Did The Catholic Apologist Get It Right...

[zerinus]

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

That is a diversion. The scripture simply says that salvation = knowing God. What kind of "knowing" is irrelevant. Whether it is "full" knowing or "partial" knowing, makes no difference to the logic of the argument. The point is that you have got to know God to be saved, and that means acquiring a certain kind of "knowledge".

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.

I don't see the point you are trying to get at. Do you question the scriptures I had cited earlier? If so, on what basis?

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.

At some point they are going to have to know Him and accept Him to be saved; if not in this life, then in the next. The scripture says that a time will come when every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess to Christ (Isaiah 45:23; Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10; Mosiah 27:31; D&C 76:110; D&C 88:104), whether they like it or not. So everyone will at some point here or hereafter have the opportunity to know what they need to know to be saved---or be damned, as the case may be.

Edited April 9, 2012 by zerinus

[saemo]

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?

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.

I don't think Catholic teaching and meaning of truth is coming through in my posts. Truth is a person, Jesus Christ, a person (you, me, etc.) encounters this Person in their lives. Learning something may be involved in this life, as we are not in the immediate presence of God. However, those in heaven are in the immediate presence of God, therefore, the encounter with God is experienced as your encounter with another human. What more do you think a person would need to know about God once they are in the immediate presence of God?

Also, we firmly believe that people of other faiths, and even non-faith, experience God. God is not dependent on our knowledge. As a friend of mine said to me once, people may need an interpretation of what they have experienced, but what they have experienced is what their belief is based on. Mormons I think would understand this, since you are so reliant on experiencing feelings. Though from my view, you have formulaic approach that has knowledge as foundational, and then one's experiences are based on knowledge.

We don't hold any belief that those who are in heaven view Jesus Christ as a stranger that they have to learn about from catechists. He is our teacher.

Edited April 9, 2012 by saemo

[saemo]

That is a diversion. The scripture simply says that salvation = knowing God. What kind of "knowing" is irrelevant. Whether it is "full" knowing or "partial" knowing, makes no difference to the logic of the argument. The point is that you have got to know God to be saved, and that means acquiring a certain kind of "knowledge".

I don't see the point you are trying to get at. Do you question the scriptures I had cited earlier? If so, on what basis?

At some point they are going to have to know Him and accept Him to be saved; if not in this life, then in the next. The scripture says that a time will come when every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess to Christ (Isaiah 45:23; Romans 14:11; Philippians 2:10; Mosiah 27:31; D&C 76:110; D&C 88:104), whether they like it or not. So everyone will at some point here or hereafter have the opportunity to know what they need to know to be saved---or be damned, as the case may be.

Scriptures do not say knowledge of God is required for salvation. That is just your belief. I don't question scripture, I question your interpretation of them.

God is not dependent on our knowledge. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Christ because He is Lord and King. When He comes again, as our Judge, all will know Him.

[saemo]

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.

The Reformation was a different time, when all were Catholic. One faith. The church condemned those who left to follow the innovations of Luther, Calvin or Zwingli. This mindset was set into the Church for a longgg time, I'd say until Vatican II. Those born into Protestantism are not at fault for not being taught correct teachings.

But it still remains, we are taught to work out our salvation with fear and trembling. Fear of God is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit. A healthy sort of fear, of the kind where you fear offending the One you love. If you're just rule-following, then I really see no point.

Knowing the consequences of sin can instill in a person a desire to repentance. Believing one can do whatever they like because God will forgive, or, believing that one's sins are too great for God to forgive...these are the two sins against the Holy Spirit.

Edited April 9, 2012 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

[saemo]

John 17:3

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Yes. I have already seen in other places how Mormon interpret John 17, which is nothing like anyone else does.

I don't have a lot of time right now, but will only say quickly, we are not in agreement as to what John 17 says. I have a difficult time arguing this one because frankly for me, the Gospel of John is most profound, and particularly, John 17 is a spiritual giant (if you will). I don't like to argue about it. I already know how Mormons have twisted it, and it tears my heart out. It really does.

