Did The Catholic Apologist Get It Right...

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Only if she wants to. While my Mother-in-Law didn't live with us my wifes' did. I believe she would be much happier living with her husband in their own mansion.

[blueadept]

If one dies with Mortal Sin, they have separated themselves from God.

In order for a sin to be mortal, it must meet three conditions:

• Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
  
• Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
  
• Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner
  

This means that mortal sins cannot be done "accidentally." A person who commits a mortal sin is one who knows that their sin is wrong, but still deliberately commits the sin anyway. This means that mortal sins are "premeditated" by the sinner and thus are truly a rejection of God’s law and love.

The first condition, that a mortal sin is of grave matter, means that certain premeditated offenses against God are more severe than others. We know that some sins are graver than others (e.g. it is a graver sin to murder someone than to lie to someone). St. John tells us, "If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly." (1 John 5:16-17). Thus St. John distinguishes between mortal and venial sin. Jesus also warns us that "Anyone who does not remain in me will be thrown out like a branch and wither; people will gather them and throw them into a fire and they will be burned" (John 15:6).

Most 'bad' actions do not qualify for 'mortal sins' if you die. It just takes a lot of cleansing in purgatory before they can get to heaven. IMHO, this is more inclusive than the LDS version.

[thesometimesaint]

blueadept:

In LDS belief you can't unknowingly sin. If we, and there has only been one sinless man on this earth, sin we must repent or pay for that sin to the uttermost Farthing. For those that didn't have the opportunity in this life to hear the Restored Gospel, then they will have the opportunity to accept or reject it in the next. That is about as inclusive as it is possible to get.

[blueadept]

I agree to disagree about being most inclusive. Obviously there's a difference in regards to the Catholic thought of venial/mortal sins versus the LDS thought on sin. I believe our disagreement of which faith is more 'inclusive' stems from not even agreeing on the role of sin. Just my opinion.

[Jaybear]

As I said, I see it as a family of kinship. And as such the mother in law is apart of such a kinship. If we take this to JS's polygamy, we can see his mind at work: the sealed wife and her family are together in kinship with the prophet. And this also applies to JS.

What purpose is served by preserving "kinship" in the eternities.

Is nepotism prevalent in the celestial kingdom?

[LeSellers]

What purpose is served by preserving "kinship" in the eternities.

What purpose does kinship serve here?

The sealing power of the Holy Priesthood links all who will together into a network ("net", like a fishing net) that gives power and strength to each person or couple (which we might see a a single knot on the fabric).

Is nepotism prevalent in the celestial kingdom?

It may be hard, but do try to stop being insulting.

However, since Jesus is the First Son (in the spirit) and the Savior/Redeemer, and He is God over us, then if you insist on the term, there is a sort of nepotism in the Celestial Kingdom. Otherwise, although each will receive individual rewards unequal to those others will get, all exalted persons will be on an equal footing in God's kingdom.

Lehi

[Yirgacheffe]

So on a thread that corrects a Catholic's understanding of LDS beliefs there are LDS correcting Catholics on their own beliefs.

[why me]

I think that kinship implies closeness and this is what is important. Likewise if we live faithfully, we will be in kinship with the Father. In an eternal pespective it mean take on this meaning: a relation of affinity or harmony between people; whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other.

This is an online definiion from:

http://www.thefreedi...ary.com/kinship

Edited April 5, 2012 by why me

[why me]

So on a thread that corrects a Catholic's understanding of LDS beliefs there are LDS correcting Catholics on their own beliefs.

This will happen when we have both lds and catholics on the thread. But at least it is being done respectfully to create a discussion and dialogue, which is a credit to the members of the forum.

[Yirgacheffe]

Why will it happen, why in the world should a member of the LDS church presume to correct a Catholic about their own beliefs? If I am to accept an LDS members explanation of Catholic beliefs then I should equally accept a Catholic or EV or any other non-LDS explanation of LDS beliefs. You qualify yourself as an x-Catholic and as such suggest you have understanding of Catholic belief. If your former membership in the Catholic church qualifies you to explain it's beliefs then of course I should accept what x-LDS have to say about the LDS church. People should explain their own beliefs, never anyone else's.

