater than all (see Ephesians 4:6; John 10:29).

2. As the Supreme Being, God the Father should be the object of our love and worship (see D&C 18:40; 20:29; Joshua 22:5; Mark 12:30; D&C 4:2; Luke 4:8).

3. God created all things through His Son (see Hebrews 1:1–2; Moses 1:32–33; 2:1).

E. The Father presides over the Godhead.

1. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the members of the Godhead (see Articles of Faith 1:1; 1 John 5:7; Alma 11:44).

2. Each member of the Godhead is physically separate and distinct from the others (see D&C 130:22; Matthew 3:16–17; Acts 7:55–56).

3. The members of the Godhead are united in Their attributes, power, and purpose (see John 17:20–21; D&C 20:28; 35:2; 2 Nephi 31:21; 3 Nephi 11:27).

4. The Father is the supreme member of the Godhead (see John 14:26, 28, 31; 2 Nephi 31:7, 12; 3 Nephi 28:11).
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 3, God the Eternal Father
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual

An LDS person once posted to a forum:

"I worship God the Father in his proper role as the Father. I worship Christ in his proper role as the creator, the redeemer, and mediator to the Father. I worship the Holy Ghost in his proper role as the testator of truth, and comforter."

 

[Rescued One]

LDS objection to Trinity:

The Prophet Joseph learned early that the sectarian creeds were confusing in their declarations on the nature of God. They held to the notion of the Trinity as conceived in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds, developed by councils convened in the early centuries of Christianity to settle theological differences. Those creeds portray God as three personages in one and one in three, “neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance”; as being uncreated, incomprehensible, and almighty. From these creeds has grown the current orthodox view held by most Christian denominations that “there is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness.” 3

But in the First Vision, the Prophet learned that the Father and the Son are two separate personages. He later taught that they have bodies of flesh and bones and that the Holy Ghost, the third member of the Godhead, is also a personage but has a spirit body rather than one of flesh and bones (see D&C 130:22).
LDS.org - Ensign Article - “The Morning Breaks, the Shadows Flee”

One of the first things I was taught in the LDS church was this:

“Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God. I say that is a strange God anyhow—three in one, and one in three! It is a curious organization anyhow. All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully big God—he would be a giant or a monster.”
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372; History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 476)

 

[xenic101]

Mormons; explain to me why you will not be Catholic. It's very simple, just tell me all of the reasons you can think of.

God bless you.

When I read your revised question, I thought of something a great man once said "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life."

Since I believe I belong to the Lord's church, restored to Earth and led by a prophet called by the Lord, why would I want to be Catholic, or any other denomination? Why not Buddhism? Why not Islam or Rastafarian? I believe I'm on the correct path, I see no need nor do I feel any desire to change that path. You no doubt feel the same way, so why not become Mormon?

You believe that your church holds Apostolic authority as passed down from Peter and can produce a lineage of leadership to prove it. I don't believe producing names proves that the Lord authorized those people to govern over Israel, but I do believe that He has restored that authority in modern times. So we quickly come to an impasse trying to prove to the other that we are right, because it's intrinsically not something that can be proven by "flesh and blood".

What is interesting though, is that despite your statement:

I was hoping to have a personal discussion with a mormon one on one about their private revelation. I want to know why they personally would not become Catholic, and what doctrine and practices we follow that they object to.

You have a few answers from members of the LDS church answering your question, and a good deal of opinion from non-LDS posters speculating why LDS don't become Catholic, despite some of them being in a perfect position to directly address your inquiry, having left the LDS Church and yet not having become Catholic. As well as several posts that seem to serve no purpose other than to add contention to what could be a sincere discussion.

 

[Ran77]

WORSHIP OF IMAGES.
According to their own official statement, Catholics worship images---not just false gods or a concept of Deity which is false and untrue---but out and out, plainly and simply stated, they worship the actual images of the so-called saints which are everywhere found in their cathedrals and other buildings. In their own encyclopedia they make careful recitation of their belief that there are two kinds of worship, the supreme adoration reserved for deity only and the lesser adoration and worship given the images of their saints and such symbols as the cross.
Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, c. 1966, p. 849-850

Now this sounds really odd considering the fact that LDS worship both God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and some even mention the Holy Ghost. How many gods do they worship or this there a supreme adoration for the Father and a lesser adoration for the Son?

D. God is the Supreme Being in the universe.

1. God the Father is greater than all (see Ephesians 4:6; John 10:29).

2. As the Supreme Being, God the Father should be the object of our love and worship (see D&C 18:40; 20:29; Joshua 22:5; Mark 12:30; D&C 4:2; Luke 4:8).

3. God created all things through His Son (see Hebrews 1:1–2; Moses 1:32–33; 2:1).

E. The Father presides over the Godhead.

1. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the members of the Godhead (see Articles of Faith 1:1; 1 John 5:7; Alma 11:44).