Have a good day.

Edited April 9, 2012 by saemo

[thesometimesaint]

saemo:

I've always liked John, but that is beside the point. Either you know something or you don't. If I am required to know something I'm going to do my darnedsest to know it. I expect disagreemeents. Whether any other person or church agrees with the one and only true and living Church on the face of the earth is the point of the Restoration.

[why me]

The Reformation was a different time, when all were Catholic. One faith. The church condemned those who left to follow the innovations of Luther, Calvin or Zwingli. This mindset was set into the Church for a longgg time, I'd say until Vatican II. Those born into Protestantism are not at fault for not being taught correct teachings.

I would date the change later than Vatican II. It went well into the 1970's. By the 1980's the attitude was changing as more people interfaith married. The problem as I see it is the whitewash that is now given on catholic apologetic boards about the past catholic church when they mock mormonism. They forget their roots or never experienced such roots.

That being said, it was good to be a catholic boy. It taught me to respect god and gave comfort to know that god is watching over me. No problem there. But let us not forget that the catholic hell was quite populated by non-catholics.

Edited April 9, 2012 by why me

[why me]

I have a difficult time arguing this one because frankly for me, the Gospel of John is most profound, and particularly, John 17 is a spiritual giant (if you will). I don't like to argue about it. I already know how Mormons have twisted it, and it tears my heart out. It really does.

Have a good day.

Now that is not very kind toward the mormons. I think that you mean interpretation and not twisted. Twisted has terrible connotations. But interpretations is much more friendly and leads to dialogue.

[blueadept]

I would date the change later than Vatican II. It went well into the 1970's. By the 1980's the attitude was changing as more people interfaith married. The problem as I see it is that whitewash that is now given on catholic apologetic boards about the past catholic church when they mock mormonism. They forget their roots or never experienced such roots.

That being said, it was good to be a catholic boy. It taught me to respect god and gave comfort to know that god is watching over me. No problem there. But let us not forget that the catholic hell was quite populated by non-catholics.

The dogma of Lumen Gentium that came from Vatican II thankfully corrected these past misconceptions. Hell, IMHO, is not as populated as you seem to be making it. But it's obviously a different culture now.

My 2 cents

[zerinus]

Scriptures do not say knowledge of God is required for salvation. That is just your belief. I don't question scripture, I question your interpretation of them.

God is not dependent on our knowledge. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess Christ because He is Lord and King. When He comes again, as our Judge, all will know Him.

I think you misunderstand the scriptures. "Knowing God" means to acquire a "knowledge" of Him, as the following verses demonstrate:

Proverbs 2:

5 Then shalt thou understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God.

Colossians 1:

10 That ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God;

2 Peter 1:

2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,

D&C 84:

19 And this greater priesthood administereth the gospel and holdeth the key of the mysteries of the kingdom, even the key of the knowledge of God.

Edited April 9, 2012 by zerinus

[seriously honestly]

Not true. Till death do you part is the rule. The lds have a different message: in eternity, the marriage continues as one is united with the earthly spouse and with the offspring, who in turn can be united with their partner and offspring. And as such, eternity is is one big family united in kinship. And it is here were mormonism stands alone.

But nowhere in Christianity do we teach you wont be with your loved ones after death. In other words, we wont be separted from eachother, never to see the other again for all eternity. We believe and teach that we will recognize and know eachother and will be one family, all brothers and sisters in Christ.

[seriously honestly]

My point was not regarding whether they have sex or not, but how the "continuation of the seeds" is obtained. I don't believe that she becomes pregnant with spirit kids, and goes to spirit hospital to be delivered by a spirit midwife, and there is a spirit doctor at hand to provide a cesarean section operation in case she has hard labor. That is not how the spirits of men come to be--regardless of whether they have sex in heaven or not.

The pure doctrine revealed in the canonized scriptures of the Church are always discernible from the opinions of fallible men.

