Restoring The Ancient Church?-Ancient Lds Church?

[saemo]

You refuse to engage the actual subject matter of these threads, Rebecca, preferring to cast aspersions. Then, when someone calls you on that bad behavior, you claim that they and not you are the offending party.

I don't have any trouble at all with people who disagree with me. That is the warp and woof of what goes on here on this discussion board. But you substitute name-calling for discussion. You don't back up your nasty claims by citation of sources. Not Mormon sources, not Catholic sources. Why? Probably because you don't have any. You'll note that 3DOP cited his source.

You say that FAIR does this same "spin" doctoring you allege is a typical Mormon ploy, but you don't provide an online source for it. Should be easy for you to find and cite such a source, since you seem to be saying that virtually anything on FAIR is spin. You state your belief that Catholic writers have spoken out against the Catholic faith, but you don't cite them -- and. mind you, I am not speaking about Catholic apostates (Mormons have apostates too), but rather highly regarded Roman Catholic priest-scholars who might for example teach at the Gregorian University in Rome or with the associated Pontifical Biblical Institute (I have used the research facilities of the branch of PBI in Jerusalem). Next thing you'll be telling me you hate Jesuits, but love Franciscans. Well, you now have a Pope who is a Jesuit and who loves St. Francis. Might be a good lesson for you not to spend so much time hating, but to try to spread a little love.

Why assume I am hating? Reality is reality. The LDS church is, by nature, in direct opposition to Catholicism. If that weren't so, there would not be thousands of Mormon missionaries in Catholic countries with the sole intent to remove people from their Catholic faith. Did you think this is looked on favorably by Catholics?

Pick a FAIR article, any article, that uses Catholic sources and I'll help you see the spin. Theosis vs. exaltation is always a good subject.

As for Catholic scholars, there are controversial works, which would you like to discuss? Hans Kung, Sister Elizabeth Johnson, Sister Margaret Farley, etc.

I don't hold any belief regarding people of various religious orders.

[saemo]

The reason I do is because the Lord has told me he spoke through Joseph Smith, so to believe Joseph Smith is to believe what Jesus Christ said or revealed (or revealed again) through Joseph Smith. And to not believe what Jesus said through Joseph would be to not believe Jesus Christ.

I'm sure you don't think you're rejecting the teachings of Jesus Christ, but as a point of fact, you actually are. Why? I don't know, but I suspect it's because you don't know enough about Jesus Christ or his true teachings to know that he spoke through Joseph Smith. Maybe all you need is to get to know Jesus Christ better than you already do, and I do believe you do, to some extent.

Ahab, I view your following of Joseph Smith as not paying attention to the warnings in Galatians 1:6-9. A desire for novelty rather than truth. So, we could go around all day I suppose with this idea of yours that "my faith is bigger than yours, so there".

I'm under no obligation to follow the private revelations of a man whose claims are in direct opposition to Christ's Church.

Edited April 11, 2013 by saemo

[mfbukowski]

You probably are less discerning than me Robert, understandably, to appreciate scholarship that if true, would pose a threat to the the entire Roman Catholic faith. mfbukowski talks about how Catholicism can embrace what he calls "progress theology" in order to retain viability in the modern market place of ideas. I understand how this can seem generous from an LDS viewpoint. But I couldn't care less about a form of presentist viability that cannot endorse our Catholic past. I will never propose the Catholic Church as some benevolent institution that has happily adapted itself to modern philosophy and theology. To do so is to admit apostasy. Like bukowski, I would be LDS first.

3DOP

Yes, you avoid presentism, but unfortunately you remain convinced that somehow the past, which can never be re-visited, is somehow "better" and you are stuck in a world which has lost relevance forever and will never return.

If the world ever properly understands Mormonism, we WILL be the rock that fills the earth. The only thing that stops us is our own tendency to try to appeal to what has gone before instead of fully embracing our own full vision of what we can be. The whole "we wanna be Christian Sectarians too" mentality is what limits us.

We just need to embrace what is truly ours and forget about all alleged "Christian" belief before the Restoration and trying to conform to a dead theology, and we will blossom like a rose. Nietzsche was right when he said "God is dead"- but unfortunately for him he was also stuck in the past and saw only the God of the past, the ineffable transcendental god of the sectarians and that is the god he properly pronounced "dead". OUR God is our Father and is our ideal exalted Man of Holiness, not an ineffable "essence" without body, parts, or passions.

