And This Pope Rocks On

[teddyaware]

I am responding to what you said.

Whether or not Divine Truth exists out there independent of what we think and believe, what we think and believe and express is based on assumptions....even whatever it is you interpret as divine truth.

If you haven't been able to figure out my personal faith yet, I have to wonder if anything anyone says is ever taken into account by you in your responses. It is not like I am a rare poster.

 

And this is exactly why I'm surprised to hear that you don't "buy" the fact the LDS Church has much better answers to life's great questions than do the non-LDS churches. As a 44 year member of the Church, I though it was a given that our answers were much more consistent, logical, compassionate, merciful and loving than the answers (and often non-answers) heard elsewhere. This ability of the Church to provide wonderful, reasonable, soul-satisfying, peace-of-mind-inducing answers is the very thing that attracted me to the LDS faith in the first place when I was an inquisitive 20 year old.

 

And I didn't obtain the gospel knowledge I have now by making assumptions. People make assumptions all the time and they are very often wrong in those assumptions. People assume Joseph Smith's testimony that he was visited by the Father and the Son is false, and that assumption leads them into error, and that error causes them to remain ignorant, and "no man can be saved in ignorance.  Incorrect assumptions have real-life consequences, and those real-life consequences keep them from finding the fullness of true Christ and the fullness of His true religion.   

 

Edited January 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[ChristKnight]

They don't have much choice but to do as you say. They have to be unkind toward us because the LDS Church makes so much more sense than theirs does, is so much more logical and appealing than theirs is, has a God who is so much more fair, kind, longsuffering and loving than theirs is, and has so much more to offer than theirs does that they must attack. They take that approach because they must try to preempt and dissuade any attempts on the part of their parishioners who may perchance look into a religion that can really prove God is love.

 

The interesting thing is that I've seen plenty of Catholics say exactly the same thing about the Catholic faith versus the LDS faith, which is probably along the lines of why calmoriah and others responded the way they did to you. 

[ChristKnight]

9 We don't make a fuss about the Catholics calling themselves Christians even though they don't believe Christ revealed to Joseph Smith that marriage and family life is designed by God to last forever and that heaven is not a unisex neuter world.

 

 

I would CFR this (I'm assuming you're implying that Catholics believe that Heaven is a unisex neuter world), but I know I'm already off topic.

10 We don't make a fuss about the Catholics calling themselves Christians even though they don't believe Jesus Christ revealed to Joseph Smith that temple worship and temple ordinances are still an essential part of His Gospel.

 

 

From my reading, I've come to see that Catholics believe that the rites of the synagogue and the temple are found in Catholic sacramental mysteries, transformed in the New Covenant (see books such as "Letter and Spirit: Temple and Contemplation: God's Presence in the Cosmos, Church, and Human Heart",  "The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity", "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist", "The Church: Unlocking the Secrets of the Places Catholics Call Home" . "The Spirit of the Liturgy"). Indeed, many Eastern Catholics (following Orthodox practice) refer to church buildings as "temples" (and they are, since Catholics believe that God's presence is found there in a special manner, and that a sacrificial priesthood ministers therein). 

[teddyaware]

The interesting thing is that I've seen plenty of Catholics say exactly the same thing about the Catholic faith versus the LDS faith, which is probably along the lines of why calmoriah and others responded the way they did to you. 

Then let's try to get an able Catholic representative on this thread (or on a new one) so we can point by point compare our answers to gospel questions. This way people can be informed and will be able to decide for themselves if I am correct when I say that the LDS answers to gospel questions are the best answers. I extend this challenge in a spirit of goodwill and humility. But understand that it would be dishonest on my part if I weren't to openly declare that I really do believe, from the very bottom of my soul, that the LDS answers to gospel questions are far surpassing all others in their logic, wisdom and brilliance.   

[teddyaware]

I would CFR this (I'm assuming you're implying that Catholics believe that Heaven is a unisex neuter world), but I know I'm already off topic.

