The New Anti-Mormons Are Lds

[saemo]

Your conclusion does not seem to me to reflect what I believe. I am sorry that I have not made my positions clear to you, even with careful explanations. Last try for the evening. (I have to pick up someone at the airport right now.)

If there is a circumstance wherein it has been established that a church has been maliciously wrong for centuries and more in misrepresenting God's law, it seems like a mere admission of wrong would be inadequate.

In this instance, there is a considerable number of souls who believe that the LDS and Catholic churches represent the love of God while at the same time reserving the priesthood for men only and marriage as only for one man and one woman. If God's eternal law has been violated in these areas, not because of revelation, but because of malice, I don't see how such a "church" survives without conceding that it never was God's true church and of course, it isn't now. That is why I said that I thought it would force many into looking for a New Restoration.

Of course neither you nor the culturals, whether they are Mormon or Catholic care about going to a church because it is true. They just like it. I guess that's fine. For those who care about truth, its very hard to believe that the one truth resided in the same place as malice for centuries and millenia.

You are free to disagree with that, but I don't think you even believe in one true church anyway do you? We aren't even talking about the same things when we refer to a church. So all I am saying is if I have been a part of a hating church, I would leave it if I found that it had been a hating church. I think it would destroy everyone's confidence in a "one true church" to discern that only after the world brought a bunch of pressure, it finally admitted, very late, in the 21st century that it had been maliciously wrong for its entire existence and had contributed to the hatred society held towards innocent souls for a long long time.

I may not have converted to Catholicism had I understood these arguments before then.

I think you point to no valid Church currently existing. Obviously, LDS here believe they've got all that and a bag of chips. But, I see the opposite. So. Perhaps a reevaluation is in order. What results from the current synod, will be a telltale.

ETA: I am being sarcastic, sorry, which is a vice I work on continually.

I don't hold a view that the Catholic Church has ceased to be in communion with the past. If I did, I would not be Catholic. I would be nothing. Literally.

That is my mind, without sarcasm.

Edited October 5, 2014 by saemo

[katherine the great]

 Wrong is rather an objective statement. What does it mean to be wrong? Wrong according to whom?

Objective or subjective?

[ERayR]

I may not have converted to Catholicism had I understood these arguments before then.

I think you point to no valid Church currently existing. Obviously, LDS here believe they've got all that and a bag of chips. But, I see the opposite. So. Perhaps a reevaluation is in order. What results from the current synod, will be a telltale.

ETA: I am being sarcastic, sorry, which is a vice I work on continually.

I don't hold a view that the Catholic Church has ceased to be in communion with the past. If I did, I would not be Catholic. I would be nothing. Literally.

That is my mind, without sarcasm.

 

I understand this sentiment, for me I would phrase it this way.  I don't hold a view that the Catholic LDS Church has ceased to be in communion with the past God.   If I did, I would not be Catholic LDS. I would be nothing. Literally.

[Tacenda]

Would you still believe in God ERayR?

[saemo]

I understand this sentiment, for me I would phrase it this way. I don't hold a view that the Catholic LDS Church has ceased to be in communion with the past God. If I did, I would not be Catholic LDS. I would be nothing. Literally.

Well, Mormonism reflects American individualism. Catholicism reflects the Communion of Saints, that is, our individual faith is held in communion with each other, in and through Jesus, Who IS God. Our communion with each other does not end at death, because our communion is sourced and centered on the One Who gives us life, Jesus Christ. Breaking communion is viewed as breaking from God. It is a Big Deal, and not something to throw around without thought for the consequences, both theologically and spiritually speaking.

Edited October 5, 2014 by saemo

[Scott Lloyd]

Well, Mormonism reflects American individualism. Catholicism reflects the Communion of Saints, that is, our individual faith is held in communion with each other, in and through Jesus, Who IS God. Our communion with each other does not end at death, because our communion is sourced and centered on the One Who gives us life, Jesus Christ. Breaking communion is viewed as breaking from God. It is a Big Deal, and not something to throw around without thought for the consequences, both theologically and spiritually speaking.

Mormonism reflects a unity with one another in Christ as Christ is one with the Father.

 

Mormonism refects an aspiration to fulfill the commandment of Christ, "Be one, and if ye are not one, ye are not mine."

 

The notion that Mormonism reflects "individualism," American or otherwise, is pure invention.