Catholicism might well pull out of this slump they are in, and to be truthful, I hope they do. It is a marvelous church full of goodness and wonderful people. But it will not happen by remaining stuck in a dead past, but by embracing humanity as it is now, with the ideas and interpretations of today, and by remaining open to being led by the spirit wherever it leads us.

[mfbukowski]

I meet Mormon progressive scholars and would-be scholars all the time. They have theories of neo-orthodoxy, post-christian thought, etc., with which I do not agree. But I don't get too exercised about them. Scholarship is, after all, a communal enterprise, and we mustn't fear the direction it might take. I trust that God's plan will not be frustrated, nor that He can be mocked with impunity. Man proposes, God disposes.

What we do here is explore some ideas which may be new to us (I do appreciate your contributions to that enterprise). Mark Bukowski comes up with some of the best, or at least some certainly worth considering.

My goodness! Thanks for the kind words, but I just present what I have found elsewhere in my long journey!

[Ahab]

The LDS church is, by nature, in direct opposition to Catholicism.

Only to the limited aspects of it. There is a lot of good in Catholicism to the extent that Catholicism agrees with Mormonism.

If that weren't so, there would not be thousands of Mormon missionaries in Catholic countries with the sole intent to remove people from their Catholic faith. Did you think this is looked on favorably by Catholics?

It is looked on favorably to the Catholics who accept our help and choose to be united with us. It's only the ones who don't want to advance who are upset about the people who leave them to join us.

Pick a FAIR article, any article, that uses Catholic sources and I'll help you see the spin. Theosis vs. exaltation is always a good subject.

Let me guess. Your position will be in favor of those who staunchly refuse to leave Catholicism for anything else.

As for Catholic scholars, there are controversial works, which would you like to discuss? Hans Kung, Sister Elizabeth Johnson, Sister Margaret Farley, etc.

How about just the ones who are in agreement with the tenets of Mormonism? We could just stick to what we agree on, if you want to.

I don't hold any belief regarding people of various religious orders.

Do you not see people in each religion as people of various religious orders? What do you mean by "various religious orders"?

[Ahab]

I'm under no obligation to follow the private revelations of a man whose claims are in direct opposition to Christ's Church.

Me either, but how are we supposed to know which church is really Christ's Church? I know how I know, but how do you know?

Let me guess: You believe some man who has told you the "Catholic Church" is the same thing as the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Pardon me if I continue to rely on what God has told me through personal revelation.

[saemo]

Me either, but how are we supposed to know which church is really Christ's Church? I know how I know, but how do you know?

Let me guess: You believe some man who has told you the "Catholic Church" is the same thing as the true Church of Jesus Christ.

Pardon me if I continue to rely on what God has told me through personal revelation.

I appreciate the continued low view you display for me. It helps me to be humble.

God led me to him Ahab, when I prayed that he would. I believe Jesus Christ, when He said that His Church would not fail, and that He would be with us always. Why don't you? I believe His love is enough for us (humanity) that He would not, and did not, leave us as orphans. Why do believe that he did? I followed God's love to His Church. I see it as a supreme lack of faith that you can't believe in a Triumphant Christ. But instead choose to believe in a weak God, who can't even manage His own Church.

Edited April 11, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

Hi saemo,

This is pretty strong. You can probably tell that I believe it is for the best that we allow that to use Catholic sources is fair game. Of course they will interpret them in ways that support what they believe. But we can't tell them to stay out of our primary sources or academic literature. Taking your principle to a logical conclusion, we would need to deny them the right to use the New Testament because it is a Catholic source too, is it not? Tertullian actually made that argument about heretics using the Scripture: "Why are you ploughing in our vineyards?", I think he asked, before he left the Catholic Church.

I am confident that we should show them good will, assuming that they have no desire to deliberately cloud the issues. We will have opportunities to explain why what they are pondering can be better understood to support why the Catholic Church is true. I will admit that I have become concerned that several individual LDS have had bad will here at this venue. But if so, that will become evident over time. It is possible that the mods here have removed those about whom I have had suspicions.

