3DOP

Very interesting Teancum. Do you think it is impossible that at a future time that the LDS could return to its primitive roots? The LDS Church is not 200 years old. The LDS correctly point out that creedal orthodoxy in the early church didn't arrive until Nicea. Few LDS even understand Nicene thought. It isn't so remotely different, nor certainly as ridiculous as many LDS have believed. The only major problem I would see, is that to return to its roots, the LDS would lose one of its arguments against the early church. Where would be the big Apostasy? Can you think of any other reasons why, like the early church, the LDS could not return to its earliest sources after, say, 300 years of existence? They could still plead a necessity of Apostles. Thanks, 3DOP

See you soon! Thanks InCognitus.

I am current! I didn't try my name. Thanks MorningStar...I am impatient and backwards about these things.

I couldn't do the budget on Saturday because after a power outage and reboot Microsoft wants my wife's password to an email address that hasn't been used for along time. 20 years? Passwords...always changing...you can't just have one for everything. I just want to say goodbye in the event my email isn't correct. Which would mean yet another new password. I have already tried pressing every icon on my phone to find out my email. I know it has changed in the last fifteen years. Conditional Goodbye everybody. It's been a nice run. 3

Hello Navidad. A blessed and happy Lord's Day to you and Mrs. Navidad. I can't remember counselling you to be unoffended. But its not a bad idea Nav! There are some Christians who are more exclusive than others. If like the LDS and Catholics they believe in a priestly hierarchy, there have to be boundaries to be accepted for one to be fully LDS or Catholic in this life. I could wish for your own sake as I am sure everybody here wishes, that the membership rules could be bent for a fellow Christian, who we do not doubt loves the Lord, and laments he can't really be "in our club". But try to understand that it would be to deny our own identity to adjust beliefs and practices for those we love. You have sensed that love in your LDS sojourn, I think? And you seem to have had good experiences with your local Catholic priests too. Its not personal at all. We can only open the door so far and be true to our faith traditions. I would think that your recent experiences in real life and to a lesser extent online, should give you some insights into the phenomenon of Christian exclusivity. I have already told you how I pondered a lot about your observation that even as a Catholic, I tended towards fundamentalism (exclusivity?). You were correct. I have made an adjustment. But even now in the Catholic mainstream, post Vatican 2? I cannot get away from the teaching that in some sense, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. In the years when I was struggling over where to plant my flag, I realized that there are two kinds of Christian Church, those that say they are one true Church, and those that don't. Almost all of them are in the second group, that don't. I take them at their word in thinking that I am okay outside of any of their not one true visible churches. That is why I narrowed it down to the LDS and Catholic churches. Now here you are, ironically, living in a region where those are your only choices. It seems like it should have been me! But God's ways are funny. You have to believe it is God's will for you and I know you know. The pain you feel because of not being fully accepted is part of your path. Maybe it is so you can write a better book! I pray that it is so we could sing and pray and worship together as one on earth. But if not, I would hope that we could in the not distant future, do so forever and ever. God love you. Your friend in Jesus, Rory

InCognitus, hey. No hurry and no reply needed. Without quoting your post within the system, I responded with all manner of destruction and ruin upon your last ignorant post. This post is a courtesy so you will get a notice of a post to you in this thread. I cannot resist making certain of your opportunity to see the delicious dinner I have served you. Eat it if you dare 😋 Disclaimer: The preceding is an example of my sometimes misunderstood and offbeat humor. Regards, 3DOP

Hey Misere. I fear that the assumption on the part of our Church is that there is a unity of belief among LDS on doctrines that might make for an invalid baptism in our eyes. From the beginning, I have thought this is a flaw in our current Church policy. I think that it could be too difficult to discover the beliefs of LDS ministers of baptism. Unless we can conclude that all Latter-day Saints believe the invalidating articles mentioned in the Catholic ruling, it would be prudent to administer conditional baptisms to LDS converts. Catholics had hardly begun to advance to a uniform creedal unity when we were the same age as the LDS are today. I suspect there were baptisms according to proper form for three centuries that might have been invalid according to the standard we now apply to the LDS. Anyway Jesse, our bunch were excused from following a Nicene Creed that was many years away. I think the baptisms were all valid because of form. Ignorance of the meaning of the full meaning of the form does not invalidate. I have a broader idea of how doctrinal error would affect the Sacrament than the brightest minds in Rome. I don't to disagree. But maybe in my pride, I think I am perhaps better acquainted with the nuances of LDS beliefs and practices than they? I am open to correction. By the way, give the LDS a hundred years and they might have a creed too. And it might be more Nicene than anybody today could believe!