 

From my reading, I've come to see that Catholics believe that the rites of the synagogue and the temple are found in Catholic sacramental mysteries, transformed in the New Covenant (see books such as "Letter and Spirit: Temple and Contemplation: God's Presence in the Cosmos, Church, and Human Heart",  "The Crucified Rabbi: Judaism and the Origins of Catholic Christianity", "Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist", "The Church: Unlocking the Secrets of the Places Catholics Call Home" . "The Spirit of the Liturgy"). Indeed, many Eastern Catholics (following Orthodox practice) refer to church buildings as "temples" (and they are, since Catholics believe that God's presence is found there in a special manner, and that a sacrificial priesthood ministers therein).

 

Hi there Chris,

 

Some years ago, I saw an interview with Father Theodore Hesbergh, Dean of Notre Dame University, conducted by ABC News' Ted Koppel. As I recall, the interview was about the possibility of the Catholic Church, at some time in the future, allowing priests and nuns to marry. In this interview, Hesburgh said it (marriage) would likely never happen. In fact, he said the reason why priests and nuns were celibate and forbidden to marry is because they -- the priests and the nuns -- were  trailblazers of sorts, setting the example for the married Catholics and their families; pointing the way to a "better world" in heaven, where there is neither male of female and where the family ties and emotions that bind on earth would no longer exist. It would be interesting to hear what other Catholic authorities would have to say about Father Hesburgh's comments. 

 

As for the other items, there's no doubt that some similarity exists; but that's all there is, some similarity. In reality we're very much apart in major points of belief and practice when it comes to what actually constitutes the true order of temple worship. Nevertheless, the similarities do provide a good starting point for dialogue. 

Edited January 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[Senator]

The truth is the truth and the LDS Church is the only true church with the living authority of God on the earth. God wants this fact known, and it seems He doesn't much care if it's going to raise somebody's hackles.

 

I can just imagine the 14 year old Joseph Smith protesting to God at his first vision: "It's not fair, Father! How could you speak so poorly of all the churches? You say there can only be one true and living Church at a time on the earth? That's not right!"

Quite some time ago I came to realize this discussion board is really a somewhat inhospitable place for LDS members with solid testimonies. It seems that in order to facilitate the kind of dialogue and discussion that's most appreciated here (musing intellectualism where nothing is ever really settled), it's best for one not to have a deep and abiding testimony of the Restored Church, because to admit and speak of such is politically incorrect and "abusive" to the sensibilities of those participants on here who disbelieve or are not so sure.

 

It's hard to imagine how people like Nephi, Moroni, Paul and Joseph Smith could dialogue on here without causing constant irritation, consternation and offence. Would I terribly offend if I said this may be a very good place for people who are determined to be numbered among those who are "ever learning, but never able to come to the knowledge of the truth?" Or perhaps it might be better stated as 'ever learning but not wanting to accept the truth, because doing so would cause one to enter the ranks of the socially and politically incorrect.'

 

But on second thought, I guess this board would be awfully boring if everyone was the same...

 

People don't come here to "hear the missionary discussions".  In fact, per the board guidelines, proselytizing or witnessing is prohibited. So if you feel that this simply must be done by those of "solid testimony", then you'll understand the pushback.

[AddamS]

I don't mean to be controversial for the sake of provocation, but I don't understand why there is so much adoration for the new Pope.

With one order he could release all records of sexual, physical, and mental abuse of children being actively hidden by The Catholic Church. Instead, he does nothing.

I'm not LDS, but I have full faith that if Pres. Monson found that somewhere along the line the LDS Church had hidden decades of this sort of abuse he would turn over the information to the proper authorities post haste.

Why the public doesn't hold The Catholic Church accountable for these transgressions is beyond me.

New Pope might have a kinder public image than Pope Classic, but it's more or less the same product.

[why me]

And we believe in hell as a form of purgatory place before final judgment, and outer darkness after final judgment, your point being?

The amount of people who will end up in hell. For catholics hell is eternal damnation where one lives with the devil. Such was my catechism in the early 60s. For mormons, such a hell is reserved for a select group of people. The ordinary man or woman will not end up in hell. Lesser kingdoms perhaps.

