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

[xenic101]

Wow! This thread is getting interestinger and interestinger all the time. It is nice to see a variety of new posters here, although it remains with very little Mormon input, which is to be pitied because, after all, the OP was addressed to Mormons.

BTW, I entirely understand and agree with IreneAdler concerning infant baptism. Thanks, Irene.

The regular LDS posters have responded to the original post for the most part.
I was out for the day this thread exploded and don't see much I feel the need to respond to.

Though I will say hello to all the new names.

Especially:

Do you have something constructive to say?

No. Not really.. Do you??
....

Are you a christian?

Oh!! Am I a Christian? Now that would be telling?

I is a seeker of the truth!!

Who's definition of a Christian?

and

I'm frankly shocked at the dismissal of an entire group of people simply because they have unorthodox beliefs.
....
no, it was about the general idea put forth that somehow mormons are degenerate or unchristian. Just the feeling so many posts in this thread make me feel when I read them.

Ha! You should browse some other threads in this forum, pretty much any of them will do...

But back to the point...

Why are you not a Mormon??

Because I know that God is too great to have an apostasy. I know that the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are one God and not three unique Gods. I know that I will not become a God after death and I will not be reunited with a wife after death and continue to have spirit children with her in the spirit world.

I don't disagree that God is too great to have an apostasy, man however, is. Throughout the Bible, the Lord sent his people prophets, and they accepted the prophet's teaching, for a time. The the chosen people fell away from the prophet's teaching. And the Lord sent another prophet. Of course Christ was much more than a prophet, but He did leave us with His teachings, and like had happened so often before, man fell away from those teachings. Without the continuing authority from the Lord, man was left to interpret on his own, opinions crept in, reasoning was used to fill in gaps and explain uncertainties. The Lord could have prevented that of course, but it would not have served his purpose. The Lord could have prevented Adam and Eve from eating the fruit, but that would not have served his purpose. The Lord could stop world hunger and violent death, but he doesn't, because that does not serve his purpose.

 

[RufustheRed]

and again, christianity isn't something you're born into like Judaism (and YES you can convert as an adult after schooling)

So what you are saying is that Judaism is a race like Caucasian or Negroid. Correct? If one converts into Judaism, do they then possess the same genetic make-up as all the other Jews in the world?
If a person becomes a Jewish convert does his/her DNA change? This should happen if Jewish is ethnic. Personally, I do not believe that it changes. What say you?

Rufus

 

[RufustheRed]

I kinda saw it as picking too so don't feel like you're perspective is unusual.

It ain't picking, it is talking/discussing. Nobody is getting picked on. How can we learn about other people and their beliefs if we don't discuss our differences and similarities???

Rufus

 

[RufustheRed]

... <text omitted for brevity> ...

I don't disagree that God is too great to have an apostasy, man however, is. Throughout the Bible, the Lord sent his people prophets, and they accepted the prophet's teaching, for a time. The the chosen people fell away from the prophet's teaching. And the Lord sent another prophet. Of course Christ was much more than a prophet, but He did leave us with His teachings, and like had happened so often before, man fell away from those teachings. Without the continuing authority from the Lord, man was left to interpret on his own, opinions crept in, reasoning was used to fill in gaps and explain uncertainties. The Lord could have prevented that of course, but it would not have served his purpose. The Lord could have prevented Adam and Eve from eating the fruit, but that would not have served his purpose. The Lord could stop world hunger and violent death, but he doesn't, because that does not serve his purpose.

Ah, yes, so you say. Christ told us when he established His church that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. What you are proposing in your post is that the gates of hell DID prevail against Christ's Church, and thus making the creator of the universe at best a false prophet and at worse, a liar. I cannot imagine that Jesus Christ failed to give His Church the power and authority to sustain His kingdom on earth.

No. Instead we have an institution that was invented in the 1830s and claims that it will never fall into apostasy. What makes Joseph Smith's office more authentic and have more stamina than Jesus Christ's?

If there was an apostasy, it happened on April 6, 1830, IMO.

Have a great day y'all.