I seldom talk about LDS sources, not because it isn't fair game, but because I don't want to study that stuff much. Shoot, it they can't "plough in our vineyard", I don't know what I could possibly talk about here! I am more inclined to encourage them to read "truly" Catholic sources while explaining why we have misgivings with their interpretations. Trusting in the right and truth of our most worthy cause, we will always be able to find those who can defend our faith for us if we cannot do it ourselves. It seems to me that over time, even the stubbornest of non-Catholics can benefit from patient and persevering labor in defending Holy Mother Church. That is why I can't discourage it if they want to dabble in Catholic sources. As you said...one man...centuries. Cardinal Danielou as the be all and end all of discussion? Of course not. But we have to demonstrate why and how.

Please receive this with my kindest regards as I rejoice in our mutual beliefs.

3DOP

Hi 3DOP,

Catholic writings are fair game, but me viewing their usage as being done with honestly, and particularly, with integrity isn't required. I don't even believe the disingenuous usage is purposeful, in most cases. Bias in scholarship is always a risk, and is always there, I just see it in big bright neon lights in LDS apologetics. I'm fairly certain the authors of these works think that they are clever, and perhaps even like a Magellan, blazing through as the "first" to make it.

I never see a recognition that Catholic writings, including Scripture, come from the Catholic faith. Shouldn't there be an honest scholarly-like desire to understand them in the context from which they were sourced? I see "no", it is better and much more fun to pull them from their context and make them mean new things.

I find it dishonest, and don't think it unfair to say so.

[mfbukowski]

I appreciate the continued low view you display for me. It helps me to be humble.

Just know that he has that view of everyone.

[Ahab]

I appreciate the continued low view you display for me. It helps me to be humble.

I gave you the best answer I could think of for why you believe the "Catholic Church" is the true Church of Jesus Christ. I won't disregard what God has told me about which church is his church, and I can see the Catholic Church is an entirely different church, so what makes the most sense to me is to think that some man equated the 2 organizations as being the same organization and you agreed with that idea.

God led me to him Ahab, when I prayed that he would.

He and his church are 2 distinct organizations. A person can follow Christ and not yet be a member of Christ's true church, so the fact that you are following him doesn't necessarily mean you are in his true Church.

I believe Jesus Christ, when He said that His Church would not fail, and that He would be with us always. Why don't you?

If you're referring to what he said in Biblical scripture you're taking what he said out of context. I do believe what he said, but what he said needs to be correctly understood in context. If you'd like to go over our reasoning on what the scriptures mean, just let me know.

I believe His love is enough for us (humanity) that He would not, and did not, leave us as orphans. Why do believe that he did?

That's not what I believe happened. He didn't leave us. We hadn't even come to this Earth yet. And he was no longer with the people who were alive back then because they chose to leave him and the things he had taught others to teach.

I followed God's love to His Church. I see it as a supreme lack of faith that you can't believe in a Triumphant Christ. But instead choose to believe in a weak God, who can't even manage His own Church.

He gives members of his church the freedom to make their own choices, too, even when they choose to go against what he has taught them. It's not his fault that a counterfeit organization sprang up which administered a different form of baptism, having no authority to do things in some way other than the way he had taught them to be done, so when the people who had been property baptized died out and nobody else was being properly baptized, there was nobody else joining his church. You have to get in the right way to get in, and it's not just a matter of wanting to be in the right church. You have to do things the Lord's way instead of some other way. Christ manages his own church just fine and just as long as the people in his church will follow him.

[Ahab]

Just know that he has that view of everyone.

Not true, and it's not even true that I have a low opinion of saemo, herself. She just has some false ideas, is all, and I am trying to help her come to a correct understanding of things. Please do more to try to be helpful, yourself.

[mfbukowski]

Not true, and it's not even true that I have a low opinion of saemo, herself. She just has some false ideas, is all, and I am trying to help her come to a correct understanding of things. Please do more to try to be helpful, yourself.

Confirmed it!

[Ahab]

Confirmed it!

Yes, even you can be wrong, mski... repeatedly.

[saemo]

Confirmed it!

lol.

[saemo]

I gave you the best answer I could think of for why you believe the "Catholic Church" is the true Church of Jesus Christ. I won't disregard what God has told me about which church is his church, and I can see the Catholic Church is an entirely different church, so what makes the most sense to me is to think that some man equated the 2 organizations as being the same organization and you agreed with that idea.

He and his church are 2 distinct organizations. A person can follow Christ and not yet be a member of Christ's true church, so the fact that you are following him doesn't necessarily mean you are in his true Church.

