Posted on 08/18/2012 5:28:28 PM PDT by delacoert
Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential candidate makes 2012 the first time in American history that a major party has run a ticket without a Protestant on it. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Ryan is a Roman Catholic.
Have Mormons and Catholics always gotten along as well as the Republican running mates appear to?
No. The root of the conflict is doctrinal. The premise of the Book of Mormon is that the Bible is a corrupt and incomplete account of God's revelation — an implicit criticism of Catholic doctrine. The Book of Mormon also makes reference to an evil "church which is most abominable above all other churches," described more colorfully as "the mother of harlots." Although the Book of Mormon does not identify this evil institution as the Catholic Church, many Mormons have believed the two to be one and the same since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830.
Despite their doctrinal differences, Mormons and Catholics cohabited peacefully in Utah in the 19th century — but leaders of the two churches began passive-aggressively sniping at one another in the 20th century. In the late 1910s, Salt Lake City Catholic Bishop Joseph Sarsfield Glass commissioned murals in the Cathedral of the Madeleine that incorporated Bible passages that could easily be read as criticisms of Mormonism, including a line from St. Paul's letter to the Galatians that describes any alternate gospel as "anathema."
And in the 1930s and 1940s, a Catholic radio program and a Catholic pamphlet titled "A 'Foreign Mission' Close to Home!" convinced Mormon leaders — mistakenly — that Catholics were trying to convert Mormons to Catholicism.
Mormon mistrust of the Roman Catholic Church came to a head with the 1958 publication of Bruce McConkie's encyclopedia-like "Mormon Doctrine," which was not an official LDS publication, though McConkie was a low-ranking church leader. McConkie's entry for Catholicism simply referred readers to another entry called "Church of the Devil," which explicitly identified the Roman Catholic Church as being "most abominable above all other churches."
McConkie's book so upset the Catholic bishop of Salt Lake City that he visited the LDS church president in tears, which convinced the LDS leader to rein in anti-Catholic sentiment. Derogatory references to the Catholic Church were removed from later editions of "Mormon Doctrine," which is now out of print, and Mormon-Catholic relations in Utah became much friendlier in the 1960s and thereafter.
The most notable recent Mormon-Catholic clash came in 2001, when the Vatican began requiring Mormons who converted to Catholicism to be rebaptized — a move that implicitly called into question the Christian bona fides of the Mormon church. But the past decade has been a time of alliance between the churches, with Mormon and Catholic leaders coming together to fight gay marriage in Hawaii and California and to stand against perceived government encroachments on religious freedoms — stances that align with the Romney-Ryan platform.
You will have to do more to promote Mormonism, than to merely post a link.
Making Christians abandon Christianity takes more effort than that.
Official doctrine of the Catholic Church DOES NOT RECOGNIZE Mormans as Christian. They do not believe in the Trinity.
The Catholic Church does not recognize the baptism of any Morman as being a valid Christian baptism.
Mormanism is a cult. End of Story.
And no one by the name of Joe Smith is not mentioned in the Bible. Mormanism is a cult, started by a snake oil salesman named Joe Smith.
roylene: Would that be the Biblical Jesus, the eternal Jesus or the created Jesus of LDS who is a son of the LDS God who was once a man?
Here’s an LDS commentary from this site: http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Bible
IS THE BIBLE COMPLETE? Latter-day Saints revere the Bible as the word of God revealed to humankind. However, Joseph Smith recognized that translations do not reflect totally and exactly the original words and intentions of the ancient prophets and other biblical writers. Thus, in the Wentworth Letter he wrote, “We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly” (A of F 8). Joseph Smith observed that “our latitude and longitude can be determined in the original Hebrew with far greater accuracy than in the English version. There is a grand distinction between the actual meaning of the prophets and the present translation” (TPJS, pp. 290-91). While Latter-day Saints accept rather explicitly what the Bible now says, they realize that more is to be accounted for than is available in the extant biblical record.
In addition to difficulties associated with translating from ancient to modern languages, other scriptures also declare that some parts of the original biblical text have been lost or corrupted (e.g., 1 Ne. 13:28-29; D&C 6:26-27;93:6-18). Joseph Smith commented on the Bible’s incompleteness: “It was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled” (TPJS, pp. 10-11). He later said, “Much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now…. We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain” (TPJS, p. 61). The Prophet Joseph further stated, “I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors” (TPJS, p. 327). Thus, the elements of mistranslation, incompleteness, and other errors weaken the Bible; but the spirit of its messages still reveals enough of God’s word to fulfill his appointed purposes. Joseph Smith summarized thus: “Through the kind providence of our Father a portion of His word which He delivered to His ancient saints, has fallen into our hands [and] is presented to us with a promise of a reward if obeyed, and with a penalty if disobeyed” (TPJS, p. 61). Latter-day Saints have continued to trust in the general accuracy of the biblical texts even though they know that that text may not always be correct. Thus, they study and revere the Bible, especially in the context of other scriptures and modern revelation, which have much to say about the Bible and how it is to be interpreted, and as they study they ponder and pray that they may receive inspiration from God and come to understand the Bible’s messages as they need to be applied in their lives (cf. Moro. 10:3-5).