 

The lds conception of god is much more loving to the sinner.

[why me]

The mere fact that Catholic apologist Tim Staples, who speaks of hell in the 2nd linked video, cannot satisfactorily answer the difficult questions about those destined for eternal hell, without saying it's a mystery, puts the LDS plan of salvation light years ahead of the mystifying   

For many catholics the idea of mystery is very much a part of faith. The trinity is also a mystery. I think that it is true the mormons do not use the term mystery when they cannot answer questions. They just say, I don't know. Or we don't know. But for some catholic mysteries, mormons do have answers.

[why me]

I wouldn't expect the pope to speak about hell in public anytime soon. I think that the topic of hell is out of bounds now. Unfortunately however  in the catholic faith hell is very real and it should be mentioned by the pope. The talk of mercy is nice. But if a catholic is disregarding god's word, he or she does face a life in hell. I see no mercy.

 

At least that is my understanding. When I was a boy the notion of hell was very real and it kept me in the confessional once a month. If I talked back to my parents, said a curse word, stole a candy bar, I was in the confessional. No hell for me. At the end of the day, it kept me on the straight and narrow when I was a boy. Nothing wrong with that. And it was a comfort to know that god was watching over me. But the devil with his pitchfork was something I wanted to avoid. No fire for me.

 

But now it seems that hell is gone...not to be thought about in the catholic faith. I hear no mention of it. Strange how things changed.

Edited January 3, 2014 by why me

[teddyaware]

I wouldn't expect the pope to speak about hell in public anytime soon. I think that the topic of hell is out of bounds now. Unfortunately however  in the catholic faith hell is very real and it should be mentioned by the pope. The talk of mercy is nice. But if a catholic is disregarding god's word, he or she does face a life in hell. I see no mercy.

 

At least that is my understanding. When I was a boy the notion of hell was very real and it kept me in the confessional once a month. If I talked back to my parents, said a curse word, stole a candy bar, I was in the confessional. No hell for me. At the end of the day, it kept me on the straight and narrow when I was a boy. Nothing wrong with that. And it was a comfort to know that god was watching over me. But the devil with his pitchfork was something I wanted to avoid. No fire for me.

 

But now it seems that hell is gone...not to be thought about in the catholic faith. I hear no mention of it. Strange how things changed.

According to Catholic belief, I believe the state of limbo would be the place where most lukewarm but not totally sinful Catholics would end up for a period of time. As I understand it, it's somewhat similar to the LDS concept of the spirit prison.

[thesometimesaint]

I know there's a majority, but is it "vast"?

 

It was in the news a few years ago when the number of Mormons living outside the U.S. finally exceeded 50 percent. But that was not too long ago.

 

I haven't seen any recent figures, but I would be surprised to learn that the proportion could now be considered "vast."

 

He could have meant outside of Utah.

[Stone holm]

According to Catholic belief, I believe the state of limbo would be the place where most lukewarm but not totally sinful Catholics would end up for a period of time. As I understand it, it's somewhat similar to the LDS concept of the spirit prison.

 BY and some of the early Prophets, back when the GAs discussed such things, they talk about "hell" as being a temporary place where sin is metaphorically burned out of a person.  That concept is embedded in the 132nd Section for persons who received the 2nd Annointing and then committed sins other than the unforgivable, it is also implied in, I believe, the Psalms where there is discussion of David getting a promise that he won't be left in hell.

[teddyaware]

Having listened to the entirety of the video, I find nothing "mystifying" about his Catholic perspective on the matter.  He clearly provides the Catholic perspective on hell (which emphasizes that Hell is for those that knowingly turn away from God, which is how Catholics view "mortal sin" (which requires knowingly and willfully disobeying the will of God on a serious matter).  Those in Hell, not in the eternal presence of God, are those that didn't want to be there anyway.  The "mystery" part, from the Catholic perspective, is that we simply don't have the perspective of God on these issues.  God has not fully revealed all that there is to know, all that He knows.  Perhaps Catholics would find this verse relevant:

 

1 Corinthians 13:12

¹² For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

I see nothing "light years ahead" with the LDS perspective, except that it is a different perspective on what happens after death.