Rufus

 

[IreneAdler]

So what you are saying is that Judaism is a race like Caucasian or Negroid. Correct? If one converts into Judaism, do they then possess the same genetic make-up as all the other Jews in the world?
If a person becomes a Jewish convert does his/her DNA change? This should happen if Jewish is ethnic. Personally, I do not believe that it changes. What say you?

Rufus

No, if you studied Jewish ideation, etc. you'd get it. I'm tired of stating it over and over. If you choose to disregard what I've said then fine, but don't post silly things like "do they possess the same genetic make up".

 

[SoftSpoken]

Ah, yes, so you say. Christ told us when he established His church that the gate of hell would not prevail against it. What you are proposing in your post is that the gate of hell DID prevail against Christ's Church, and thus making the creator of the universe at best a false prophet and at worse, a liar. I cannot imagine that Jesus Christ failed to give His Church the power and authority to sustain His kingdom on earth.

No. Instead we have an institution that was invented in the 1830s and claims that it will never fall into apostasy. What makes Joseph Smith's office more authentic have more stamina than Jesus Christ's?

If there was an apostasy, it happened on April 6, 1830, IMO.

Have a great day y'all.

Rufus

Well, we understand that the "rock" referred to there is revelation from Christ to Peter, or from Christ to the president of the Church. So long as the rock remained revelation, hell could not/did not prevail against the Church. It was only when the keys to govern and dispense the Gospel inherent in the apostleship became extinct that hell prevailed against the Church. For at that point, the revelatory channel between God and the Church as an organized institution was interrupted, and the rock was no longer revelation, but was a man—the bishop of Rome. Christ never promised that hell would not prevail against a church founded on the rock of a man.

So I disagree with your conclusion that the apostasy began in 1830.

 

[SoftSpoken]

So what you are saying is that Judaism is a race like Caucasian or Negroid. Correct? If one converts into Judaism, do they then possess the same genetic make-up as all the other Jews in the world?
If a person becomes a Jewish convert does his/her DNA change? This should happen if Jewish is ethnic. Personally, I do not believe that it changes. What say you?

Rufus

You're closer than you realize Rufus. To become one of the Lord's covenant people is to receive new spiritual DNA. It's a great metaphor, and I wish I'd have thought of it first. Bummer.

 

[A New Dawn]

Well, we understand that the "rock" referred to there is revelation from Christ to Peter, or from Christ to the president of the Church. So long as the rock remained revelation, hell could not/did not prevail against the Church. It was only when the keys to govern and dispense the Gospel inherent in the apostleship became extinct that hell prevailed against the Church. For at that point, the revelatory channel between God and the Church as an organized institution was interrupted, and the rock was no longer revelation, but was a man—the bishop of Rome. Christ never promised that hell would not prevail against a church founded on the rock of a man.

So I disagree with your conclusion that the apostasy began in 1830.

Not to get too far OT, but wanting to speak to that passage .......... Since that passage starts back in verse 13 and begins with Jesus asking who people say that he is, Peter's answer that He is the son of the living God is the rock that the church will be built on. Christ is the rock, not Peter, not revelation, but Christ being the son of the living God.

/OT ramble

 

[Zechariah]

Ah, yes, so you say. Christ told us when he established His church that the gate of hell would not prevail against it. What you are proposing in your post is that the gate of hell DID prevail against Christ's Church, and thus making the creator of the universe at best a false prophet and at worse, a liar.

Oh, not so at all.



"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."



The argument that this means there could not have been an apostasy fails.

First...

"upon this rock"

What rock? What is the rock being spoken of?

Second...

"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

Shall not prevail against what?

Is the "it" that the gaits of hell shall not prevail against the rock? Or is the "it" that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Christ's Church?



If the "it" is Christ's Church, and if an apostasy means the gates of hell did prevail, then Christ would have had no Church to restore. In other words, for a restoration to occur, the gates of hell could not have prevailed in the first place.

And, of course, if "it" is not referring to Christ's Church, but referring to the "rock" spoken of, then it might be profitable to consider what that rock might be, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

 

[skylark1]

First, I agree with Dawn that the rock spoken of in Matthew 16 is Christ himself, not revelation or Peter. Here is the context:

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.​

Hopefully the Catholics participating in this thread are still reading. I read the following in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church. I had not realized that this was their position.