There is no reason to abandon Christianity. Follow the Bible and do what it says. In it you find the expectation of works, along with the grace of Jesus Christ. No one, though, would read the Bible on their own and come up with the Trinity.
I’m still very curious as to the criteria for an acceptable baptism. Does it simply hinge on Constantine’s doctrine of the Trinity?
10, the very simple and key point on this matter is that when you examine a 'definition' of a word separate from it's context you have a number of potential translations. However, when taken within the context of the whole passage, the definition of the word becomes clear. No language is exactly one for one translatable. Eskimos have many many words for snow - we southerners only have one - snow. Modern Christian doctrine often goes back to the Greek / Hebrew in context to provide a clearer understanding of an issue than what can be adequately expressed in english.
Thus, the elements of mistranslation, incompleteness, and other errors weaken the Bible; but the spirit of its messages still reveals enough of God’s word to fulfill his appointed purposes.
This has been disproven many times over. Modern textural biblical scholarship can trace any changes over times and places due to the tens of thousands of extant ms, some as young as the first century. Additionally, the writings of the early church fathers cites so much of the NT that is could be reconstructed nearly 100 percent from their writings alone.
But let us focus for a moment upon the reliability of the bom - where are its extant ms? No gold plates to use to go back to as in the case of the Greek and Hebrew of the bible - so why are the only two extant ms - the two original hand written ms - so completely different from modern editions? And how trustworthy is a method smith used to treasure seek - stuffing his face in a hat and looking at a rock - in the original 'translation'. And that is even before we examine the (non)historicity of the events listed in the bom.
Further, we have an extant ms in the JS Papyri he used to translate the book of abraham. this was before the rosetta stone, but now we understand egyptian - and the BoA is nothing like what is written on the papyri.
The LDS primary God is a man just like us who worked his way to godhood. He had intercourse with Mary to create the LDS Jesus. Mormonism teaches that the LDS is not eternal, how do you not know that?
Sorry, you cannot claim the Bible is incorrect then use Biblical versus you say are incorrect to justify Mormonism.
Joseph Smith was a fraud and a con man.
When you tell me which of the fourteen versions of the first vision is the true vision, maybe we can talk.
I would like to say job well done you have learned your lessons well, answer questions (address issues) that should have been answered not what were asked.
“When you say they agree what do they agree on? My question was what makes a baptism by a Christian legitimate?
It is funny calling you St Pio. My friend has had several visitations from St. Pio, cigar, stigmata and all.”
~ ~ ~
I didn’t mean Baptism. The three, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestants agree Mormonism is not Christian.
Can you share a little about St. Pio visiting your friend?
Two times, I have been aware of Pio’s charism, his beautiful fragrance.
Right out of the box you’re wrong, but it’s a great error as it makes my entire point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow
The Eskimo snow word meme is an old wives’ tale, no offense to old wives. Just like the Trinity and the common Christian misconceptions about eternity, the nature of God, the events in the Garden, Heaven and Hell, etc. They get repeated and promulgated, by intent or accident, and become doctrine.
If you miss out on the context because it doesn’t fit your doctrine, you’re not pursuing the truth, but your own ends and becoming a god unto yourself.
The earliest church fathers could be talking at an LDS conference and they’d be affirmed. Over time their interpretations were mixed up, redefined and then repeated by later “early” church fathers, none of which claim to be prophets of God.
The LDS get it right over and over again and get no credit, just grief. Take the Trinity. Schizmatic Catholics have the courage to break out of the Catholic Church’s domination of religious thought, but instead of going back to the Bible and starting afresh they simply throw out the least palatable parts all of which are obvious. Then they return to all the doctrinal vomit.
Read the Bible. It’s clear. The LDS are living just like NT Chrisitians. Why is that so offensive?
ACT is the word. The LDS act like disciples of Christ. They strive to be Christlike. How can that be of the Devil? The premise is absurd. As is the attempt to define Christian when the definers have a vested interest in the definition.
The LDS primary God is Heaveanly Father as described in the Bible. The Bible says nothing about his origins.
The intercourse argument isn’t part of LDS doctrine.
http://www.fairlds.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Did_God_have_Sex_with_Mary.pdf
Stop repeating it. It only weakens your case and makes you seem like a liar.
“Mormonism teaches that the LDS is not eternal, how do you not know that?” I don’t follow this at all. Can you clarify it?
