Rob Osborn Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I think it plays out good with the parable of the wheat and the tares- only two groups of people. Either with God, or against him. As we grow in mortality it may appear to other men who is a wheat and who is a tare. So it is with the two churches, we will either gravitate towards one or the other. In the end all will truly belong to either one side or the other.
Calm Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 I offer all of my reasonings here in the light of my avowed convictions against a "presentist" kind of approach to religion. "Well, 500 years ago I couldn't have been Catholic..." To the "hot place" with that! If you can't have been Catholic five hundred years ago, you can't be today in a way that will redeem a scoffing and skeptical world. I am suggesting the same principles which embraces our histories must apply to any institution that claims to be the one true church.3DOPAgree with you here, but there are past beliefs that are incorrect in the Catholic faith even if taught by some leaders, such as limbo...if I understand its history correctly and some distorted teachings of indulgences.
why me Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 3DOP:People and institutions change, and I find the modern attitude of the Catholics towards freedom of religion to be admirable.Of course any idea in any religion can be "latent". We all read into Scripture what we think or want to think it teaches. So sure some LDS thought that the Catholic church was the Church of the Devil, and I have no doubt some still do.On catholic forums it is repeated over and over again that the lds church is anticatholic and considers the catholic church the church of the devil. Many catholic amateur apologists repeat this to bring negativity to the lds church. No amount of reasoning will convince them to change their tactics.
why me Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 3DOP:As it is Scripture to us it would be problematic to reject the ideas expressed in it. But I do reject those that would posit a particular church as being the Church of the Devil without their agreement and consent. So there is a Church of the Devil, and people whom do worship the Devil in the literal sense. Plus those that work against God in a more religious sense. I believe that Scripture references the latter and not the former.But catholic forums continue to pull Bruce R. McConkie out of their hat with his quotes about the catholic church. The internet has allowed people to harm the lds church by pulling out quotations left and right by past GAs to make their points.
thesometimesaint Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 We'll always have those that will never be convinced that what we say we believe is in fact what we believe. If we meet contention with contention they win. So I believe we should just continue to affirm and reaffirm what we believe.
Saints Alive Posted January 1, 2013 Author Posted January 1, 2013 Glad the thread has taken a constructive turn. Perhaps this is another curse of Cain problem, Some leaders sharing their opinions, perhaps well intentioned but not doctrine.
why me Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 We'll always have those that will never be convinced that what we say we believe is in fact what we believe. If we meet contention with contention they win. So I believe we should just continue to affirm and reaffirm what we believe.You are right about that. What is unfortunate is that even if they do believe what we are saying, they will not admit it and continue to lead people away about what the lds believe. I have seen this many times on the catholic forum where lds issues are brought up again for the upteenth time and no progress in acknowledging what past lds posters have posted about the subject and they continue to stick to their understanding what lds believe.
why me Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Perhaps this is another curse of Cain problem, Some leaders sharing their opinions, perhaps well intentioned but not doctrine.LDS leaders can never have an opinion. When they talk, the word of god comes forth. It must be difficult being a lds GA. If I were a GA my mouth would be shut most of the time.
DBMormon Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 other subjects where LDS theology has been misrepresented or is in need of clarificationJesus was born on april 6thEvolution is a heresyAnything the prophet says is doctrineWe don't drink coffee or tea because of caffine, tanic acid, or any other ingredient 1
harfad Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 On catholic forums it is repeated over and over again that the lds church is anticatholic and considers the catholic church the church of the devil. Many catholic amateur apologists repeat this to bring negativity to the lds church. No amount of reasoning will convince them to change their tactics.But catholic forums continue to pull Bruce R. McConkie out of their hat with his quotes about the catholic church. The internet has allowed people to harm the lds church by pulling out quotations left and right by past GAs to make their points.You are right about that. What is unfortunate is that even if they do believe what we are saying, they will not admit it and continue to lead people away about what the lds believe. I have seen this many times on the catholic forum where lds issues are brought up again for the upteenth time and no progress in acknowledging what past lds posters have posted about the subject and they continue to stick to their understanding what lds believe.Those kinds of posts usually come from Mormon apostates turned (hypocritical) Catholics. They don’t come from genuine, authentic, native Catholics. They are usually pretty decent folks, and behave themselves honorably towards LDS.I also don’t agree that more freely available information about the Church on the Internet has harmed the Church. More information is always good. It is true that there will always be people who will put that information to evil use; but the overall result of it will be good for the Church, not bad.