[TAO]

Why will it happen, why in the world should a member of the LDS church presume to correct a Catholic about their own beliefs? If I am to accept an LDS members explanation of Catholic beliefs then I should equally accept a Catholic or EV or any other non-LDS explanation of LDS beliefs. You qualify yourself as an x-Catholic and as such suggest you have understanding of Catholic belief. If your former membership in the Catholic church qualifies you to explain it's beliefs then of course I should accept what x-LDS have to say about the LDS church. People should explain their own beliefs, never anyone else's.

Mmm... I don't think it's so much that people shouldn't explain other people's beliefs, but that, in doing so, they should try to be more moderate than usual.

Sometimes I have to explain Islam to other people - even though I'm not a Muslim - and it's not necessarily a bad thing. I am just very careful to not insert my beliefs into it.

So I think with care, it can be okay. I'm not sure if it's the scenario in this thread, of course. But I wouldn't say that it's always bad to explain other faiths, even though you aren't a member.

[Yirgacheffe]

Mmm... I don't think it's so much that people shouldn't explain other people's beliefs, but that, in doing so, they should try to be more moderate than usual.

Sometimes I have to explain Islam to other people - even though I'm not a Muslim - and it's not necessarily a bad thing. I am just very careful to not insert my beliefs into it.

So I think with care, it can be okay. I'm not sure if it's the scenario in this thread, of course. But I wouldn't say that it's always bad to explain other faiths, even though you aren't a member.

Do you explain to Muslims what they believe and insist on your explanation after they have disagreed with it?

[blueadept]

Do you explain to Muslims what they believe and insist on your explanation after they have disagreed with it?

The final word should go to the actual member of that faith.  At least this forum allows actual dialogue to occur for the purposes of better understanding which was the original reason for myself coming to this forum over 6 years ago.  There were two LDS apologists that perservered over at Catholic Answers for a while who were very patient with me. But I realized that if I wanted to truly understand my wife's LDS faith, it wasn't going to happen over there.  I would have to brave the waters in the predominantly LDS forum and I found myself here.  You can develop some friendships and meet a few in real life and at least build some respect for a different POV.  At the end of the day we can agree to disagree, respect one another, and hopefully look at things in a different way for better understanding.  At least this forum gives the possibility for that to happen.  I haven't given any other forum that credit especially when it comes to dealing with the LDS faithful.My 2 cents Edited April 5, 2012 by blueadept

[Calm]

I don't believe you have to be Catholic to live in heaven forever with God.

Do you believe that one has to have accepted Christ as their saviour and accepted his atonement, been forgiven of sins and error? Do those people who live in heaven forever with God continue to hold any incorrect concepts of God they might have had in mortality or do they learn truth from God when they arrive?

[Calm]

In both LDS and Catholic versions, those that will be in eternal hell will be minimal IMHO.

Who are those in Hell in the Catholic version? What happens to those who didn't believe in Christ as their saviour in their lifetime? What happens to those who are not baptized by either fact, desire or blood? (And my understanding of baptism by desire is that they were planning on being baptized, but died prior to receiving the Sacrament, not just that if they had a chance to learn the truth, they would have accepted baptism, is this---had made the choice to be baptized, but hadn't been able to follow through--- correct?) Edited April 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[TAO]

Do you explain to Muslims what they believe and insist on your explanation after they have disagreed with it?

Of course not. It's for explaining to those who don't know what Muslims believe... I explain a bit more about what they believe. Most people don't know too much about that stuff. Of course, I don't know a lot, but I can at least make a few corrections in what other people think, if ya know what I mean =p.

For example, not many people know about the Muslim conception of heaven and hell... which, curiously enough, parallels the LDS conception of them partially. But it's different in it's own way too.

I think my point is, it is okay for me to correct some misconceptions of the faith of my friends, when they aren't present, to talk about it themselves.

Edited April 7, 2012 by TAO

[Calm]

Of course, I don't know a lot, but I can at least make a few corrections in what other people think, if ya know what I mean =p.