[ERayR]

Well, Mormonism reflects American individualism. Catholicism reflects the Communion of Saints, that is, our individual faith is held in communion with each other, in and through Jesus, Who IS God. Our communion with each other does not end at death, because our communion is sourced and centered on the One Who gives us life, Jesus Christ. Breaking communion is viewed as breaking from God. It is a Big Deal, and not something to throw around without thought for the consequences, both theologically and spiritually speaking.

 

Your description of how you view your Catholic communion is descriptive of the way I view my LDS communion.   Your description of Mormonism is not reflective of the Mormonisim I know and love.

Edited October 5, 2014 by ERayR

[why me]

Well, Mormonism reflects American individualism. Catholicism reflects the Communion of Saints, that is, our individual faith is held in communion with each other, in and through Jesus, Who IS God. Our communion with each other does not end at death, because our communion is sourced and centered on the One Who gives us life, Jesus Christ. Breaking communion is viewed as breaking from God. It is a Big Deal, and not something to throw around without thought for the consequences, both theologically and spiritually speaking.

I think that mormonism reflects the community of saints. A group of people in deep fellowship with each other and with the outside world. I heard nothing in the current general conference telling the lds to be individuals, acting as individuals. Just the opposite. The idea of helping the poor, fellowshiping the other was quite center in the talks. Also, the talks at general conference were also very christ centered.

[saemo]

Your description of how you view your Catholic communion is descriptive of the way I view my LDS communion. Your description of Mormonism is not reflective of the Mormonisim I know and love.

I don't see that LDS seek to remain in communion with the faith that was practiced earlier, otherwise, polygamy would still be practiced and people of African decent would not hold the priesthood. Granted the priesthood ban can be viewed as practice not doctrine, but polygamy remains a doctrines. See D&C 132. Not practicing a doctrine means not living a doctrine, which means what? Back to God being fickle. Today, one thing, tomorrow, might be another. Hold your breath waiting to see what changes?

Mormon faith has to be individualistic, and also pragmatic based on individual views, otherwise, there is no way to create a continuity from one generation to the next.

Edited October 5, 2014 by saemo

[why me]

I may not have converted to Catholicism had I understood these arguments before then.

I think you point to no valid Church currently existing. Obviously, LDS here believe they've got all that and a bag of chips. But, I see the opposite. So. Perhaps a reevaluation is in order. What results from the current synod, will be a telltale.

 

It will be interesting what exactly will come from the synod. I believe that if the church allows contraception, divorced catholics to marry or receive the communion etc, it may send a ripple throughout the catholic church. And if it allows abortion in certain circumstances this will be a shock. Something will come out of the meeting. The world is expecting it.

 

Not sure about the bad of chips though. However, it does seem that the mormons are nice people. And it is great to see the projects that they are doing in the world. I don't get that impression of mormons on the catholic forum. I get that the mormons are all deceitful people from the posters on that forum who claim that mormons are nice for a reason: to convert people. And that is a bag of balony.

Edited October 5, 2014 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't see that LDS seek to remain in communion with the faith that was practiced earlier, otherwise, polygamy would still be practiced and people of African decent would not hold the priesthood. Granted the priesthood ban can be viewed as practice not doctrine, but polygamy remains a doctrines. See D&C 132. Not practicing a doctrine means not living a doctrine, which means what? Back to God being fickle. Today, one thing, tomorrow, might be another. Hold your breath waiting to see what changes?

Mormon faith has to be individualistic, and also pragmatic based on individual views, otherwise, there is no way to create a continuity from one generation to the next.

What change that occurs is in accordance with divine inspiration and directive, not societal whim, as you imply here.

[why me]

Mormon faith has to be individualistic, and also pragmatic based on individual views, otherwise, there is no way to create a continuity from one generation to the next.

If the lds faith were individualistic it would fall like a house of cards. It can only exist if the church remains communitarian with brothers and sisters looking out for the other. Not to mention the home teaching and visiting teaching, a constant reminder to pray as a family and as a body of christ. And I should add visiting teaching, and helping one another. You need to explain individualism and  the notiion of being individualistic. I  just don't see it. 

Edited October 5, 2014 by why me

[why me]

What change that occurs is in accordance with divine inspiration and directive, not societal whim, as you imply here.

Saemo is a little nervous about the synod this week and the changes that it may bring. If the changes are huge, it will be hard for saemo to claim that the lds changes its doctrine like the wind over an ocean unlike the catholic church. I do think that they are nerovous on the catholic forum. However we can see from saemo's posts that this poster does not respect the lds church nor its members.

 

I  am also waiting to see what changes will come from the synod. I am hoping for no changes but I do think that some change will be likely, mainly about divorced catholics and perhaps contraception.