If you're referring to what he said in Biblical scripture you're taking what he said out of context. I do believe what he said, but what he said needs to be correctly understood in context. If you'd like to go over our reasoning on what the scriptures mean, just let me know.

That's not what I believe happened. He didn't leave us. We hadn't even come to this Earth yet. And he was no longer with the people who were alive back then because they chose to leave him and the things he had taught others to teach.

He gives members of his church the freedom to make their own choices, too, even when they choose to go against what he has taught them. It's not his fault that a counterfeit organization sprang up which administered a different form of baptism, having no authority to do things in some way other than the way he had taught them to be done, so when the people who had been property baptized died out and nobody else was being properly baptized, there was nobody else joining his church. You have to get in the right way to get in, and it's not just a matter of wanting to be in the right church. You have to do things the Lord's way instead of some other way. Christ manages his own church just fine and just as long as the people in his church will follow him.

Ahab, really, Mormon exegesis is not something I view as truth. It takes such a tremendous amount of mind-bending stuff that I am not capable to believe what you believe. I tried for a while to get the gist of Mormonism, and follow the thread of it in some sort of logical fashion, but I gave it up...for Lent. j/k

Just gave it up. All of my family, with a few exceptions are LDS. I love them, but can't believe as they do. It just isn't possible and hasn't been possible for decades. I came to my own conclusions about Joseph Smith, long before the internet existed. If he were alive today, and my family were telling me to follow him, I'd tell them they've lost it and to wake up and smell the coffee. I have no interest in man-made ideas of the American 19th century. In short, it's all hooey to me, the Great Mystery is, why anyone would follow a man such as Smith. Boggles the mind.

[volgadon]

Hello Ahab,

You hit the main difference squarely. Joseph Smith. I find no reason to accept his claims, and plenty of reasons to not. I don't believe he is a prophet any more than I would Ellen White or David Koresh. (I don't use Koresh to sensationalize. His followers believe as ardently about him as you do about Smith, is all.) Why anyone would follow Joseph Smith is to me a mystery at best.

I don't believe that Pope Francis I is God's chosen leader any more than I would so consider Patriarch Bartholomew or the Ayatollah Khomeini. (I don't use Khomeini's name in order to sensationalize. His followers believe as ardently about him as you do about Pope Francis I, is all.) Why anyone would follow Pope Francis I is to me a mystery at best.

Sorry, colour me unconvinced, SAEMO.

[saemo]

He and his church are 2 distinct organizations. A person can follow Christ and not yet be a member of Christ's true church, so the fact that you are following him doesn't necessarily mean you are in his true Church.

This is something I absolutely disagree with. The Body of Christ is not something separate from Christ Himself. The Bride of Christ is One with her Groom.

Colossians 1:17-20

17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

1 Corinthians 12:12-26

12 The body is a unit, though it is made up of many parts; and though all its parts are many, they form one body. So it is with Christ. 13 For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.14 Now the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," it would not for that reason cease to be part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has arranged the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body.21 The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" And the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, 25 so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. 26 If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it.

[Ahab]

Ahab, really, Mormon exegesis is not something I view as truth. It takes such a tremendous amount of mind-bending stuff that I am not capable to believe what you believe. I tried for a while to get the gist of Mormonism, and follow the thread of it in some sort of logical fashion, but I gave it up...for Lent. j/k

Just gave it up. All of my family, with a few exceptions are LDS. I love them, but can't believe as they do. It just isn't possible and hasn't been possible for decades. I came to my own conclusions about Joseph Smith, long before the internet existed. If he were alive today, and my family were telling me to follow him, I'd tell them they've lost it and to wake up and smell the coffee. I have no interest in man-made ideas of the American 19th century. In short, it's all hooey to me, the Great Mystery is, why anyone would follow a man such as Smith. Boggles the mind.

I just told you why I accept what he said, and had it not been for God personally assuring me that what he said was true I probably wouldn't believe it either. But then again, I might anyway, just because it sounds good, but then again that's just another way God has of communicating with me to let me know when something is good.

Anyway, off you go. Maybe someday later you'll see what I see, but then again maybe you won't. Oh well. At least I warned you.

[mfbukowski]

Yes, even you can be wrong, mski... repeatedly.

Yes, and often am. But you on the other hand cannot be.

[Ahab]

This is something I absolutely disagree with.

Do you, or do you only think you disagree? Feel free to let me know after I try to explain this issue to you.

