And This Pope Rocks On

[The Nehor]

So our god is not THE God?

 

If by that you mean the neo-Platonic God spawned because it was intellectually satisfying and adopted by most of Christianity then no. That god is actually an idol.

[why me]

Actually the most profound and sacred act was him rising again....and that was not a public event so you'll forgive if I don't accept that everything important God does must happen in a public forum.

This is a good point. If Christ would have appeared to the masses as he did to the apostles in that part of the world, the whole notion of faith would need to thrown out the window. It definitely was done in secret.

[Stone holm]

So our god is not THE God?

In the heavens their are many gods, but for us there is only on God which we have to do with and He is Our Heavenly Father.

[Duncan]

I skimmed the "Atonement" thread, Jesus died to impress the gods? That's a new one. But where to begin when people have paganized Christianity to the point of absurdity?

I don't think we have anything to discuss.

 

 

but Jesus washed his apostles feet in a private setting, it wasn't a public display. Sometimes he wanted to be by himself to get away from everyone, he like everyone i'm sure  at times suffered from people fatigue

[saemo]

Actually the most profound and sacred act was him rising again....and that was not a public event

Acts 10:40

so you'll forgive if I don't accept that everything important God does must happen in a public forum.

I never made such a claim. The claim I was responding was one where something necessary to salvation occurs in secret. I reject this idea, completely, as Jesus' ministry was public. His death and resurrection were public. Spoken of in public, taught in public, written down to be remembered forever.

If they were hidden events, you who were not there, would remain unaware of both events.

Edited December 30, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

but Jesus washed his apostles feet in a private setting, it wasn't a public display. Sometimes he wanted to be by himself to get away from everyone, he like everyone i'm sure at times suffered from people fatigue

Yes, I agree, Jesus retreated in prayer, and gave to his friends time with himself that was not given to others. They felt the events important enough to be remembered, told them to others, eventually they were written down.

As a Christian, I don't view any moment of Jesus' life as meaningless. Scripture is clear, Jesus came to save us. He did so publicly. I see no reason to assert anything Jesus has done for us requires that it be done in secret. I see secrecy as a shackle, hidden things, closed doors. Jesus opened the doors, he didn't wall himself up in a building and say, "come find me if you can". That is the argument I see being presented by some in this thread.

Edited December 30, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

This is a good point. If Christ would have appeared to the masses as he did to the apostles in that part of the world, the whole notion of faith would need to thrown out the window. It definitely was done in secret.

LDS have a different notion of faith. There are witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus. People who knew he was dead. D.E.A.D. Dead. Then he was there before them alive. They didn't keep his resurrection secret. They let people know

Also, Jesus appeared to as many as 3000 people. Publicly, not in a hidden room of a private building. Don't you, as a Mormon, believe the resurrected Jesus appeared to an entire American city?

I don't understand the love that Mormons have for secrecy, to the point of ignoring the obvious. You know about Jesus death and resurrection because it is not a secret!

Edited December 30, 2013 by saemo

[saemo]

He sure did. Things like pray in secret; Go to your closet to pray; Don't pray in public like the hypocrites; Do good secretly and God will reward you openly. Exactly who else was there with him and the woman taken in adultery? He also said things like could you not stay awake for one hour with me. He also said things like tell no one. What exactly did he tell his Apostles for those 40 days after his Resurrection?  No my friend he did a great many things in secret and openly. To focus only on the open is to forget his commandments as is to focus only on the private.

 

Does the Catholic church open up its conclave of the College of the Cardinals to the public when electing a new Pope? The public might be interested in those deliberations. It's been a while since the public has seen two living Popes at one time.

I believe the context was in what is necessary for salvation. A conclave is not necessary to my salvation. It is necessary for a functioning Church. Prayer is integral and necessary for my relationship with God, but my prayers do not constitute the saving act for all of mankind.

[saemo]

Why not? All religious faiths have their cultural dimensions. For Mormons it is the temple. For catholics it is choosing the pope. And like I said, the temple experience is experienced by many people. It is really not that secret. Many have disclosed what happens because they have been there and now are exmembers. So, nothing is really hidden.

Hi, I left Mormonism before the internet existed. The first time I read of anything about the LDS temple ceremonies was a good 20 years after I left. You can believe it wasn't from an LDS source. The followers of Jesus were discussing, teaching, spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ themselves. It wasn't a secret leaked out by exmembers.