It was the Catholic apologist, Tim Staples, who in the video that I believe was linked to by Why Me said that the Catholic concept of hell is largely surrounded in mystery. I was quoting him.

 

The mystery for me, as a Latter-day Saint, is why the Catholic understanding of who God is would give up so easily on His children. You would think that a God who is the very embodiment of perfect and undying love would provide more time, especially in the spirit world, to repent, come unto Him and Christ, and receive salvation in one of the Father's many heavenly mansions of glory.

 

The LDS understanding of the role of hell (except in the special case of the sons of perdition who commit the unpardonable sin) is very well set forth in Moses 7:

"38 But behold, these (the wicked who were ripened in iniquity and sin in Noah's time) which thine eyes are upon shall perish in the floods; and behold, I will shut them up; a prison (hell) have I prepared for them.

39 And that (i.e. Christ) which I have chosen hath pled before my face. Wherefore, he suffereth for their sins (Christ suffered and atoned for the wicked who died in the flood); inasmuch as they will repent in the day that my Chosen shall return unto me, and until that day they shall be in torment;" (Moses 7)

 

So in the LDS of plan of salvation, God does not give up so easily on His children. Except in the case of the sons of perdition, existence in hell is a temporary state that is designed my a loving and all-merciful Mind to cause the wicked to take stock in their self-destructive behavior and rebellion against God and to finally repent. This is the true mercy of the all loving and ultimately longsuffering God. Joseph F. Smith describes the same principle of God's longsuffering mercy as follows...

"30 But behold, from among the righteous, he organized his forces and appointed messengers, clothed with power and authority, and commissioned them to go forth and carry the light of the gospel to them that were in darkness (hell), even to all the spirits of men; and thus was the gospel preached to the dead.

31 And the chosen messengers went forth to declare the acceptable day of the Lord and proclaim liberty to the captives who were bound, even unto all who would repent of their sins and receive the gospel.

32 Thus was the gospel preached to those who had died in their sins, without a knowledge of the truth, or in transgression, having rejected the prophets." (D&C 138)

 

This is what I believe, and I glory in it beyond measure; this is the merciful work of the living God; this is the wonderful, love-inspired work of the God of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

" 114 But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, and in might, and in dominion;" (D&C 76)

Edited January 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

BY and some of the early Prophets, back when the GAs discussed such things, they talk about "hell" as being a temporary place where sin is metaphorically burned out of a person.  That concept is embedded in the 132nd Section for persons who received the 2nd Annointing and then committed sins other than the unforgivable, it is also implied in, I believe, the Psalms where there is discussion of David getting a promise that he won't be left in hell.

You are correct.

[why me]

According to Catholic belief, I believe the state of limbo would be the place where most lukewarm but not totally sinful Catholics would end up for a period of time. As I understand it, it's somewhat similar to the LDS concept of the spirit prison.

Limbo has been done away with. There is no limbo.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/20/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420

[why me]

Limbo has been done away with. There is no limbo.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/20/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420

My point is that the pope seems to be ignoring hell to get better media coverage. I don't think that this does catholics any favors. If the catholic church has the concept of hell and if people will be sent there by god, the pope's main responsibility is to lead people to heaven. The change in conversation does not seem to recognize the danger.

[teddyaware]

Limbo has been done away with. There is no limbo.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/20/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420

If you read the article carefully, you may see that you are incorrect. I believe the Catholic Church ended a belief in limbo for unbaptized babies, but not for sinners who still have a measure of connection with God. The headline is misleading.

 

Edit. I realize now you are correct and I was in error. The reason why I got this wrong is that I conflated limbo with the Catholic belief in purgatory. The Catholics no longer believe in the state of limbo for unbaptized babies, but continue to believe in purgatory for "unpurified" believers. Apparently, it's quite common for Catholics to conflate limbo and purgatory as well. I'm delighted to affirm that you are correct.