The Body of Christ is not something separate from Christ Himself. The Bride of Christ is One with her Groom.

The Church of Christ is not the same as Christ. They (the 2 separate entities/bodies) are distinct from each other, even though they are or can become one. Just as a husband and wife are both one and yet they are still separate, as in distinct entities/bodies or whatever other word might help you to see what I'm talking about. If you're married you should know what I'm talking about. Your husband may be one with you, but he still has a distinct and separate part of himself that has become one with you, if you are one with him. And even if you are not one at this time, in the way you should be, you still can be.

Anyway, my point was that even if you are following Christ that doesn't necessarily mean you are part of his true Church. Not that he doesn't already have a bride, but that you aren't one with his bride, yet. When you do become a member of his true Church, then you will become one with him, but both you and his Church will still be separate/distinct from his actual person and you always will be.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Ahab

[Ahab]

Yes, and often am. But you on the other hand cannot be.

I've been wrong before. It has happened. I won't say or act as if I'm wrong if I don't believe I am, though.

[SamIam]

Poof -

Edited April 12, 2013 by SamIam

[Robert F. Smith]

Catholic writings are fair game, but me viewing their usage as being done with honestly, and particularly, with integrity isn't required. I don't even believe the disingenuous usage is purposeful, in most cases. Bias in scholarship is always a risk, and is always there, I just see it in big bright neon lights in LDS apologetics. I'm fairly certain the authors of these works think that they are clever, and perhaps even like a Magellan, blazing through as the "first" to make it.

I never see a recognition that Catholic writings, including Scripture, come from the Catholic faith. Shouldn't there be an honest scholarly-like desire to understand them in the context from which they were sourced? I see "no", it is better and much more fun to pull them from their context and make them mean new things.

I find it dishonest, and don't think it unfair to say so.

Still on your accusatory rant, I see, with never a specific example of these imaginary dishonest parties, because you can find none.

When I attended a very informative and worthwhile course on Catholicism taught by a Paulist Father at Old St. Mary's in Chinatown in San Francisco nearly half-a-century ago, I felt very welcome, and was pleased at the frankness of that priest. The Church library even included the complete works of Martin Luther, and the priest was very open about discussing what motivated Luther. I think a Lutheran would have been pleased to find no hate or vilification in his description of those past events. It was my first introduction to Roman Catholicism, and it left me with a very high respect for that Church and its people. Even among my own coreligionists, I would brook no false statements or accusations -- believe me, I even made some enemies among my fellow Mormons when I forthrightly defended the good Roman Catholic people, priests, and nuns against loose accusations of insincerity. I was young and outspoken then, perhaps too brazen and intolerant of rumormongering.

And now you, Rebecca, spreading similarly ill-informed falsehoods and calling into question the basic decency and sincerity of good Mormons. You clearly know nothing about us, and have made no attempt to do so. I can't recall ever meeting a Catholic as intolerant and unkind as you. I know that your religion does not teach that sort of unchristian behavior, and I am puzzled as to what has created in you such fear of and loathing for Mormons.

[saemo]

Do you, or do you only think you disagree? Feel free to let me know after I try to explain this issue to you.

The Church of Christ is not the same as Christ. They (the 2 separate entities/bodies) are distinct from each other, even though they are or can become one. Just as a husband and wife are both one and yet they are still separate, as in distinct entities/bodies or whatever other word might help you to see what I'm talking about. If you're married you should know what I'm talking about. Your husband may be one with you, but he still has a distinct and separate part of himself that has become one with you, if you are one with him. And even if you are not one at this time, in the way you should be, you still can be.

Anyway, my point was that even if you are following Christ that doesn't necessarily mean you are part of his true Church. Not that he doesn't already have a bride, but that you aren't one with his bride, yet. When you do become a member of his true Church, then you will become one with him, but both you and his Church will still be separate/distinct from his actual person and you always will be.

I appreciate your honesty, and even your faith. But, I am not in agreement with your assessment of its truth claims.

[saemo]

I don't believe that Pope Francis I is God's chosen leader any more than I would so consider Patriarch Bartholomew or the Ayatollah Khomeini. (I don't use Khomeini's name in order to sensationalize. His followers believe as ardently about him as you do about Pope Francis I, is all.) Why anyone would follow Pope Francis I is to me a mystery at best.

Sorry, colour me unconvinced, SAEMO.

So you can't say why you follow Joseph Smith?