[The Nehor]

Acts 10:40

I never made such a claim. The claim I was responding was one where something necessary to salvation occurs in secret. I reject this idea, completely, as Jesus' ministry was public. His death and resurrection were public. Spoken of in public, taught in public, written down to be remembered forever.

If they were hidden events, you who were not there, would remain unaware of both events.

 

Acts 10:40 does say he was shown openly of course verse 41 makes it clear it was not to all the people but to specific chosen witnesses. You could not just wander in and be a witness.

 

The claim that everything important Jesus did was recorded is a supposition with no facts behind it. The gospels were accounts of his life written after the fact for the edification of believers. They are relatively light on theology.

 

More pressing, the 40 day ministry of Jesus after he was risen when he taught the Apostles is missing almost in its entirety. Before Jesus's death his Apostles were loyal to a point and definitely loved him but most bolted when things got ugly with the authorities. It appears only Peter and John stuck around. Then he rose and 40 days later the Apostles have turned into burning witnesses willing to teach anyone and to defy all secular authority. What happened? What did he teach them to bring about that change?

 

Once the Apostles were gone there were a ton of pretenders publishing accounts of what the 40 day ministry taught. Why did the apostles fail to record it unless it was not meant to be shared? Quite the oversight.

 

The death of Jesus was public (for those who cared to watch executions) but the resurrection was clearly not. It was testified of but then there are gaps in what was shared with everyone. You can argue that what was taught is unnecessary for salvation but I see no reason to believe this is the case.

 

I have no problem with teachings held sacred. I believe God will share them with me as quickly as I am ready to receive them. I have no problem with the principles of salvation being taught as you go and kept from those they may harm. I am certainly not going to be ready to take my rightful place in the eternities the moment I die. It certainly makes things more exciting. It means I have knowledge and teachings and revelations to continue to thirst after. I have been taught things not generally known in "the church" and it is an act of trust that I will keep them sacred until the prophets share them generally. Some seem to me to be vital and to me they are. I have no doubt God is teaching other members the same things and different things as they are able. Many are far beyond me.

[why me]

Hi, I left Mormonism before the internet existed. The first time I read of anything about the LDS temple ceremonies was a good 20 years after I left. You can believe it wasn't from an LDS source. The followers of Jesus were discussing, teaching, spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ themselves. It wasn't a secret leaked out by exmembers.

When Jesus was executed his followers were not to be found. And if he were not resurrected, the jesus movement would be dead. The apostles were hiding, afraid for their lives. In other words, their testimonies seemed to be rather weak. His resurrection and his appearance to the apostles was a big event but it was in secret. And it gave the apostles the needed incentive to believe that jesus was who he claimed to be.

 

The followers of jesus in the lds church are also spreading the good word, discussing, teaching etc. But for mormons certain things are sacred. Nothing wrong with that. Instead of mocking it, it should be respected. And I do believe that lds members are taught about the temple before they go. Much is discussed and the reasons why.

Edited December 30, 2013 by why me

[why me]

 

Does the Catholic church open up its conclave of the College of the Cardinals to the public when electing a new Pope? The public might be interested in those deliberations. It's been a while since the public has seen two living Popes at one time.

Saemo is rather quiet about this. Hopefully the poster will answer your comment. I think that the newsmedia would love to be there when a decision is made and before the decision. They could tell the public who voted for whom and why. And TV cameras could be in the College of Cardinals filming it all. But I think that the catholic church believes it to be too sacred to have it filmed and have the media there.

[why me]

Yes, Jesus said many times, "find a secret garden and go there for me". Oh wait, it was "pick up your cross and follow me".

Mathew 6:5

 

“And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full!

6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

16 “When you fast, do not look sombre as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full!

17 But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face,

18 so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.”

 

Maybe you can read the bible with an open heart and you can also see the wonders of having things done in private and not to be seen by others.

Edited December 30, 2013 by why me

[Yirgacheffe]

Saemo is rather quiet about this. Hopefully the poster will answer your comment. I think that the newsmedia would love to be there when a decision is made and before the decision. They could tell the public who voted for whom and why. And TV cameras could be in the College of Cardinals filming it all. But I think that the catholic church believes it to be too sacred to have it filmed and have the media there.

The poster did address this issue.