“Sorry, you cannot claim the Bible is incorrect then use Biblical versus you say are incorrect to justify Mormonism.” I don’t believe the Bible to be incorrect, just poorly interpreted and translated.
“Joseph Smith was a fraud and a con man.” I find this argument to be silly. How did the pagans and Jews describe Paul? As a wonderful man of God? They described him the same way. Look to the doctrine, not subjective opinion.
“When you tell me which of the fourteen versions of the first vision is the true vision, maybe we can talk.” I have no idea, but you appear to be wrong. Here’s the official version:
http://www.lds.org/library/display/0,4945,104-1-3-4,00.html
or here: http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/js-h/1?lang=eng
or by Joseph Smith himself: http://www.boap.org/LDS/History/HTMLHistory/v1c1history.html
“I would like to say job well done you have learned your lessons well, answer questions (address issues) that should have been answered not what were asked.” Again I do not know what you’re talking about. Please elaborate.
Like their opinion counts? Only Christ himself determines who is and isn't a Christian. I am discussing baptism, though. What is the criteria for a legitimate baptism?
Can you share a little about St. Pio visiting your friend? Two times, I have been aware of Pio’s charism, his beautiful fragrance.
I'm afraid I cannot elaborate, but it was a beautiful experience for him.
“Like their opinion counts? Only Christ himself determines who is and isn’t a Christian. I am discussing baptism, though. What is the criteria for a legitimate baptism?”
~ ~ ~
Your last question first. In Catholicism, bringing your
child up in the faith, baptism by water with the words spoken in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Baptism is administered by a priest and in emergency, life threatening, a lay person can baptize. There are two other types of Baptism than the norm. The Baptism of desire and the Baptism of blood...martyrdom.
Wait a second, this is what Protestantism is all about,
“opinion.” We can know, God left an authority, the Church and there is only one brother.
You believe about St. Pio? Come along, go further, everyone
in Heaven is Roman Catholic no matter what they might of
believed in this life. You can become Catholic, Our Lord’s
desire, pray about it, ask Him.
Acts 1: 9-11
9 And when he [Jesus] had spoken these things, while they beheld, he [Jesus] was taken up; and a cloud received him [Jesus]out of their sight.
10 And while they looked stedfastly toward heaven as he went up, behold, two men stood by them in white apparel;
11 Which also said, Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven.
The Bible doesn’t say anything about meeting secretly in the woods with a teenager of extremely dubious character to “restore” Christianity.
What it does say is that He would return the same way He left, in full public view.
So does one place their trust in one JS and his numerous versions of his meeting with the “personages” or the Bible?
The answer seems obvious to me.
Was Jesus taken up bodily into heaven? Will he return with a body? Why would a member of the Trinity need a body in heaven? God doesn’t have a body, right?
Let’s play a game.
One we’ve played numerous times before, only this time, I’ll enjoin the same tactics as you and the other mormons and their “friends” have.
You ignore my questions, I’ll ignore yours.
Is the Bible wrong?
If so, show where and demonstrate how it is.
Did the angels lie to them when they said He would return the same way He left?
If mormonism is like 1st century Christianity, where and when did Christ; a) take out His endowments, and b) in what temple was He sealed to His wife in order for Him to qualify for celestial glory?
I’m sorry that mormonism’s foundation is built upon sand and fraught with contradiction. It causes a lot of apoplectic fits and mental gymnastics for those who believe in it and feel compelled to defend it.
But hey, they started it, I’m only using the information provided, not strawmen and red herrings.
I’m in, but I don’t have any Mormon friends on FR, at least not that I know of. I certainly don’t call in a “posse” when confronted with error or confusion. I don’t have one. My answers are my own and were arrived at through much study, contemplation and prayer.
Let’s set up some clarifications. First, if we’re to communicate in any meaningful way we’ll have to check our emotional baggage and past posts with others at the start. We’re two individuals having a serious discussion about a topic of utmost importance - Salvation.
I’ll work to do just that at all times. A tactic once understood is no longer a tactic. If you cannot leave your personal anger or hurt behind I don’t want to exacerbate it. That only serves to delight the Devil. Let’s communicate in normal English and with proper decorum. At any point you want to stop, just don’t reply and that will end it. We’re two Christians discussing a spiritual inquiry and we should be pursuers of the Truth. So let’s begin.
You ask three questions:
1. Is the Bible wrong? If so, show where and demonstrate how it is.
2. Did the angels lie to them when they said He would return the same way He left?
3. If Mormonism is like 1st century Christianity, where and when did Christ; a) take out His endowments, and b) in what temple was He sealed to His wife in order for Him to qualify for celestial glory?
The first one is a large topic, so let’s start learning right there. What do you mean by “wrong”? Do you mean that the Bible will take a person further from God than toward him? Do you mean by wrong that it is incomplete and if yes, how is it incomplete?