[mormonnewb]

Your're assuming our leaders are blind.

I am suggesting no such thing. The captain of the Titanic had 20-20 vision for all I know, but it didn't stop the Titanic from striking an iceberg.

The Savior Himself was not always able to see everything going on around Him. He had to ask who touched Him when the hemorrhaging woman touched the hem of his garment. Why? Because He was being mobbed by a crowd of people making various demands. Sound familiar?

You'll notice that the woman did not just sit back and say, "Well, if HF wants me to be helped, He will tell the Savior of my troubles and He will come to me if its in their will." She reached out to the Man of God for her blessing. Sound famliar?

Edited October 5, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Guest]

I don't see that LDS seek to remain in communion with the faith that was practiced earlier, otherwise, polygamy would still be practiced and people of African decent would not hold the priesthood. Granted the priesthood ban can be viewed as practice not doctrine, but polygamy remains a doctrines. See D&C 132. Not practicing a doctrine means not living a doctrine, which means what? Back to God being fickle. Today, one thing, tomorrow, might be another. Hold your breath waiting to see what changes?

Mormon faith has to be individualistic, and also pragmatic based on individual views, otherwise, there is no way to create a continuity from one generation to the next.

Do you mean this in the tone, that it seems to be?

[Guest]

I am suggesting no such thing. The captain of the Titanic had 20-20 vision for all I know, but it didn't stop the Titanic from striking an iceberg.

The Savior Himself was not always able to see everything going on around Him. He had to ask who touched Him when the hemorrhaging woman touched the hem of his garment. Why? Because He was being mobbed by a crowd of people making various demands. Sound familiar?

You'll notice that the woman did not just sit back and say, "Well, if HF wants me to be helped, He will tell the Savior of my troubles and He will come to me if its in their will." She reached out to the Man of God for her blessing. Sound famliar?

The example you used here has always suggested he was aware of everything going on around him, but we nor our leaders are God, we are lucky when we know which way the wind is blowing...but this not mean that God cannot get his message across when he wants too.

[MorningStar]

I feel the same, Rory.  Non-LDS anti-Mormons are at least anti-Mormon everywhere they go.  I doubt the LDS anti-Mormons make the same comments at church or in person with LDS friends as they do here.

[mfbukowski]

Mormonism reflects a unity with one another in Christ as Christ is one with the Father.

 

Mormonism refects an aspiration to fulfill the commandment of Christ, "Be one, and if ye are not one, ye are not mine."

 

The notion that Mormonism reflects "individualism," American or otherwise, is pure invention.

In fact we are advised to put away our individual cultures and become ONE.  The law of consecration hardly reflects "American individualism".

 

The Godhead is one in purpose- not "each doing their own thing."

 

The only way we reflect American values is in the idea that each of us are free to make our own decisions, and in the idea that we alone are responsible for our decisions and their consequences.

[mfbukowski]

Your description of how you view your Catholic communion is descriptive of the way I view my LDS communion.   Your description of Mormonism is not reflective of the Mormonisim I know and love.

Seconded.

 

I also believe in the "real presence" in our sacrament but don't rely on ancient metaphysics to explain it.  The Patriarchal Order itself is identical to the Communion of Saints.  The reason we do temple work is to unite the family of man, living and dead into the Body of Christ, awaiting the day when every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.

[mfbukowski]

Mormon faith has to be individualistic, and also pragmatic based on individual views, otherwise, there is no way to create a continuity from one generation to the next.

Are you serious??

 

Ever see those big buildings with Moroni on top?  Those are called "temples" and are precisely about families being together forever.

 

Have you ever heard of that idea before?

[mfbukowski]

Saemo is a little nervous about the synod this week and the changes that it may bring. If the changes are huge, it will be hard for saemo to claim that the lds changes its doctrine like the wind over an ocean unlike the catholic church. I do think that they are nerovous on the catholic forum. However we can see from saemo's posts that this poster does not respect the lds church nor its members.

 

I  am also waiting to see what changes will come from the synod. I am hoping for no changes but I do think that some change will be likely, mainly about divorced catholics and perhaps contraception.

She should know what I was taught about limbo and not chewing the host.