[why me]

As a Christian, I don't view any moment of Jesus' life as meaningless. Scripture is clear, Jesus came to save us. He did so publicly. I see no reason to assert anything Jesus has done for us requires that it be done in secret. I see secrecy as a shackle, hidden things, closed doors. Jesus opened the doors, he didn't wall himself up in a building and say, "come find me if you can". That is the argument I see being presented by some in this thread.

And where is the lds church doing this? When they preach, they do so in public by sending missionaries out into the world. And no lds leader is walled up in a building. And lds churches are opened for the pubic as are lds temples before the dedication.

 

However, you still have failed to address the secretive nature of your own church, the catholic church when a pope is chosen and other things that are done within the vatican walls. Where is the public? For your own creditability you will need to address this before you continue your criticism of the lds church.

[why me]

The poster did address this issue.

Not really. Saemo needs to address the problems in their own church when it comes to secrecy. Also, one can use the Mathew verses to be critical of the pope. When the pope prays in public as he does in front of the world media and when he attempts to show his holiness before the media, it tends to go against mathew as I quoted above. It is obvious that certain things should be done in secret and not before the public or the media. But I don't think saemo will address the contradictions of his or her posts.

 

I have seen this from other catholics who engage with members of the lds church. They criticize this or that and when someone brings up the catholic church and its history or secret nature they usually call foul or ignore it and continue with their criticism of the lds church.

Edited December 30, 2013 by why me

[Scott Lloyd]

I don't remember saying sin.  I thought I said flaw.  By that I mean weakness.  We all have them. 

To be precise, the terminology you used was "serious flaws in his character."

 

By a normative definition of the word in this context, character has to do with integrity, moral decency, adherence to that which is good and right. Therefore, it is difficult not to interpret "serious character flaws" as meaning sin -- and "serious" sin, at that.

 

It is for that reason I would not be able to tolerate someone using a Church class or meeting as a platform to advance his personal notion that "Joseph Smith may have had serious flaws in his character."

 

God gave us weakness to make us humble.  Some of them lead to sin though such as our weaknesses can drive us to make bad choices on top of them. I am trying to walk a fine line as I see both weaknesses that are not sin such as depression and weaknesses such as arrogance which are sin beneficial if we sprinkle it in.

 

 

I would prefer to characterize depression -- such as that experienced by President George Albert Smith -- as an affliction rather than a weakness. To his credit, it was an affliction over which he triumphed in that he remained true and faithful so that, when the time came, he was worthy to be called as president of the Church. Had he failed to remain faithful -- which he didn't -- he would have exhibited a weakness.

 

But whether you call it a weakness or an affliction, there is a clear and obvious distinction between that and a character flaw. To blur that distinction in discourse and conversation is to run the risk of conveying a false impression.

 

For instance, helping members see the Elder Bruce R. McConkie was susceptible to pushing his opinion forcefully as Doctrine may help members to be able to recognize in a real life example Elder Christofferson's teaching

 

 

I see value in using real example to help people make the connection.  If we don't people are likely to take the meaning they want from such a teaching and cherry pick when to apply it.

 

What's the difference between applying a general statement to a "real-life example," as you do here, and others doing the "cherry picking" which you decry?

Edited January 3, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[thesometimesaint]

So our god is not THE God?

 

He is the only one whom we have anything to do with.

[thesometimesaint]

Acts 10:40

I never made such a claim. The claim I was responding was one where something necessary to salvation occurs in secret. I reject this idea, completely, as Jesus' ministry was public. His death and resurrection were public. Spoken of in public, taught in public, written down to be remembered forever.

If they were hidden events, you who were not there, would remain unaware of both events.

On order to be saved we must have a change of heart. Last I looked that is a very private thing to do. However we do manifest that change of heart by our public acts.

 

Exactly whom besides Jesus was in the tomb?

 

What exactly did Jesus tell his Apostles during his 40 day ministry after his resurrection?

[blueadept]

I have seen this from other catholics who engage with members of the lds church. They criticize this or that and when someone brings up the catholic church and its history or secret nature they usually call foul or ignore it and continue with their criticism of the lds church.

 

Both churches claim that the Holy Spirit is part of the process in verifying who their new leader will be and there really is no point in having the media witnessing this.  In regards to the election of the Pope, there's plenty of documentation after the fact.