I make a habit of correcting nonCatholics on the meaning of the Immaculate Conception and Limbo when I encounter that confusion as well as some other misconceptions I have learned about from Catholics on this board and another. If I have had the chance to be taught the truth, it seems ungrateful not to share it with others when there is an opportunity to do so, even if that truth is another's belief. I do make sure they know I am not Catholic or of whatever belief is being discussed, not an expert, and have been taught by Catholic or other beliefs friends. If they protest they have learned something different from a believer in that faith, I do not argue with them unless I think it's an obvious error and then I'll only say something along the lines of 'you may have misunderstood, you should go check their Catechism on that point'. Edited April 7, 2012 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Why will it happen, why in the world should a member of the LDS church presume to correct a Catholic about their own beliefs? If I am to accept an LDS members explanation of Catholic beliefs then I should equally accept a Catholic or EV or any other non-LDS explanation of LDS beliefs. You qualify yourself as an x-Catholic and as such suggest you have understanding of Catholic belief. If your former membership in the Catholic church qualifies you to explain it's beliefs then of course I should accept what x-LDS have to say about the LDS church. People should explain their own beliefs, never anyone else's.

I will accept what anybody says about anybody else's beliefs as long as it is backed up with sound evidence and reason, and those who disagree have a chance to explain their point of view.

[zerinus]

Do you explain to Muslims what they believe and insist on your explanation after they have disagreed with it?

It is not inconceivable that a Mulim may not understand correctly some aspects of his own religion, and that I might know better; but I should explain it tactfully; and if he insists otherwise, we should respectfully agree to disagree. The same should apply with respect to any other religion.

[saemo]

Who are those in Hell in the Catholic version? What happens to those who didn't believe in Christ as their saviour in their lifetime? What happens to those who are not baptized by either fact, desire or blood? (And my understanding of baptism by desire is that they were planning on being baptized, but died prior to receiving the Sacrament, not just that if they had a chance to learn the truth, they would have accepted baptism, is this---had made the choice to be baptized, but hadn't been able to follow through--- correct?)

Catholic teaching is, we will be judged according to our understanding of God and how we follow what we understand. Someone who has never heard of Jesus will not be judged for what they don't know. John15:12

Hell, for a Catholic, is for someone who has committed a mortal sin and has not sought repentance. If a person does not know what sin is, or do not know that their actions are sinful, they will be judged according to what they know. In other words, a sin must have willful intent against what is known as God's will.

So you can see, only God can judge.

Purgatory is where those who enter heaven are purified, even those who never heard of Jesus Christ or have been confused about who He is. The final judgement is where all is laid bare.

Knowledge does not save you. Which is what Mormon teaching says to me, and even your question. It is Jesus Christ who saves, this is a fact, whether or not a person know of this fact. In heaven we are in the immediate presence of God. Knowledge is not important it is truth, who is Jesus Christ. All who are in heaven will experience Truth.

Edited April 8, 2012 by saemo

[zerinus]

Catholic teaching is, we will be judged according to our understanding of God and how we follow what we understand. Someone who has never heard of Jesus will not be judged for what they don't know. John15:12

Hell, for a Catholic, is for someone who has committed a mortal sin and has not sought repentance. If a person does not know what sin is, or do not know that their actions are sinful, they will be judged according to what they know. In other words, a sin must have willful intent against what is known as God's will.

So you can see, only God can judge.

Purgatory is where those who enter heaven are purified, even those who never heard of Jesus Christ or have been confused about who He is. The final judgement is where all is laid bare.

That is pretty close to what Mormonism teaches, except that our idea of "purgatory" is somewhat different.

Knowledge does not save you. Which is what Mormon teaching says to me, and even your question. It is Jesus Christ who saves, this is a fact, whether or not a person know of this fact. In heaven we are in the immediate presence of God. Knowledge is not important it is truth, who is Jesus Christ. All who are in heaven will experience Truth.

Knowledge per se does not "save" anyone; and Mormonism does not say that it does. It is true that Joseph Smith has said that no one can be saved "in ignorance;" but what that means is the kind of knowledge that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. This is consistent with biblical teachings. Jesus for example says in John 17:3, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." "Knowing God" is a form of "knowledge". If you cannot be saved without "knowing God," then it is true to say that you cannot be saved without acquiring some kind of "knowledge". In another place Jesus has said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32.) The "freedom" that He is talking about is the kind of freedom that comes with salvation in the kingdom of God; which brings us to the same thing: it is impossible to be saved without "knowing" something; but that "something" is a very special kind of "something". It doesn't mean knowing chemistry, or biology, or history, or geography. It means a special kind of knowledge and truth that brings eternal life, and which can only be obtained through faith in and discipleship of Jesus Christ.