Edited October 5, 2014 by mfbukowski

[3DOP]

Someone else made a comment against remarks I made that were interpreted as meaning that I believe that churches should never admit wrongdoing. The poster suggested that my attitude was not "endearing" either corporately or individually. I do not defend the idea that churches should never admit wrongdoing because I don't hold that position. Instead, I hold that churches that have used dogmatic authority to hate and suppress the innocent for long periods of time automatically lose any claim to being "the one true church". Following is the reply which I made to that post, which prompted Mormonnewb to say that my position is "dangerous":

 

3DOP said to someone who seemed to misunderstand him

"So you are waiting to go to an "endearing church" to tell you that they have been wrong about serious moral issues and are changing their minds, after they have used theological lies to hurt and condemn innocent people, for periods of centuries and millenia. I have my doubts that many would be drawn by such a move. But maybe you would go and there are others like you? Maybe? But I doubt it would flourish for the reasons I mentioned above. The things I mentioned which involve hatred because of skin color, sexual orientation, and gender would be fatal flaws in my opinion. You can't hate and suppress the innocent for long stretches and still be God's Church. I think many would be looking for a New Restoration. I think it would adversely affect attendance and attitudes, and especially from those faithful who would feel betrayed and who were certain that the Church was never guilty of hatred and was speaking God's truth for those millenia and centuries.
     
So in short, what you would find endearing, I would find to be an insult to the community of the saints that came before us, because in effect, if a church of this generation says a church of past generations was maliciously wrong in such matters, it isn't confessing one's own sins anyway. It is spitting on the graves of our spiritual parents."

 

MormonNewb
This is not only wrongheaded thought, but it is outright dangerous. Perhaps, that is why your very own church does not follow it and often acknowledges past misdeeds.

 

3DOP

I don't think you were following my train of thought. My very own church still claims to be the one true church and makes a distinction between misdeeds of Catholic kings and systematic hatred on the part of the Church against homosexuals and women. I admit that contrary to Catholic teaching, the Spanish crown supported policies in the late 14th Century which eventually led to the Spanish Inquisition. But that is far different from saying that the Catholic Church taught that you could threaten Jews with deportation in an attempt to make them accept baptism. Indeed, baptism under such conditions would always be considered invalid.

 

MormonNewb

I can not think of anything more pathetic than the person who is incapable of perceiving their own faults. Such a person can NEVER grow. And the same is true for companies, nations, churches and families. Likewise, it's healthy to be able to see the faults of our ancestors so that we don't repeat unhealthy patterns.

 

3DOP

Heh. You have described me well. I am pathetic and incapable, apart from God's grace, which I often resist, of perceiving my own faults. Miserere Nobis. Pray for me if you will. However, I can not admit that I would refuse to learn from the errors of history. I have no wish to threaten anyone with deportation. If I were king in 14th Century Spain with the hindsight I now have, I am sure I would follow the teaching of the Church without regard to apparent, but delusive political practicalities.
 

MormonNewb

For example, in generations past, parents would often beat their parents, and use the Bible in support of their actions. Today, many of us think that corporeal punishment is more harmful than helpful. Are we denigrating our ancestors by choosing a better way? Or should we continue to beat our precious babies with belts and "switches" to show respect for Nana and Papa?

 

3DOP

You present the choice of no corporal punishment or beating our precious babies with belts and switches. There is a middle way here. All things in moderation. The Bible doesn't excuse beatings. But it also commends loving use of "the rod". I NEVER wanted to spank a child. When I did, it was after a thorough examination of the situation to find if there was a way to excuse the action. Sometimes we discovered that we had failed to properly instruct the child and both parent and child felt a rush of happy relief. Our kids could see that we loved them and only spanked if they had been guilty of knowing and deliberate disobedience or had lied to their parents. We hated spanking and they knew it. Some of the most blessed memories of my time as a young parent are the hugs my little ones would give when they knew I loved them but gave some spanks on the bottom because I felt obligated to try to help them do better. 

 

You never punish in anger, only in love, looking everywhere you can to find mercy. One of my favorite memories is when my youngest dautghter, with tears in her big beautiful eyes gave Daddy the biggest hug and kiss just after judgment had been passed in favor of the need for a spanking. I guess I did okay by letting her off the hook that time. I melted. I am such a pushover. I think I was manipulated in retrospect. I just couldn't do it after that. Anyway, all my kids are out of the house, in the Church, and doing so well. Our grandson got taken out of Mass today for a few swats by our son-in-law. I guess Kenny was resisting his Dad about something. Loving parents NEVER want to punish. But we have to do contrary to our soft hearts sometimes. What a boy...that Kenny Michael. I'm glad its their turn to spank and mine to be a little indulgent, although I want what's best and have to support them doing what I once did. 