 

Election

[edit]

 

Day Ballot Result 1 1 No pope elected 2 2 3 4 5 Pope elected Day one[edit]

On 12 March 2013, the cardinals present in Rome, both voting and non-voting, gathered in St. Peter's Basilica in the morning for the Pro eligendo Pontifice concelebrated mass. The Dean of the College of Cardinals, Angelo Sodano was the principal concelebrant and gave the homily.^[82] In the afternoon, the 115 cardinal-electors assembled in the Pauline Chapel and walked in procession through the Sala Regia into the Sistine Chapel chanting the Litany of the Saints.^[83] After taking their places, the "Veni Creator Spiritus" ("Come, Creator Spirit") was sung.^[83] The oath was read loud by the presiding Cardinal, Giovanni Battista Re, Cardinal Bishop of Sabina-Poggio Mirteto, the most senior Cardinal in attendance. As at the previous conclave, they would swear to observe the norms prescribed by John Paul II's apostolic constitution Universi Dominici Gregis. In addition, they would swear to adhere to the rules prescribed by Pope Benedict XVI in February. Then each cardinal elector in order of seniority placed his hands on the Gospels and made the following affirmation out loud in Latin:^[83][84]

Et ego [forename] Cardinalis [surname] spondeo, voveo ac iuro. Sic me Deus adiuvet et haec Sancta Dei Evangelia, quae manu mea tango.

In English:^[85]

And I, [forename] Cardinal [surname], do so promise, pledge and swear. So help me God and these Holy Gospels which I touch with my hand.

While making the oath, several Cardinals used the Latin forms of their names. Four cardinals from outside the Latin Church were distinguished by their attire.^[g][83] A fifth cardinal, Anthony Olubunmi Okogie of the Latin Church, Archbishop-Emeritus of Lagos, Nigeria did not wear his mozzetta and was seated in a wheelchair through the procession and most of the proceedings but walked accompanied by an assistant and placed his hands on the gospels like the others when making the oath.^[83]

Msgr. Guido Marini, Papal Master of Ceremonies, then called out the words "'Extra omnes!"—"Everybody out!"— and the chapel doors were locked to outsiders.^[86] Once the doors were closed, the cardinals heard the second required meditation for the conclave, given by Cardinal Grech. After the meditation, one ballot was taken.

Black smoke coming out of the Sistine Chapel's chimney indicated that on this first ballot no candidate had received the required two-thirds of the votes cast.^[87] According to several media accounts of the first vote, Scola and Ouellet led with roughly equal numbers of votes, Bergoglio was a close third, and the rest of the votes were scattered among several others.^[88] According to La Repubblica, Scola received approximately 35 votes to Bergoglio's 20 and Ouellet's 15,^[89] while another account said that Scherer had shown strength.^[18] Some cardinals later said that "when they woke up Wednesday morning, it wasn't clear to them they'd have a pope that night, and it was even less clear it would be Bergoglio."^[18]

Day two[edit]

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio appears for the first time as Pope Francis on the balcony of St. Peter's Basilica, 13 March 2013.

The two rounds of voting on the morning of the second day proved inconclusive and black smoke was again sent out.^[h] Scola's candidacy stalled going into Wednesday and votes began to converge around the candidacies of Ouellet and Bergoglio. Sources report that at some point, Ouellet threw his support behind Bergoglio,^[88] and by the first afternoon ballot—the fourth ballot of the conclave—Bergoglio became the clear front runner. On the fifth ballot, the cardinals, wishing to show a unified front, voted overwhelmingly in favor of Bergoglio, reportedly giving him more than 90 votes.^[18] Cardinal Seán Brady reported that applause broke out during the tabulation when Bergoglio's count reached the 77 votes required for election.^[18]

Bergoglio took the name Francis.^[91] He later said that some cardinal-electors jokingly suggested he should choose either "Adrian" after the great reformer Pope Adrian VI or "Clement" after Pope Clement XIV who suppressed the Jesuit order.^[92][93] At 19:06 (local time), white smoke announced that a pope had been chosen and shortly thereafter the Vatican web site was changed to say "Habemus Papam".^[94]

The Cardinal Protodeacon Jean-Louis Tauran appeared at the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica and announced the election of the new pope and his chosen name. Pope Francis appeared, asked the people to bless him before he blessed the world, at which point the conclave concluded.^{[95][96][97][98]}

Post-conclave events[edit]

A half hour later, the Twitter account @Pontifex sent out a tweet that read "HABEMUS PAPAM FRANCISCUM".^[99]

At 8.23 pm local time, the Italian Conference of Bishops released a statement congratulating Cardinal Angelo Scola of Milan on his election as pope. A corrected statement was released at 9:09 pm.^[100] As cardinals described the voting process, carefully suppressing details so as not to violate their oath of secrecy, one offered this assessment, that "Scola might have won" and "is obviously qualified to be pope", but there was "a very strong bias against the Italians." He added: "There was a sense that the Italians aren't up to the job anymore. They used to be so good, but lately they seem to have lost control of things."^[18]

Pope Francis celebrated his inauguration on 19 March and was installed as Bishop of Rome on 7 April.^[101] 

Edited December 30, 2013 by blueadept

[Spammer]

If by that you mean the neo-Platonic God spawned because it was intellectually satisfying and adopted by most of Christianity then no. That god is actually an idol.