Edited January 3, 2014 by teddyaware

[why me]

If you read the article carefully, you may see that you are incorrect. I believe the Catholic Church ended a belief in limbo for unbaptized babies, but not for sinners who still have a measure of connection with God. The headline is misleading.

 

Edit. I realize now you are correct and I was in error. The reason why I got this wrong is that I conflated limbo with the Catholic belief in purgatory. The Catholics no longer believe in the state of limbo for unbaptized babies, but continue to believe in purgatory for "unpurified" believers. Apparently, it's quite common for Catholics to conflate limbo and purgatory as well. I'm delighted to affirm that you are correct.

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm

 

What is interesting is when catholics claim that lds doctrine changes with each prophet. But so does catholic doctrine. When I was a boy a baby who died before baptism was sent to limbo to the parents anguish. The parents of such babies did not get a feeling of god's love. But times are now changed. But it is too late for the past parents of babies who died before baptism who have now died themselves before the change.

Edited January 3, 2014 by why me

[wenglund]

Perhaps, part of the problem is that we seem to insist that our prophets serve life terms, regardless of their health.

 

Until we become smarter than God and run our own churches, perhaps we should let God decide how long HIS prophets should serve. Just a thought.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Calm]

And this is exactly why I'm surprised to hear that you don't "buy" the fact the LDS Church has much better answers to life's great questions than do the non-LDS churches.

 

But I do believe the LDS has much better answers....but that is because I have a certain set of assumptions that the LDS faith matches up with quite nicely.  For those who don't have that set of assumptions, the LDS faith does not have not the best answers...I believe they are wrong, but I don't "buy" that they are illogical, etc.  They are often (I see the Catholic as being as logical and full of answers with their set of assumptions as we are with ours) as fully developed and as reasonable in their doctrine as we are.  

 

Consider the depth the Catechism goes into, there is great appeal in such, our Gospel Principles manual is like an elementary school textbook compared to university textbook for the Catechism....but it doesn't answer my questions...only those who have chosen to be Catholics.  If I want to learn math, an elementary math textbook is still better than a university biology textbook for that process.  But it is only proper to realize that if one is interested more in biology than math, taking biology courses makes much more sense than taking math courses.

 

And I didn't obtain the gospel knowledge I have now by making assumptions.

 

Everyone has a set of assumptions that they approach life with, things that they accept as truth without requiring proof for that acceptance.  Faith exists as part of those assumptions.

 

Incorrect assumptions have real-life consequences

 

Never said otherwise.

Edited January 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[Calm]

According to Catholic belief, I believe the state of limbo would be the place where most lukewarm but not totally sinful Catholics would end up for a period of time. As I understand it, it's somewhat similar to the LDS concept of the spirit prison.

 

Not quite.  I think you mean "purgatory.

 

Limbo:  http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/04/20/us-pope-limbo-idUSL2028721620070420

 

PS:  I see why me got there first.

Edited January 3, 2014 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Until we become smarter than God and run our own churches, perhaps we should let God decide how long HIS prophets should serve. Just a thought.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

God knows better. He made it possible to have members of the First Presidency lead His Church when the President is too ill to. Just a thought.

[Calm]

My point is that the pope seems to be ignoring hell to get better media coverage. I don't think that this does catholics any favors. If the catholic church has the concept of hell and if people will be sent there by god, the pope's main responsibility is to lead people to heaven. The change in conversation does not seem to recognize the danger.

Whatever the Pope is saying, hell is still in the Catechism:

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

[why me]

Whatever the Pope is saying, hell is still in the Catechism:

 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P2O.HTM

I know. But the idea of hell is not that popular. Much better to talk about love and mercy. Better press and a better conversation will come from it. Many churches have foresaken hell now. I hardly hear anything about it from the christian churches that have it in their catechism or in their belief system. But with the catholic church I do believe that it should be in the conversation. I do believe that some catholics are now stressing god's love and mercy regardless if they are living in sin or doing acts that god would not approve of. And I don't hear the priests talk about hell either in their homilies.

 

I don't know if all this is doing catholics any favors. Hell is still a real place in the catholic faith.

Edited January 3, 2014 by why me