 

MormonNewb

It is possible to respect your ancestors and yet, acknowledge that they were not perfect. The same thing is true for our churches.

 

3DOP

I do that with regards to some ancestors. But it is always when they fail to adhere to church teaching. As for "our churches"? I draw a distinction between churches that don't even claim to be the one true church and those that do. There are some ways to determine that a church is not the one true church. 

 

1) It denies being the one true church (This gets rid of most of them)

2) It is hateful

3) It teaches moral error to support hate

 

If every church says that it is hateful and taught errors to support the hate, I feel free to not go to it, or any church like it. That is all I was saying to Yirgacheffe. I guess it is commendable for a "one true church" to admit that it used to hate but wants to change, but I think it loses any claim to any authority to ask me to give up the 49ers if there is a scheduling conflict.

 

I think the Catholic Church is the one true church. I don't think it has ever hated or made up lies to support the hate. Mormons here similarly think that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the one true church. All that I have said must be understood in that context. Clearly, people will continue to go to churches even if they don't believe the claims about them that I believe for the Catholic Church. Good on such people. They are so much more religious than me I guess. I am not so devout. I won't go. And I think there are a lot of people, both LDS and Catholic, who would still believe in God perhaps, and look for His true church in the next Restoration claim, if both the Catholic and Mormon churches have been guilty of using theological lies to promote their agenda of hatred against innocent people.  

Edited October 5, 2014 by 3DOP

[sheilauk]

I am suggesting no such thing. The captain of the Titanic had 20-20 vision for all I know, but it didn't stop the Titanic from striking an iceberg.

The Savior Himself was not always able to see everything going on around Him. He had to ask who touched Him when the hemorrhaging woman touched the hem of his garment. Why? Because He was being mobbed by a crowd of people making various demands. Sound familiar?

You'll notice that the woman did not just sit back and say, "Well, if HF wants me to be helped, He will tell the Savior of my troubles and He will come to me if its in their will." She reached out to the Man of God for her blessing. Sound famliar?

the captain of the Titanic was not on deck, failed to pay attention to warnings and listened to others who were not sailors and did not know how to pilot a ship. The first officer also failed to do his job. Should the President of the Church suddenly abandon the ship and take the other 14 with him, you can man the lifeboat though I warrant that the Saviour is fully aware of all that is going on around Him now and will ensure that we dont hit the iceberg in any way. And you can and should always approach the Saviour for help. Note that the woman didn't tell Peter or the other disciples what to do. Question - Do you seriously think that the 15 do not talk to local leaders and are ignorant of the demands of the world? Did you listen to General Conference?

[mormonnewb]

the captain of the Titanic was not on deck, failed to pay attention to warnings and listened to others who were not sailors and did not know how to pilot a ship. The first officer also failed to do his job. Should the President of the Church suddenly abandon the ship and take the other 14 with him, you can man the lifeboat though I warrant that the Saviour is fully aware of all that is going on around Him now and will ensure that we dont hit the iceberg in any way. And you can and should always approach the Saviour for help. Note that the woman didn't tell Peter or the other disciples what to do. Question - Do you seriously think that the 15 do not talk to local leaders and are ignorant of the demands of the world? Did you listen to General Conference?

I think that the Brethren are almost exclusively meeting members who are constantly telling them how perfect they are in every way. In fact, rock stars would kill for a fraction of the adoration bestowed on, say, President Monson. So, yes, I think they have a skewed view of the Church. And just like rock stars, they run the risk of making grievious errors because NO ONE feels they have the right to tell them differently.

In comment after comment, I read, "This is the Lord's church. HE will deal with the prophets if they need to change things." And that's fine, possibly even theologically correct, but it will result in a leadership that never receives constructive feedback from the faithful. Which of you "righteous" Mormons would ever tell an apostle, "You know, you could do a better job of _____"?

So, unless the Brethren are hanging out in Mormon Stories groups or lurking on this board, I suspect that their view of the pew might be somewhat askew." (Rhyming intentional)

[sheilauk]

If someone asked me what I thought, no matter what their calling, I would be honest and tell them. Why else are they asking? I have spoken with members of the Stake presidency about issues, why would a prophet be different? Would you not be honest? Aren't we supposed to be honest in our dealings as per temple interviews and articles of faith? Do you have any evidence for your cynicism? Or is it just your usual negativity? And yes, if this is the Lords Church, which I believe it is, He will deal with the Prophets, one way or another - by revelation, discussion boards, other people being honest (including family members) or removal from office in extremis!

Edited October 5, 2014 by sheilauk