And This Pope Rocks On

[saemo]

You seemed to have lost what little you knew about LDS Theology. My participation in the Temple isn't required for my Salvation. Even the devils will receive salvation from death.

So if a Catholic refused to believe that a Pope is the Vicar of Christ it won't effect their salvation? Interesting.

If you are not against Catholic private devotions. Why are you against LDS private devotions?

If so why is the Pope always elected in private?

Salvation and exaltation are not separate things, to a Catholic mind. (Thanks ChristKnight.) either we are saved, and reconciled to the Father through Jesus Christ, or we aren't. We don't believe in a middle, sort of kinda, salvation.

As I said, at least twice now, and this will be the last! I am not against Mormon devotions, I reject the notion that secrecy is required for salvation...or exaltation.

Peace be with you, and have a happy new year.

Edited January 1, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

No, not hiding in fear. But he did visit his apostles in secret. He administered to them in secret. He didn't come down on a cloud and showed the general public that he was actually resurrected. Why not? Much was taught in secret and done in secret. If christ was a such a public person, he should have appeared to all the people in that area to lead them out of their fear. But he didn't.

 

Also, we have no idea what he did in secret. If he did anything in secret, who would know? I am sure that he administered to people in secret. Not all was in the public view. We only have a record of his public life but not his more less public life.

Well this just shows another point where Catholics and Mormons split ways. We hold no conspiracy about what Jesus might have taught in secret. Anything He taught in private has been made public, a long, long, long time ago.

The great commission given to the Apostles is to go forth teaching all nations. There wasn't a qualifier that said, "but keep A,B,and C super secret". I reject the claim that there are super secrets, and leave it of you to provide historical evidence. (Not what I consider to be 19th century innovation.)

[Calm]

Well this just shows another point where Catholics and Mormons split ways. We hold no conspiracy about what Jesus might have taught in secret. Anything He taught in private has been made public, a long, long, long time ago.

The great commission given to the Apostles is to go forth teaching all nations. There wasn't a qualifier that said, "but keep A,B,and C super secret". I reject the claim that there are super secrets, and leave it of you to provide historical evidence. (Not what I consider to be 19th century innovation.)

Is this a statement of faith or do you have evidence that you point to that identifes all that was taught during the 40 days or at other private (at the time at least) sessions?

[Stone holm]

Well this just shows another point where Catholics and Mormons split ways. We hold no conspiracy about what Jesus might have taught in secret. Anything He taught in private has been made public, a long, long, long time ago.

The great commission given to the Apostles is to go forth teaching all nations. There wasn't a qualifier that said, "but keep A,B,and C super secret". I reject the claim that there are super secrets, and leave it of you to provide historical evidence. (Not what I consider to be 19th century innovation.)

I do not know how anyone could make this claim. We aren't even completely sure what all the Primitive Church taught thanks to the various purges during the Roman establishment period.

[why me]

Well this just shows another point where Catholics and Mormons split ways. We hold no conspiracy about what Jesus might have taught in secret. Anything He taught in private has been made public, a long, long, long time ago.

 

No one said anything about a conspiracy. However, we do have the interpretation of historians when they write about the historical jesus and the gospels. And I believe that all such historians would agree that jesus did and said much more than what we have in the gospels. And most agree that the gospels were basically written for the christians at that time as a faith promoting reading. This has nothing to do with catholics and mormons splitting ways but it does has something to do with historical interpretations of the life of jesus and why the gospels were written and who wrote them.

[why me]

Anything He taught in private has been made public, a long, long, long time ago.

Jesus was a man who spent his ministry doing many things during the years that he did administer to the people. I am sure that he did more than what is in the gospels, I have no idea what he was doing during the rest of the time. The gospels can be repetitive and if they are anything to go on, he had many free days of just hanging around. But of course, this would not be true. I am sure that he was doing things and saying things everyday of his ministry and we have no idea of what he said or did because the gospel writers thought that they were not important for faith promotion.

 

So, what he did in secret remained in secret away from the public. And many things that he did in public is now lost because the gospel writers did not include them. We have nothing of his childhood or teenage years. Nor do we have anything from Jesus' young adulthood. Why? So, no one can actually make the claim that he did nothing in secret.

Edited January 1, 2014 by why me

[why me]

The great commission given to the Apostles is to go forth teaching all nations. There wasn't a qualifier that said, "but keep A,B,and C super secret". I reject the claim that there are super secrets, and leave it of you to provide historical evidence. (Not what I consider to be 19th century innovation.)

Thus, the lds have thousands of missionaries going forth teaching the gospels to all nations. The lds are following the instructions of christ. And in the early days of the lds church the apostles were sent to nations to preach the gospel. One super secret was that christ visited the apostles. He did not come down on the wing of a cloud for all to see. He came to a select few and told them to preach my gospel. Think of what the world would now be like if he did come down on the wing of cloud with fire in the sky for all the inhabitants to see. And we had many recordings of it. But he came in secret and all we have are four narratives in the gospels telling us what we should know.

[why me]

  So, LDS esoteric temple rites, the Endowment and Sealing, are required for eternal life/exaltation (what a Catholic would refer to as simply "salvation", which is how saemo was using it).  In contrast, the Catholic sacramental rites ordinarily necessary for salvation, Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist, are performed publicly (at least today they are).

I think that saemo is also playing at words. When it comes to the temple, I would prefer rituals done in private over secret. The word secret has certain connotations. The word private has a different connotation. Catholics do do rituals in private and in public. The rosary is a ritual that should be done in private every day. It is mandatory for salvation? No. But it would not hurt.

 

The mormons learn about the plan of salvation in the temple. Not the plan of exaltation.