2. Each member of the Godhead is physically separate and distinct from the others (see D&C 130:22; Matthew 3:16–17; Acts 7:55–56).

3. The members of the Godhead are united in Their attributes, power, and purpose (see John 17:20–21; D&C 20:28; 35:2; 2 Nephi 31:21; 3 Nephi 11:27).

4. The Father is the supreme member of the Godhead (see John 14:26, 28, 31; 2 Nephi 31:7, 12; 3 Nephi 28:11).
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, Chapter 3, God the Eternal Father
Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual

An LDS person once posted to a forum:

"I worship God the Father in his proper role as the Father. I worship Christ in his proper role as the creator, the redeemer, and mediator to the Father. I worship the Holy Ghost in his proper role as the testator of truth, and comforter."

That's odd. I'm sure the topic of the thread is why LDS will not be Catholic, and not, let me find more things to complain about mormonism.

:o

 

[xenic101]

That's odd. I'm sure the topic of the thread is why LDS will not be Catholic, and not, let me find more things to complain about mormonism.

:o

Not the thread specifically, but the forum in general. So it's all good.

 

[Ran77]

...really? That is very interesting Ran. Please elaborate why.

I already have - the Lord did not lead me there.

Ah yes of course, you believe that the divine trinity are three completely different persons? If my understanding there is correct. Could you please tell me more about how you see the trinity, we can discuss this.

I believe that I did. They are three seperate entities who are united in purpose. They have seperate minds and are capable of seperate and independant thought and action.

What is your view of it Ran? Tell me what you believe.

What is my view of what? What Catholics believe - I don't have a firm one. My view of the purpose of existence - to be fruitful and mulitply.

On this subject, have you read the Old Testament?

I don't assume that those who disagree with me are unread on a subject. If you are going to go this route we can stop now.

They were not ordered by God, they were ordered by man.

That is my point. They also happen to have been ordered by the leadership of the Catholic church.

 

[Moodshadow]

Just for the record, the Catholic Church WAS thought of as the harlot of Babylon at one time in the LDS Church. Even as recent as the 1970s. I quote the following:


harlot of Babylon - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is harlot of Babylon? What is harlot of Babylon? Where is harlot of Babylon? Definition of harlot of Babylon. Meaning of harlot of Babylon.

You are correct in saying that it is not current LDS belief. Rufus

With all due respect, Rufus, I beg to differ. It is in fact still an LDS belief; it's just another one of those that would fit very nicely under that umbrella Gordon B. Hinckley referred to when he said (when asked about the as-man-is-God-once-was doctrine), "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse." (emphasis mine) They don't teach/emphasize it any more because it's controversial and/or politically incorrect, but you can be sure it's still doctrine. Has there been revelation rescinding it that I don't know about? Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it.

 

[RufustheRed]

With all due respect, Rufus, I beg to differ. It is in fact still an LDS belief; it's just another one of those that would fit very nicely under that umbrella Gordon B. Hinckley referred to when he said (when asked about the as-man-is-God-once-was doctrine), "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse." (emphasis mine) They don't teach/emphasize it any more because it's controversial and/or politically incorrect, but you can be sure it's still doctrine. Has there been revelation rescinding it that I don't know about? Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it.

Thanks, Moodshadow. I was only going by the article that I posted from. If you'll click on the link, you'll see what I am referring to.

I suppose I should not post to this thread as I am not LDS, therefore, technically ineligible to do so. Heaven forbid that any of our LDS friends deviate from OPs.

Thanks for the info.

Rufus

 

[xenic101]

Thanks, Moodshadow. I was only going by the article that I posted from. If you'll click on the link, you'll see what I am referring to.

I suppose I should not post to this thread as I am not LDS, therefore, technically ineligible to do so. Heaven forbid that any of our LDS friends deviate from OPs.

Thanks for the info.

Rufus

So, even though you're not LDS, why aren't you Catholic?

 

[RufustheRed]

So, even though you're not LDS, why aren't you Catholic?

See the OP. I am not LDS. Therefore, not permitted to post to this thread. In fact, I am in violation of the author's wishes by responding to you on this thread.

Rufus

 

[Norbert L]

1261 of the CCC. We do not teach or believe that unbaptized infants will go to hell. I think this is your protestant bias, that makes you say these things Moodshadow.



(Sigh).

On this particular point, it could be said some RC members would make a person say such a thing.

In another discussion about infant baptism, me the non-RC had to inform a RC that his statement on non baptised infants going to hell is not in the CCC too.

 

[Moodshadow]

On this particular point, it could be said some RC members would make a person say such a thing.

In another discussion about infant baptism, me the non-RC had to inform a RC that his statement on non baptised infants going to hell is not in the CCC too.

Please educate us, then. What is the RCC doctrine on the eternal fate of unbaptized infants? Please be specific and thorough. Thanks.

 

[Blackmarch]

It's very simple, just tell me all of the reasons you can think of.