Saints Alive Posted January 1, 2013 Author Posted January 1, 2013 LDS leaders can never have an opinion. When they talk, the word of god comes forth. It must be difficult being a lds GA. If I were a GA my mouth would be shut most of the time.a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.
DavidB Posted January 1, 2013 Posted January 1, 2013 Rob's "analysis" falls off the tracks with the second bullet point. The last three bullet points are invalid, since the entire scriptural passage refers to a time when the polarization in the world is far more advanced than it is now. There are still many neutral people.Perhaps Rob would be better served were he to consider the scriptures as a whole rather than cherry picking single passages in isolation.Care to demonstrate how he "falls off the tracks?And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ewhore of all the earth.It is very clear that one if a person does not belong to the Church of the Lamb belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations. Notice there there are only two options. There are only two choices, either the Church of the Lamb of the mother of abominations.
ERayR Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Care to demonstrate how he "falls off the tracks?And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ewhore of all the earth.It is very clear that one if a person does not belong to the Church of the Lamb belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations. Notice there there are only two options. There are only two choices, either the Church of the Lamb of the mother of abominations.The problem is that Rob (I don't know about you as I haven't heard your definitions) defines these two churches in very limited terms. Luke 9:5050And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.We tend to be a bit ego centric and need to expand a little. That is also Rob's shortcoming.
jwhitlock Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Care to demonstrate how he "falls off the tracks?And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the ewhore of all the earth.It is very clear that one if a person does not belong to the Church of the Lamb belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations. Notice there there are only two options. There are only two choices, either the Church of the Lamb of the mother of abominations.What's the time frame that this scripture applies to? It certainly didn't apply in Nephi's time, and I don't think it will fully apply until the events right before the Second Coming are in full swing. Too many neutral people still around, and the gospel has not yet been preached to all nations in fulfillment of that prophecy. How does this apply to people who have heard nothing of Christ, of which there are a significant number still in the world?The entire passage in Nephi deals with events of the last days; this passage is specifically applicable to a world that has reached a certain stage. We're not there, yet. 1
Darren10 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) I've skipped for now the last page and a half of reading cuz I wanted to post the following right away. Apologies if it has already been linked.Mike R. Ash is a very smart and insightful LDS apologist and the following site is one that I have used before at another website. Ash explains the cultural connection between the perception that the "whore of the earth" is the Catholic Church and how certain LDS leaders agreed with that conclusion. What's important is that Ash points out that those of the LDS leadership who declared the Catholic Church as the Great and Abominable Church of the Book of Mormon were denounced by presidents of the Church so far as their idea went. Ash also agrees, as do I, with Hugh Nibley's interpretation that all as individuals may belong to the Great Abominable Church or church of the Devil. This, of course, includes Mormons. In other words, it is by ones' actions and not his or her theological beliefs which qualifies the person to be part of the devil's church or not. It's a good read.http://www.mormonfortress.com/ga.html Edited January 2, 2013 by Darren10 4
Darren10 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 These verses (about there being only two churches) are similar to Viktor Frankl’s assertion that that there are only two races -- the decent and the indecent. His point was that members of the “decent race” and of the “indecent race” can be found in every group of people. (Although a holocaust survivor, he even managed to find a member of the “decent race” in the last place one would expect).That's just brilliant.
Darren10 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 There are only two types of people in this world. People you like to see come, and people you like to see go. LOL!!!