God has said everything in his Word

65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father's one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.​

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called "private" revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ's definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept "revelations" that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such "revelations".

Catechism of the Catholic Church - The Revelation of God
​

Am I correct in understanding that the position of the RCC is that God still gives personal revelation, but no longer gives revelation to the church at large, and that church leaders are only to clarify past revelations, not receive new revelations? When do Catholics believe that revelation that was part of the "deposit of faith" ended? Did it cease at the close of the biblical canon? Did it include writings of the early church fathers?


Also for LDS, is it the LDS postion that God no longer gave revelation to the church at large but that he still gave private revelation, or that revelation ceased entirely?

 

[A New Dawn]

Oh, not so at all.



"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."



The argument that this means there could not have been an apostasy fails.

First...

"upon this rock"

What rock? What is the rock being spoken of?

Second...

"and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"

Shall not prevail against what?

Is the "it" that the gaits of hell shall not prevail against the rock? Or is the "it" that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Christ's Church?



If the "it" is Christ's Church, and if an apostasy means the gates of hell did prevail, then Christ would have had no Church to restore. In other words, for a restoration to occur, the gates of hell could not have prevailed in the first place.

And, of course, if "it" is not referring to Christ's Church, but referring to the "rock" spoken of, then it might be profitable to consider what that rock might be, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

What??? You are negating Joseph Smith's whole argument. If he was right, the church needed to be restored for some reason. If there was an apostasy, then the gates of hell most certainly prevailed, or there would be no need for a restoration.

 

[Cain Spencer]

What??? You are negating Joseph Smith's whole argument. If he was right, the church needed to be restored for some reason. If there was an apostasy, then the gates of hell most certainly prevailed, or there would be no need for a restoration.

 

[xenic101]

I can't remember my source, but the word used here for "hell" indicates where the dead dwell, without the connotations of damnation that are associated with it today. Hell was simply where souls went when the body died.
A gate has exactly the same meaning then it does today. It's a movable barrier in a fence or a wall. It keeps things in and or out. It does not assault, assail, attack, or take any other offensive action. Gates are and have always been entirely defensive unless you rip it off the hinges and start swinging it at people.

The gates of Hell did not prevail. They completely failed to constrain Christ at his death. Christ died, and lives again. The gates of hell did not prevail. Christ brought his gospel to those souls on the other side of mortality, his truth was and is now taught to those souls who would otherwise be forever trapped beyond salvation. The gates of hell do not prevail. Those souls in that hell who accept Christ's gospel are removed and set in their appointed place in Christ's kingdom. The gates of hell do not prevail. All men shall be resurrected and freed from the bonds of physical death. The gates of hell did not and will not prevail.

 

[Cain Spencer]

I can't remember my source, but the word used here for "hell" indicates where the dead dwell, without the connotations of damnation that are associated with it today. Hell was simply where souls went when the body died.
A gate has exactly the same meaning then it does today. It's a movable barrier in a fence or a wall. It keeps things in and or out. It does not assault, assail, attack, or take any other offensive action.
The gates of Hell did not prevail. They completely failed to constrain Christ at his death. Christ died, and lives again. The gates of hell did not prevail. Christ brought his gospel to those souls on the other side of mortality, his truth was and is now taught to those souls who would otherwise be forever trapped beyond salvation. The gates of hell do not prevail. Those souls in that hell who accept Christ's gospel are removed and set in their appointed place in Christ's kingdom. The gates of hell do not prevail. All men shall be resurrected and freed from the bonds of physical death. The gates of hell did not and will not prevail.

Gates are and have always been entirely defensive unless you rip it off the hinges and start swinging it at people.

 

[Rescued One]

I think LDS try to say that because the church was not destroyed completely, even though it was no longer on earth, it is back on earth proving that Satan is the loser. Then they have the audacity to say that the LDS church will never fail.