God bless you.

God has lead me to the LDS rather than any other sect, I've found the BoM to be of God, God has chosen Joseph Smith as one of his servants, The apostles cannot be found in the Catholic church. Various things they teach do not fit with what the bible teaches me, or is a narrow intrepretation of the bible.

 

[Blackmarch]

Because God did not lead me to the Catholic Church. I need no other reason than that. Although, there is enough to reinforce that decision.

Doesn't this discussion belong in the Catholic section of the forums?

I thought mormons couldn't/shouldn't post in that section?

 

[Ran77]

I thought mormons couldn't/shouldn't post in that section?

They aren't. It still remains the place to discuss Catholic doctrine.

Take a look at the responses from the LDS. We are pretty much in agreement. We are not Catholic because the Lord did not lead us there. I don't see any of us chomping at the bit to bash paticular points of doctrine that we disagree with. With that sort of a reaction, do you really think that this forum is the best place for this discussion?

 

[skylark1]

I thought mormons couldn't/shouldn't post in that section?

My understanding is that LDS can post in the congregational forusm, but that they can't debate. They can ask questions or post fellowship type posts. I doubt that starting a thread in the Catholic forum asking a specific group why they are not Catholic would be considered appropriate.

 

[Ran77]

With all due respect, Rufus, I beg to differ. It is in fact still an LDS belief; it's just another one of those that would fit very nicely under that umbrella Gordon B. Hinckley referred to when he said (when asked about the as-man-is-God-once-was doctrine), "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse." (emphasis mine) They don't teach/emphasize it any more because it's controversial and/or politically incorrect, but you can be sure it's still doctrine. Has there been revelation rescinding it that I don't know about? Perhaps, but somehow I doubt it.

CFR. This is your opinion; your interpretation on the matter. Why not provide some actual quotes that will demonstrate:

1. It is still LDS belief that the Catholic church is the harlot of Babylon.

2. That the LDS emphasize the Snow couplet to which you are referring.

3. That the LDS have in any way backed away from the Snow couplet because it is controversial or politically incorrect.

4. That the LDS know alot of the doctrine described in the Snow couplet. Please provide the ample amounts of follow up revelation on this subject that would represent a contradiction to Hinckley's comment that we do not know a lot about it.


Anyone can post a bunch of statements in opposition to the LDS. All it requires is the ability to type. Let's see you back it up.

 

[IreneAdler]

bizarre question... subbing out of morbid curiosity...

 

[bbbbbbb]

bizarre question... subbing out of morbid curiosity...

Agreed. As Dorothy Parker once said, "Curiosity is the cure for boredom. There is no cure for curiosity." I have never been bored on this board, but have been curious on many occasions.

 

[Moodshadow]

CFR. This is your opinion; your interpretation on the matter. Opinion and observation, based on my 40 years of full, active and faithful membership - with all that that entails - in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Why not provide some actual quotes that will demonstrate:

1. It is still LDS belief that the Catholic church is the harlot of Babylon. Surely you jest. Do you really believe that the LDS church is going to put in actual print something that says, "Okay, folks, king's X, here - never mind. We no longer subscribe to our former teaching (or we had a revelation, or we don't believe/teach any more, or whatever) that the Catholic church is the harlot of Babylon." You know better than that! (And your use of the word "still" is exceedingly important, very telling and duly noted.)

2. That the LDS emphasize the Snow couplet to which you are referring. They DON'T! That's the whole point, in case you missed that. But that doesn't mean that the underlying doctrine isn't still (there's that word again) lurking under there. Do YOU ever hear it discussed in sacrament meetings or in priesthood? They used to talk about it a lot. They don't emphasize it any more.

3. That the LDS have in any way backed away from the Snow couplet because it is controversial or politically incorrect. This again is an inference on my part, based on my own experience and observation. But it is one shared by a lot of other people, and it is a valid one. The LDS church would never actually announce such a thing, and you know it - it would be far too publicly humiliating. That you choose another opinion is of course your right - and I would expect it.

4. That the LDS know alot of the doctrine described in the Snow couplet. How in thunderation could I (or any other one person) know how much any LDS member believes about that or anything else? But I do know this much: you and several other faithful Latter-day Saint posters here seem to have an astonishing lack of knowledge on the subject - and that tells me right there that it hasn't been emphasized in quite a while now. It also reinforces to me that it is the church's way of just making it gradually and quietly go away, to save this embarrassment in the future. Very effective, I'd say, even already. It won't be long until people will have to dig to find it in church history books to know that it ever existed. Those general authorities are not dummies.

Please provide the ample amounts of follow up revelation on this subject that would represent a contradiction to Hinckley's comment that we do not know a lot about it. I have access to "ample amounts of follow up [sic] revelation" now? Wow! You give me far too much credit, Ran. If you don't know a lot about it yourself, it only serves to reinforce my premise. Please see the preceding paragraph. Case dismissed.