If the same sociality that exist now will exists there, wouldn't it stand to reason that children will be produced in the same manner they are now?

[thesometimesaint]

While we are all brothers and sisters we are in closer association with some than others. We have no information on how spirit children are produced.

[why me]

But nowhere in Christianity do we teach you wont be with your loved ones after death. In other words, we wont be separted from eachother, never to see the other again for all eternity. We believe and teach that we will recognize and know eachother and will be one family, all brothers and sisters in Christ.

This sounds very nice but also it sounds a little new age, somewhat cotton candyish. For example, lets say that I attempt to live a good and devout life. I attend Mass during the week and during days of obligation. I attempt to live the word of god and go to confession. However, cousin Bing doesn't go to church, lives a whorish life and treats his fellow human beings badly. And he dies. Will we all be together again in heaven in one big happy family? I believe that the catholic faith also goes by works. And what if cousin Bing on this deathbed makes a confession the priest. Are we all together in heaven? Or is cousin bing in hell?

[blueadept]

This sounds very nice but also it sounds a little new age, somewhat cotton candyish. For example, lets say that I attempt to live a good and devout life. I attend Mass during the week and during days of obligation. I attempt to live the word of god and go to confession. However, cousin Bing doesn't go to church, lives a whorish life and treats his fellow human beings badly. And he dies. Will we all be together again in heaven in one big happy family? I believe that the catholic faith also goes by works. And what if cousin Bing on this deathbed makes a confession the priest. Are we all together in heaven? Or is cousin bing in hell?

Since cousin Bing will technically not have any mortal sin on his soul, he will eventually be in heaven after A LOT of time in purgatory. I suspect he won't be in hell though. It's the way that we die that matters. The scripture reference would be when we decided to work in the Lord's vineyard. Cousin Bing waited until his deathbed.

[seriously honestly]

This sounds very nice but also it sounds a little new age, somewhat cotton candyish. For example, lets say that I attempt to live a good and devout life. I attend Mass during the week and during days of obligation. I attempt to live the word of god and go to confession. However, cousin Bing doesn't go to church, lives a whorish life and treats his fellow human beings badly. And he dies. Will we all be together again in heaven in one big happy family? I believe that the catholic faith also goes by works. And what if cousin Bing on this deathbed makes a confession the priest. Are we all together in heaven? Or is cousin bing in hell?

I should have clarified--those who accept Christ will be in heaven and will be reunited with others who have accepted Christ as well (I'm not Catholic, and maybe that is the difference). Not every single person who has ever had a mortal life will be there. That would be new age and coton candyish sounding.

I believe the works we do will determine in heaven what our reward(s) will be, but they will not determin if we get to enter heaven. Nowhere in your example did you mention anything about you being born-again and giving your life to Christ, so I would say you and your cousin (in your example) would both in the same boat heading downward. God's standard is perfection, and an attempt to enter heaven by means of living a good life by our own efforts and standards--which will always fall short of God's--is pointless. Now what if cousin bing made a confession on his deathbed to a priest? Well I don't know how much authority that would have. I don't believe in confessing sins to a preist anymore than I do to an LDS bishop, simply because the only person who has the authority to forgive sin, other then the individual whom the offense was committed against, would be God. I would much rather someone on their deathbed confess directly to the one with the authority to forgive than to someone else. But even so, the issue would be between them and God. Do I think it's possible? Sure. But I don't have the ablility to know if it is sincere and where their heart is.

[zerinus]

If the same sociality that exist now will exists there, wouldn't it stand to reason that children will be produced in the same manner they are now?

No.

[seriously honestly]

No.

why not?

[why me]

why not?

As someone else said, we don't know. How were we created as spirit children? I don't think we know that answer either.

[seriously honestly]

As someone else said, we don't know. How were we created as spirit children? I don't think we know that answer either.

Then we end up back at Jaybear's question of "what purpose is served by marriage in the eternities"?