Navidad hi. Ideally, I do not find plurality in religion something to celebrate in society. I profess to hope for unity instead. The first and most intimate society is the family. I think few would argue that it is best for families to disagree with each other about religion. It would seem peculiar to find it any way uplifting if the members of a family unit went their separate ways in order to observe different forms of worship and religious exercises. Do any object to my observation on the family? If not, why should we as an ideal, wish and pray for religious disunity in other social structures extending to the state? Is there any objection to my use of the word "disunity" in exchange for "pluralism" as a synonym? Perhaps I am too simplistic regarding "pluralism"?

It would be remarkably absurd if a Catholic were to oppose infant baptism using that expression "baby sprinklers". It was more about the recipient of baptism than the mode. "Sprinkler" sounded silly which was on purpose. But the key was "baby". I believed in believers baptism only at the time. Maybe you thought I was speaking as a Catholic? No, no, no. I was confessing the ignorance of my early Protestant years when I used that expression, assuming there was no biblical argument at all for infant baptism. Subsequently, I was humbled when I learned better and and stopped ridiculing those I did not understand...Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Catholics (!) and others.

InCognitus, hi. I will be brief as I said. First a clip from your latest reply to me. InCognitus "I don't see how Deuteronomy 10:17 is saying anything about the possibility of the lesser gods as doing things for personal gain. But you are right about the existence of "strange gods", which were the idols of the nations. But none of those false gods could be compared to the one true God." Deut. 10:17 "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" Me I see a danger from the Israelites worshipping "gods" that are unworthy of comparison with the God of Deut. 10:17, made by men's hands like the Golden Calf fashioned by Aaron, or other such "gods" of the nations. I am not familiar with any reasons for why God should be warning them about worshipping a council of "less unworthy gods", when they are already worshipping created gods of clay, wood, or stone. Likewise living creatures whether animate or vegetative. Also no planets, stars, or mountains. No emperors or magistrates. I cannot make an exhaustive list. In short, no created object in existence is worthy of worship. As for magistrates called "gods" in certain translations, I could only think that the LORD was certainly referring to those, as opposed to "strange false gods", or a heavenly council of gods, none of whom one would suspect of being subject to bribery, or respecting persons in false judgment in Deut. 10. It would seem that you might admit this argument except that you hold that it is a mistranslation of the biblical text? I would be satisfied at this time if you could admit that if the translation which has guided my thinking on Deut. 10:17 were accurate, you too, would need to admit corruptible earthly civil authorities among those who are designated as gods in Scripture. I agree that no false gods are comparable to the one true God. But creatures that are made in His image, as I am sure you will agree, have attributes that are indeed similar, which give hope for exaltation and greater participation in God's incomparable nature. But when creatures which have such potential because of their similarities to the true God worship created things, it is a truly abominable demeaning of not only their own dignity, but especially that of the Creator. But this was what they did in ancient Israel, and I believe that this is what most of the Old Testament is talking about. Since you appear to be refraining from a definition of whom "the Heavenly Council" consists, or its function, I have no wish to oppose it. It could consist of men or angels. I could not conceive of its being an advisory body. Unless you would assign its function as a guide by which God discerns what He should do, or if you would teach that like God, the heavenly council are uncreated, I have no objection. Thanks, InCog, as usual, I appreciate the discussion with you here. ---------------------------- But theplains is GoCeltics? I thought GoCeltics was a questioning Latter-day Saint. I do not wish to offend by speaking to either of you in third person. So do you @theplains, or you @GoCeltics have a wish to admit or clear up any suspicions about your identities? Rory McKenzie

I am listening. I would regret to think you are missing something. Who here has ever heard of the Theravadan Buddhism? Granted that east is east and west is west, it seems like it might be okay to identify the US as a Christian nation, as a majority of the population or even among members of the US military. But the United States, as lawfully constituted now, and for a long time, cannot officially recognize anything as a state religion. Perhaps Thailand can? I dunno. Anyway my friend, just let's shake things up and be on different sides in love! Bash me...and me back at you. Let them see how we Catholics can think each other are stupid, but still ❤️ each other. Disclaimer: In my cups on the deck.