To me the Bible isn’t wrong in the first sense at all. It is “wrong” in that it isn’t complete. There is esoteric knowledge not expressed in the written Bible, but alluded to. There is a third type of wrong therefore in a third sense through no fault of its own - misinterpretation/mistranslation by readers or authorities to suit themselves.
Which “wrongness” to you want me to discuss and demonstrate?
(Also, please give me some time to respond. We’ve just taken on four projects and I’m swamped until Monday in setting them up. I want to give this critical topic the attention it deserves.)
I’m in, but I don’t have any Mormon friends on FR, at least not that I know of. I certainly don’t call in a “posse” when confronted with error or confusion. I don’t have one. My answers are my own and were arrived at through much study, contemplation and prayer.
Let’s set up some clarifications. First, if we’re to communicate in any meaningful way we’ll have to check our emotional baggage and past posts with others at the start. We’re two individuals having a serious discussion about a topic of utmost importance - Salvation.
I’ll work to do just that at all times. A tactic once understood is no longer a tactic. If you cannot leave your personal anger or hurt behind I don’t want to exacerbate it. That only serves to delight the Devil. Let’s communicate in normal English and with proper decorum. At any point you want to stop, just don’t reply and that will end it. We’re two Christians discussing a spiritual inquiry and we should be pursuers of the Truth. So let’s begin.
You ask three questions:
1. Is the Bible wrong? If so, show where and demonstrate how it is.
2. Did the angels lie to them when they said He would return the same way He left?
3. If Mormonism is like 1st century Christianity, where and when did Christ; a) take out His endowments, and b) in what temple was He sealed to His wife in order for Him to qualify for celestial glory?
The first one is a large topic, so let’s start learning right there. What do you mean by “wrong”? Do you mean that the Bible will take a person further from God than toward him? Do you mean by wrong that it is incomplete and if yes, how is it incomplete?
To me the Bible isn’t wrong in the first sense at all. It is “wrong” in that it isn’t complete. There is esoteric knowledge not expressed in the written Bible, but alluded to. There is a third type of wrong therefore in a third sense through no fault of its own - misinterpretation/mistranslation by readers or authorities to suit themselves.
Which “wrongness” to you want me to discuss and demonstrate?
(Also, please give me some time to respond. We’ve just taken on four projects and I’m swamped until Monday in setting them up. I want to give this critical topic the attention it deserves.)
10, I’m not sure if you’ve forgotten or not, but our conversations were usually pretty tepid and civil. For you to insinuate that I would call in a “posse”, an oft used slur used all over FR to identify many of the FI’s tells me there is either a lack of confidence or respect in my willingness to discuss singularly. Not sure which. However, I can’t control it if any stumble across the discussion and decide to participate. But I won’t ping them on to it.
My answers are my own as well, through study, research and contemplation.
“Emotional baggage”? Not sure what that is supposed to imply. Am I considered “emotional”?
If we’re going to discuss/debate, then by all means in a civil manner, sarcasm extremely limited and identified as such or non-existent. Ad hominems, personal attacks, thinly veiled inuendos, etc. are off the table.
“Personal anger or hurt”? Jeez, this just keeps getting harder. I do believe I am being confused with someone else here. If I am “angry or hurt”, it is because the system of Mormonism promoted a series of falsehoods [through deliberate obfuscation and ommission] that led me to believe one thing vs. the truth.
If I choose to cease the conversation I’ll let you know. I’m not into mind games, “I win”, etc. There will probably be points of contention or obstacles that just can’t be overcome. A mutual decision to leave them should be agreed upon.
Interpretation of scripture will be another stumbling block. I don’t think either of us is in a position to alter how we each interpret a given passage.
With regards to my first question, I was referring to the passages quoted in post 74, Acts. In order for JS to make the claim of the 1st vision, one has to suspend the verses I quoted as truth. Ergo, is the Bible in error when it’s stated that Christ will return the same way He left? If not, then JS is obviously in error when he claims the “personages” to be God and Christ, yet it is only much later in mormonism that the “personages” are identified as such.
Error vs. completeness. Two different things. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2855791/posts?q=1&;page=51
If memory serves, the RCC has included additional books into the Bible they use. Books that Evangelicals or even Mormons don’t. I’m no theologian, so I’m not in a position to ascertain the veracity of these books.
Mormonism makes many claims of “wrongness” in the Bible. We don’t have enough time to discuss or debate each one. I’m looking at those within the framework of the founding of mormonism. The ones Mormons use, ignore or disavow in order to claim their religion is the true and complete restoration of Christianity.
Understand about being busy, in this environment, I consider it a blessing to be employed. When you have the time. I would also ask for the same consideration.
Regards,
SZ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.