 

The common claim (among Protestants and their offshoots) that trinitarian Christianity adopted the god of neoplatonism is false. 

[Spammer]

You did not read carefully. Intelligences are not gods, but their willingness to recognize the authority of a god. They will not recognize unjust beings, that is the lesson of the B o M, gods are also bound by certain laws, violate the law and you cease to be a god because the intelligences cease to recognize your authority.

 

So godhood is a calling, a reward for good behavior?  Godly powers go with the office?  Who or what bestows/removes the office and powers upon beings recognized as 'just', the intelligences who 'are not gods'?   All my life in the church, I was told by teachers and church leaders alike the God was once a man and had a father, who had his own Heavenly Father, etc. etc. ad infinitum.  How god became god; justifications for the priesthood ban; explanations for the atonement; certain oaths and gestures in the endowment ceremony.  So many things have changed.   It's a completely different church from the one I was raised in in Utah.  I don't remember a time when there was such wild speculation among church members.  Crazy.  I suppose it follows naturally from the realization that prophets have been and can be extremely fallible and opinionated.  Everyone's their own authority now. 

Edited December 30, 2013 by Spammer

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, I agree, Jesus retreated in prayer, and gave to his friends time with himself that was not given to others. They felt the events important enough to be remembered, told them to others, eventually they were written down.

As a Christian, I don't view any moment of Jesus' life as meaningless. Scripture is clear, Jesus came to save us. He did so publicly. I see no reason to assert anything Jesus has done for us requires that it be done in secret. I see secrecy as a shackle, hidden things, closed doors. Jesus opened the doors, he didn't wall himself up in a building and say, "come find me if you can". That is the argument I see being presented by some in this thread.

 

Apparently Jesus also felt it important enough to speak in parables. Only a small portion of what Jesus did is recorded in the Bible. Yes eventually they were written down. IE; Paul the most prolific writer in the N.T. wasn't a witness to the most important events in the life and death of Jesus.

 

As I am Christian also, I too don't view any moment of Jesus' life as meaningless. We just don't have everything that he did written down. The Protestants are bound to just the Bible, and Catholics add in sacred tradition. The LDS have more, and eagerly await more to come from God.

 

Apparently Jesus thought it important enough that he didn't openly teach his Apostles during his 40 day post Resurrection ministry. Apparently Jesus taught in parables to keep some from understanding. He did a great many things in private with just his Apostles present. Jesus his Apostles taught in the Temple and Synagogues. Those look like walls and doors to me.

 

The Catholic church builds beautiful buildings, with high walls and closed doors. Don't preach to me about walls and doors.

 

I can't speak for anyone but myself. So am under no obligation to defend what they post. The LDS invite ALL to come unto Christ, and we have 80,000 full time missionaries, and looking for more, that do just that. Our Meetings are open to all. We hold Open Houses whenever we open a new Temple, and invite ALL to come to learn about what we teach there. In the Temples we baptize for our dead, make covenants with God to be good people, to be good Christians and Saints of God. It is ALL Christ centered. 

 

BTW. I still haven't seen your response to why isn't the election of the Pope open to the public.

[The Nehor]

The common claim (among Protestants and their offshoots) that trinitarian Christianity adopted the god of neoplatonism is false.

Not wholesale no. They modified it to bring in the Trinity and made a few changes due to scripture.

[Spammer]

Not wholesale no. They modified it to bring in the Trinity and made a few changes due to scripture.

 

The only thing that Platonism, Neoplatonism, and Christianity have in common is the idea that God is One.  That's where the similarity ends.  Greek Christians used the language of philosophy to explain the Christian deity to the Greeks, but the Christian God did not come from philosophy.  The concept that the One is also Three is not a neoplatonist notion and comes from revelation.

Edited December 30, 2013 by Spammer