"It is evident from the scriptures that through the foreknowledge of God the ancient apostles were shown in advance that Christianity would be splintered, that its unity for which Christ had prayed would be destroyed, and that thus would come a general falling away from the original truth.... But the Lord was not content to abandon a shattered Christianity. He was still determined to save mankind if they would obey him. Therefore, knowing in advance that a falling away would take place, he provided for a restoration of the original truth in the latter days. This was voiced through the apostle Peter as one day he discoursed upon the second coming of the Lord. He explained that the Lord&#8217;s second coming would be preceded in the latter days by a restoration of the gospel which would be so extensive as to return all that God had spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets from the beginning of the world. (See Acts 3.)" - Mark E. Petersen, &#8220;The Message of Elijah,&#8221; Ensign, May 1976, p. 14

I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet. . . . " (History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408-409).

"We have been assured that in this last dispensation of the fulness of times there will be no universal apostasy. When the Lord appears again in his glory, he will find a people who will have remained faithful and who will be ready to receive him and join with him in the completion of his work. But the fact that there will not be a complete apostasy in this last dispensation does not mean all who have received the gospel and become members of the Church will remain faithful. Prophetic references to our own day, in fact, seem to indicate that there will be many who have known the truth and have tasted of the Lord's goodness who will then allow themselves to be tempted away from the course the Lord has marked out for them." &#8212; Dean L. Larson, "Likening The Scriptures Unto Us," BYU Speeches of the Year, 3 Feb. 1991

When this falling away(apostacy) occurred that Joseph Smith spoke of, who sat in the temple of God and exalted himself above all that is called God?

I2 Thessalonians 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto Him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the Temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

???

 

[Cain Spencer]

I could be wrong but wasn't it an angel that gave the golden book to Joseph Smith?

"If an angel of heaven present to you any other gospel, reject it."

 

[Rescued One]

I could be wrong but wasn't it an angel that gave the golden book to Joseph Smith?

"If an angel of heaven present to you any other gospel, reject it."

Well, if you are LDS, Moroni was returning the original gospel.

 

[Zechariah]

What??? You are negating Joseph Smith's whole argument. If he was right, the church needed to be restored for some reason. If there was an apostasy, then the gates of hell most certainly prevailed, or there would be no need for a restoration.

I have negated nothing at all. You have just failed to recognize the difference between what belongs to the Lord, and what belongs to men.

If the gates of hell had prevailed against the Lord's Church, there would have been no Church for Him to restore in the first place. Or, are you forgetting that Christ's Church, is Christ's, not man's. If the gates of hell or Satan, if you prefer, had prevailed, he would have had to prevail against Christ Himself.

You see, all power has been given to our Lord in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). HE can establish His Church on earth, and HE can remove it from the earth. It is HIS Church, and remains so, whether it's found on the earth, or not. When He establishes and builds up His Church & Kingdom on earth, He allows men to enter it, He bestows His authority upon man that man may officiate in it, He gives men stewardships within it. But, regardless of what man does, Christ's Church belongs to Christ, not men. It is HIS.

If man becomes corrupted through the temptations and powers of Satan to the point that apostasy occurs, where men turn from the Lord, reject the Lord's servants, corrupt the teachings of the Lord, or change His doctrines, or His ordinances, Satan has not prevailed against the Lord, or His Church, he has only prevailed against the minds and hearts of those men. The Lord still owns His Church. He still owns His Authority. He still owns His power. These are His and they are, and remain, in Him, in His possession, no matter what men, or devils, do.

Being HIS, and in His authority, and in His power, our Lord, Jesus Christ, can (and He did) restore His Church to the earth, because the gates of hell, or Satan, did not, cannot, nor ever will, prevail against it.

 

[IreneAdler]

This is where it all becomes foggy and confusing. (kind of like the Catholic version of this). Been fun. I appreciate the candor and interesting conversation.

 

[A New Dawn]

You see, all power has been given to our Lord in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18). HE can establish His Church on earth, and HE can remove it from the earth.

And He said (in that same verse) "I will be with you always. Even to the end of the age." By my reckoning, 100 (or so) years, is not "always". Always is always.