3DOP Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) Agree with you here, but there are past beliefs that are incorrect in the Catholic faith even if taught by some leaders, such as limbo...if I understand its history correctly and some distorted teachings of indulgences.Hey cal. Good to see you. I'll add my "two bits" as Dad used to say.I go back and forth but lean most toward affirming Limbo, but that is because I regard it as St. Thomas Aquinas did:"...in St. Thomas' view the limbus infantium is not a mere negative state of immunity from suffering and sorrow, but a state of positive happiness in which the soul is united to God by a knowledge and love of him proportionate to nature's capacity." ---http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htmA lot of people get the idea that it is more like Hell than anything. That would be assuredly unjust. It seems fitting that there would be a place of goodness and joy for rational creatures who had never committed actual sin, but whose capacity for Heaven was strictly natural. These would have all the potential for every natural joy, recreation, with growth in the knowledge of God's Providence. And never die. Not a bad deal. Before I became Catholic, I would have thought it was Heaven. I think most of the objection to Limbo stems from a failure to recognize how good it is.The teaching on indulgences remains static. We believe that as members of Christ's body, we can do nothing to mitigate the eternal punishment for sin for ourselves or others, but it is God's Will that we may participate in the exaltation of our fellows through the adjustable law of the Church (whatsoever is bound on earth is bound in heaven...). By performing prescribed penitential acts of love that mitigate the temporal punishment for sins either for ourselves or others, we are "filling up that which is wanting in the sufferings of Christ".I do not have a problem with ongoing speculations about Limbo, nor with criticisms of the usage of indulgences as alleged by Luther and his followers. Nothing is decided as to Limbo, and nothing has changed as to the teaching on indulgences. Abuse of a legitimate practice is not detrimental to the true teaching from which it derives.The historical debate about Limbo demonstrates that it has always been developing. That is why there can continue to be be legitimate speculation and development until the 2nd Coming of Christ, or a possible definitive statement. Happy New Year to you...3DOP Edited January 2, 2013 by 3DOP
3DOP Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 But catholic forums continue to pull Bruce R. McConkie out of their hat with his quotes about the catholic church. The internet has allowed people to harm the lds church by pulling out quotations left and right by past GAs to make their points.That makes it even more important to continue to explain the overall LDS view accurately, elsewhere, as well as McConkie's own position. Did not he reverse his position in a revised text? That should be important should it not?I am forever banned from the Catholic forum you are probably referencing so my criticism of it is certainly biased. But I agree with you that there is an overwhelming degree of willful ignorance over there. It seems like there is disproportionate anger to the stimulus they seem to feel whenever someone not exactly like they are should try to explain what they believe or why. I don't get why they are always so passionate about things they really don't understand. Sorry is about all I can say.
DavidB Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 It certainly didn't apply in Nephi's time,... CFRand I don't think it will fully apply until the events right before the Second Coming are in full swing. Too many neutral people still around, and the gospel has not yet been preached to all nations in fulfillment of that prophecy. How does this apply to people who have heard nothing of Christ, of which there are a significant number still in the world?The entire passage in Nephi deals with events of the last days; this passage is specifically applicable to a world that has reached a certain stage. We're not there, yet.so only relying on your opinion, you claim some one else "falls off the rails".
jwhitlock Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 (edited) CFRso only relying on your opinion, you claim some one else "falls off the rails".I suspected you wouldn't be open to any discussion or explanation, and would just dismiss it, but I tried anyway. Your CFR is misplaced, in any case.Tell you what. Why don't you pony up an explanation - and a reference - to prove that this scripture applies to all times and not just to the times before the Second Coming. It'll be interesting to see how you try to spin that to be consistent with Rob's misinterpretations, especially since the entire context of these passages relates to the last days - and not to the Nephites' times. Edited January 2, 2013 by jwhitlock 2
DavidB Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 I suspected you wouldn't be open to any discussion or explanation, and would just dismiss it, but I tried anyway. Your CFR is misplaced, in any case.Tell you what. Why don't you pony up an explanation - and a reference - to prove that this scripture applies to all times and not just to the times before the Second Coming. It'll be interesting to see how you try to spin that to be consistent with Rob's misinterpretations, especially since the entire context of these passages relates to the last days - and not to the Nephites' times.So you are not going fulfill the cfr obligation?
blackstrap Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 Although I concur that it is most likely that the two churches refer to individuals hearts and minds as they pertain to Christ, it is conceivable that someone would not be part of the Lamb of God church until they had actually joined His legitimate Kingdom on earth. All might be part of Satan's church in the sense that Satan is the "ruler" of this world and they are under his power until they repent and are baptized etc.,etc.