Edited April 9, 2012 by zerinus

[Yirgacheffe]

It is not inconceivable that a Mulim may not understand correctly some aspects of his own religion, and that I might know better; but I should explain it tactfully; and if he insists otherwise, we should respectfully agree to disagree. The same should apply with respect to any other religion.

Would you say that the catholic posters here don't know their own religion?

[saemo]

Knowledge per se does not "save" anyone; and Mormonism does not say that it does. It is true that Joseph Smith has said that no one can be saved "in ignorance;" but what what that means the kind of knowledge that comes through faith in Jesus Christ. This is consistent with biblical teachings. Jesus for example says in John 17:3, "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent." "Knowing God" is a form of "knowledge". If you cannot be saved without "knowing God," then it is true to say that you cannot be saved without acquiring some kind of "knowledge". In another place Jesus has said, "If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32.) The "freedom" that He is talking about is the kind of freedom that comes with salvation in the kingdom of God; which brings us to the same thing: it is impossible to be saved without "knowing" something; but that "something" is a very special kind of "something". It doesn't mean knowing chemistry, or biology, or history, or geography. It means a special kind of knowledge and truth that brings eternal life, and which can only be obtained through faith in and discipleship of Jesus Christ.

No one can truly know God, so therefore, are you are saying, no one is saved?

If a person has never been taught truth, or is unable to accept truth through no fault of their own, do you believe that person does not know Christ's Salvation? Jesus Christ is not a fact of knowledge that saves you, His very being is Salvation.

Jesus always taught in the context of those who have heard Him and believed, or rejected Him. He never said, those who have never heard Him are not saved. John 15:12 refutes that idea, entirely.

Edited April 9, 2012 by saemo

[why me]

Catholic teaching is, we will be judged according to our understanding of God and how we follow what we understand. Someone who has never heard of Jesus will not be judged for what they don't know. John15:12

Hell, for a Catholic, is for someone who has committed a mortal sin and has not sought repentance. If a person does not know what sin is, or do not know that their actions are sinful, they will be judged according to what they know. In other words, a sin must have willful intent against what is known as God's will.

So you can see, only God can judge.

Hell can be a crowded place in the catholic faith. If I am not mistaken, protestants were also in hell in the catholic faith because they rejected the truth, especially during the reformation. But I do think that in the catholic faith today, hell, is becoming more humanized, with the thou shall not judge angle.

http://www.historyon...reformation.htm

Where did Queen Mary get that idea about the protestants?

I remember as a catholic boy, hell was very real with fire and brimstone. It made me think twice before sinning knowingly and if I did, I would go to confession on saturday because I did not want to go to hell . My sins as a boy:cursing, talking back to my parents, stealing a candy bar etc. The nuns made hell a very real and tangible place for sinners like us boys.

Edited April 9, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

Knowledge does not save you. Which is what Mormon teaching says to me, and even your question.

My question is just wondering about knowledge because I find possessing knowledge in and of itself a very satisfying experience and would desire to have an increase of knowledge after death, not just be left for eternity at the same state of knowledge that I possess when I die. Of course, doing something worthwhile and beneficial to myself and others with that knowledge is even better than just possessing it as such would be glorifying the Lord and the Father.

Your interpretation of LDS belief is wrong. We do not believe that knowledge is what saves us, we believe that Christ saves us, but part of that is his or his representative teaching us all we need to know about him so that we can fully accept his gift of salvation. One is not saved in ignorance solely because God does not allow anyone to be ignorant. I would say we have to have some basic level of knowledge to fully experience oneness with God because that oneness comes through communication and communication is based on knowledge, but God gives us all the knowledge that we need to communicate with him as we need it so again, it is not knowledge that saves, it is merely one of the tools or attributes of God that he shares with us in the process.

I assume that you believe that those who knew not God or Christ in their lifetimes do eventually learn of him after death, that they are taught by God or his representatives the full knowledge (or at least all that man is capable of understanding).

IIRC, there is somewhere in the Catechism that says God has revealed enough of himself to man through the world itself and God's working with men for men not to be able to claim ignorance of his existence or ways as an excuse for sin or at least rejection of God completely. Is my memory correct?

All who are in heaven will experience Truth

Which to me is the same as saying all those who are in heaven will have all necessary knowledge of God since accurate knowledge is awareness of Truth and if we experience Truth we become aware of it. Edited April 9, 2012 by calmoriah