Heh. Maybe the words change meaning with such speed as I say above, because people like me change views fairly often. I am aware that my own college is very different today than it was forty years ago. Like me, it has softened. A lot of classmates have too. I can picture being anti-Mormon in those early days. Maybe we need to give these zealots of hatred a chance to let the Lord work on them a little. In twenty years, they will likely soften up too. Hateful Christianity often comes with an early bitter zeal built on ignorance. And if we will be fair, I think we can see ignorant representatives of this in all of our traditions. Above all, don't judge too early. God gives everybody a short life. But we can be thankful that every minute God is giving all of us graces to humble us...including those of us who might have been ignorantly arrogant towards those they did not understand.

A hundred years ago, to be fundamental meant that you believed in the Virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and other foundational Christian beliefs. Now it means a dangerous sect. A hundred years ago a cult was a particular belief. I have Catholic books that freely express belief in the cult of the Blessed Virgin. Now cult means a dangerous sect. I haven't kept up. When I was young, we talked about neo-Evangelicals as opposed to Fundamentalists like us. The neos were liberal. These words change meaning with such speed that it is hard to know what people mean by it. I agree with Navidad, that todays self-identified Evangelicals who have children that badger LDS children are wacky. They can call themselves what they want. I think they want to avoid being classified as what they are. But I truly do not know what word to use except non-Evangelical.

Thank you. Good job. I hope to answer with a brief rebuttal in the near future.

Right. It is customary for Catholics to say the Rosary on the vigil, the evening before the funeral while the body of the departed is resting in the chapel or church. I doubt this could be thought to be appropriate by LDS allowing their meeting house to be used by other faith traditions. Five Our Fathers? Maybe. Fifty Hail Marys? Probably not.

Heheh. Could be. Anyway...here are my results: Joseph (King Follett) 67% Joseph (Nauvoo) 67% Roberts 63% McConkey 63% Ostler 61% Givens 61% Progressive 52% Why look at that. I see little evidence that the "Hellenistic Fantasy" stops me from being LDS! HEH. Good one, longview. I would have given you one of those laughing things...but...have a great day longview. Thanks for the laugh! And congratulations for your McConkey score. Mine was disappointing. Regards, Rory

Catholics believe that in Holy Communion, the saints on earth are one in unity with Christ in the Eucharist. Excommunication occurs when a Catholic commits an act or obstinately professes a belief that is incompatible with that unity. It only means that the person is put on notice that the Church has judged that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion. The excommunicated party is welcomed and encouraged to continue assisting at Mass. It is no different than when one has committed a mortal sin. If one deliberately sins in a serious, or grave matter, it is sacrilege to receive Holy Communion, until we are reconciled with God by making a Sacramental confession of repentance wherein we intend to make reparation and have a firm purpose of amendment. Excommunication is an expression of mercy to the guilty party warning them that receiving Holy Communion sacrilegiously (not in unity with other communicants) must not be taken lightly, but with the knowledge that whenever there is desire to return, a priest will happily receive us back into unity in the Confessional. In the meantime, our fellowship at Mass is welcomed.

So sorry...but we can laugh...after a few hours.

Heh It froze on the 10th question. I might start over another time and sign in to save my answers. It's fun though.

Thoughts? Yeah. I wonder if I could be a Temple ready LDS doctrinally. I love these exercises anyway. I will answer as a Catholic. Anyway, here goes.