Darren10 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 That makes it even more important to continue to explain the overall LDS view accurately, elsewhere, as well as McConkie's own position. Did not he reverse his position in a revised text? That should be important should it not?You, sir, are exactly correct. You get a virtual knuckle tap over the internet from Darren. I am forever banned from the Catholic forum you are probably referencingIs it Catholic Answers Forum? If so, i'm forever banned from there as well. It was for proselityzing. While I did not agree with the ban, it was there call as it is their website. I'm totally at peace with it. But now I'm curious how you got banned forever from that forum or whatever forum you got banned from. I've definitely seen no reason here why you'd be benned. Especially from a forum representing your faith.But I agree with you that there is an overwhelming degree of willful ignorance over there. It seems like there is disproportionate anger to the stimulus they seem to feel whenever someone not exactly like they are should try to explain what they believe or why. I don't get why they are always so passionate about things they really don't understand. Sorry is about all I can say.Ditto that. 1
canard78 Posted January 2, 2013 Posted January 2, 2013 The Catholic Church of today, in a way that cannot be reconciled with its history, has softened its view of our obligations toward non-Catholic religions to the point where many Catholics truly believe that our Church will always stand for religious liberty according to what may be called, the classic American model. By "American model" I mean an approximate view that every religious group ordinarily has a moral right to be able to establish and propagate itself without hindrance from the State. Starting from the Old Testament and examining Church history, the New Testament and Catholic Tradition, I am convinced that we cannot claim that this is the authentic teaching of the Catholic Church. Our view of religious liberty permits the State to freely intervene in its own affairs in order that it may establish the Catholic religion alone.I do not expect to convince anyone. That is not my point. I am being forthcoming in order to illustrate that even though a majority of Catholics today believe in Americanist principles of religious liberty, it can be argued that this is not the authentic teaching of the Church. I think it is only fair to grant that while most Catholics believe one way, and one could even say conveniently so, the principles allow and demand liberty only to individual conscience. Anyone ever "baptized" against their will was first of all never baptized, the minster of baptism committed a sacrilege, and the continuous and oft-reiterated teaching of the Church was grievously violated. But the principle which affords the State permission, not necessarily obligatory, to restrict propagation of non-Catholic is latent in Catholic Tradition. If I were non-Catholic I would not grant that what the majority of Catholics and even many of the hierarchy believe today is necessarily representative of what the Catholic Church has taught in the past or what the Catholic Church must forever teach in the future. I offer this admission because it seems to me that even if we grant that all of this internet board denies the dichotomy between the Church of the Devil and the Church of the Saints, it is possible that there is a latent teaching which has shaped LDS doctrine and practices in the past with the potential to do in the future. It might be analogous to this latent and currently obscured teaching of the Catholic Church.I am not arguing that Rob has succeeded in demonstrating that what he is presenting is the past teaching or the potential future beliefs of consistent LDS faithful. My argument is that his ideas should not be summarily dismissed as a refusal to believe what most Mormons individually believe today. I doubt if that is what Rob is interested in analyzing, but rather he is trying to see if what he is presenting has been a past belief with the latent potential to have the endorsement of many Latter-day Saints in future. Has this teaching, if it ever existed, been once and for all suppressed? That is the question that might be of interest. If Rob clarifies that he thinks that all of you individually believe secretly what he is proposing and you deny, I wouldn't give his ideas much consideration. But otherwise, if it is merely a question of a progressive, systematic evaluation of LDS Scripture and past interpretations, it seems like his ideas could be profitably entertained and discussed. It seems to me like a generous and reasonable interpretation of his analysis can eliminate the offensive notion that he won't allow you to establish your own beliefs.I believe it would show the most important strengths of LDS beliefs against Protestantism/Evangelicalism, if you were to appreciate the need to not distance yourselves from what may presently be uncomfortable, in the acts and faith of your fathers. Our phenomenon in the wrong direction was in my opinion, accelerated by President Kennedy's compromises with Catholic Tradition. No one could ever be elected President who believes what I explained in the first two paragraphs. And Catholics were tired and weary of being on the outside of American political life. Maybe some of you can understand. Anyway, this is getting too long. I offer all of my reasonings here in the light of my avowed convictions against a "presentist" kind of approach to religion. "Well, 500 years ago I couldn't have been Catholic..." To the "hot place" with that! If you can't have been Catholic five hundred years ago, you can't be today in a way that will redeem a scoffing and skeptical world. I am suggesting the same principles which embraces our histories must apply to any institution that claims to be the one true church.3DOPAny church member who believed the Roman Catholic Church was/is the great and abominable church are just bad historians. I've a Romanian LDS friend who finds it amusing that we 'western' Christians obsess about the RCC when the issues some LDS dump at the RCC's doorstep are present in Romanian Christianity, where the RCC has had little to no influence. Yes, this idea of the RCC as 'the whore' has been taught (and still is in some Sunday school lessons).No, I don't agree with them. I'll try to find some notes I'd written on this chapter a while back.
Recommended Posts