Hi InCog. I appreciate your patience. I do not hesitate to agree that there are interpretations to the texts you cite. But you say that you weren't trying to say that "the LDS interpretation is the only clear one". That more or less makes my point. How can there be multiple clear interpretations that differ from each other? Even only two "clear interpretations" of a text would make it impossible to make a clear choice without light from some other source. The question is about the identification of the gods spoken of. Are they all the same kind of gods? In Exodus, slaves who wished to stay with their masters after they had paid their servitude were instructed to go to the gods, and have them observe an ear being pierced to signify the status of this servant. These gods would seem to be civil magistrates of some kind. I would suggest that in the last text you quoted from Deuteronomy this is possibly about these civil magistrates. Does the heavenly council take bribes and have respect of persons? How do slaves who want to be free servants of their masters approach the heavenly gods? So nobody has to search around for it, here is Deut. 17:10: "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17) Of course, there are also strange gods. We know that Israel was tempted all through through their history to take up worship of these gods that they had learned about from their neighbors. It is a constant problem to contend with. If it is an instruction to be aware of making a mistake about some inferior god in a Heavenly Council, it almost seems like those inferior gods were so inferior as to be susceptible to taking advantages of their positions for personal gain. Origin also believed, speculatively, that the stars and planets were actually alive. I can get that for you. It is in De Principiis. He argues from the fact that the Scriptures say that the heavenly bodies obey the Lord, and they praise the Lord. I take this anthropomorphically, but maybe these have been thought to be heavenly gods by mistaken parties over the centuries. Could the vast array of heaven be populated by gods? Sure, but what kind? In Colossians(?) we hear about angel worship. Could angels be called gods in the Old Testament and angels in the New? I don't know. I will try to do a little more research, but I don't think the Catholic Church has ever delved into these question either. Speculation is permitted when definitions are lacking. Regards, Rory

InCog. Hi. Unless I am physically unable, I intend to answer your question above, if only you can hold your breath a little longer.

Amen, cal. I think both of our churches are on the same page in this regard. In other ways, we are, to be honest, radically different. Still, a sign of hope, especially since "love believeth all things." Mr. Pollyanna

Hi Stargazer. I couldn't pass this up. I don't expect much interest. If the internet swallows it, okay. That wasn't a bad summary of the situation of the Society of St. Pius X. I won't bore you with all the corrections I would make. I will focus only on the issue of full and partial communion. At the Council, the Church wanted to recognize that in a certain respect, those groups which had broken away from Rome centuries before, have given evidence of fruitful graces of God, which should be recognized. The Council simultaneously expressed the ongoing responsibility of the Church to persuade these "separated brethren" to join in the unity of the Catholic Church. In my opinion, this is where the distinction between full and partial communion is legitimate. The Catholic Church has no wish to minimize the value of "mere Christianity". In the explanation of the truth about salvation only through Christ and His Church, the Church does not believe or teach and never has taught that only visibly enrolled members of the Catholic Church can be saved. Full communion is not necessary for a soul to be saved. Of course we think it is less likely, but partial communion is necessary. This idea has developed gradually over time as a means of recognizing two truths that have been proposed since ancient times. First, that we have hope for the salvation of all who have died; and secondly, that no one is saved outside of the Catholic Church. Written from my back deck, in clear view of the towers of the Immaculata, the largest SSPX church in the world, 3DOP

Hi InCognitus, I have only one qualm with your interpretation. If I were LDS, I would find your biblical argument satisfactorily plausible. But being familiar with other interpretations that are also satisfactorily plausible, according to other Christian traditions, I could not accept that the Scriptures "clearly teach" your interpretation on its own. The clincher would not be Scripture. The clincher would be LDS tradition. Believing that the LDS have the one true church, I would trust in a plausible Scriptural interpretation, WITH LDS Tradition. Even if I became LDS, I could never think that the Scriptures are ever so clear as to resolve doctrinal controversy. One of the reasons I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church is that she denies that the Scriptures are perspicuous, or clear. No sola scriptura. We love the Scriptures as a support to our beliefs, not as clear teaching as though everybody who reads the Bible should always believe what the Catholic Church teaches apart from Tradition. What do you think? Is my idea about Scripture compatible with LDS Tradition/Teaching? Thanks InCognitus. Rory