[why me]

I reject the notion that secrecy is required for salvation...or exaltation.

The problem is with the word secrecy. The word secret has negative connotations. I would prefer the word private. Because of the sacred nature of the ritual, it is done in private and not in secret. Private is a word that is more respectful and less aggressive.

[ChristKnight]

I think that saemo is also playing at words. When it comes to the temple, I would prefer rituals done in private over secret. The word secret has certain connotations. The word private has a different connotation. Catholics do do rituals in private and in public. The rosary is a ritual that should be done in private every day. It is mandatory for salvation? No. But it would not hurt.

 

 

No, I don't think she's playing with words.  Latter-day Saints generally wouldn't use the word "secret" to refer to the temple rites (though some apologists that defend the esoteric nature of the temple refer to Biblical and patristic sources that refer to things said in "secret" or "in a mystery", as well as the word "esoteric" itself).  I'm sure you're also aware that a synonym for "private" is "secret".  While much can be said about the Endowment in general terms, there are specific portions that are not to be revealed at any time, to anyone, except at certain appointed times.

 

The rosary can be said in public or in private (many Catholic parishes may say the rosary or any other Catholic devotional together after a Mass or other liturgy).  I don't think this is a valid comparison, since the Endowment and Sealing are always done in secret/private, and the rosary is not a necessary sacrament/ordinance for eternal life.  A better Catholic approximation (though still not exact) would be the dismissal of catechumens in the Mass after the Liturgy of the Word and prior to the Liturgy of the Faithful/Eucharist.  The catechumens are not yet initiated, and are therefore dismissed from the portion of the Mass that they are not yet able to participate in (I believe they go to discuss the scriptures they heard in the Liturgy of the Word, but I think saemo is more familiar with the Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults than I am).  Some parishes don't do this, nor would a non-Catholic be forced out of Mass.  Another similarity may also be found in the ancient temple.  The point that I believe saemo was making however is that (at least today) there is no equivalent to the "private" nature of temple saving ordinances to Catholic necessary sacraments.   

 

The mormons learn about the plan of salvation in the temple. Not the plan of exaltation.

 

 

I'm not sure what the point of this statement is (I'm Endowed btw, and am aware of what is taught).  The Endowment is necessary for exaltation.  Latter-day Saints make a distinction between "salvation", generally meaning that all of us will be resurrected, and "exaltation" or "eternal life", meaning living in the presence of the Father and living the life that He lives.  This word usage isn't shared by Catholics, hence why there seemed to be a misunderstanding earlier, which is what I was addressing.

 

Perhaps you should read this Conference talk-Salvation and Exaltation. 

[saemo]

The problem is with the word secrecy. The word secret has negative connotations. I would prefer the word private. Because of the sacred nature of the ritual, it is done in private and not in secret. Private is a word that is more respectful and less aggressive.

Hello why me and happy new year.

This whole side track started when it was asserted that private ceremonies are required by LDS in order to be saved. Which for me, includes the results of Salvarion, ie, everlasting life in the immediate presence of God. Besides the misunderstanding I caused by not separating what I don't view as separate, people (including yourself) made comparisons to Catholic private devotion and ceremony.

This is of course is apple to oranges, and after pages on this topic I am be beginning to suspect you just want t be contrary for the sake of being contrary.

Come, let us reason together.

- First, the comparison is made to praying in private. While prayer is integral to a Christian life, it is not a necessary ordinance for LDS towards the individual fulfilling the plan of progression. What LDS view as a necessary step, performed by a priesthood holder, is not found in private prayer. Neither Catholic or LDS believe only ordained can pray in private. So, the comparison is not equal.

- Second, is comparing private Catholic events to LDS temple rites. Again, a conclave is not comparable to an LDS ordinance. The rites in a conclave are well known, publicly documented, books are written and published about the process. There is not one secret ceremony in a conclave. Further, the secrecy of a conclave is to protect the private voting process itself and voting privacy of the individual Cardinals in the conclave, not to protect sacred rites. Also, provides an environment where the Cardinals can pray, participate in Mass, seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit without the clamorous interruption of individuals and groups. Also not allowing the Cardinals to be sidetracked to other matters. While there is this aspect of separation from the world in LDS temple worship, the fact remains the temple ceremonies, what are equivelant to Catholic rites, are secret for LDS. When you can show me an LDS published work about the temple ceremonies, going into depth on their theological and ontological meanings, available to anyone shopping in a bookstore or online, then there will be an equal comparison to any Catholic rite.

- And now third, an objection to my vocabulary and a negative projection of my intent. Honestly, you don't need to guess at my intent. It's not a secret or private. Just ask me, and I will tell you. Since you didn't ask, but instead paint me in the light you want to see me in, I will volunteer my intent in choosing the words I do. I did in fact use the word private at first, knowing the LDS (odd) aversion to the word secret. Then, in light of the points above, first, a dialogue comparing LDS temple ceremony to private devotions, It appeared to me that the word private was confusing to you, and other LDS posters. So I turned to a word that I hoped would express the differences I observe between Catholic private devotions and LDS secret ceremonies. I do not view the word secret as a pejorative. But it seems to me now, LDS use the two words, private and secret, interchangeably. So, I'm at a loss as how to communicate with you, but it seems to me that is not your intent anyway.

But last, I should be clear because I get an idea from you that you think I am attacking Mormon temple practice. Which, I am not. I am in disagreement, have expressed what I disagree with, and frankly have never found an LDS response that can explain how the public ministry, life, death and resurrection of Jesus equates to a necessity for secret ceremonies in the context of Salvation or exaltation. You have not addressed this, and I suspect will just continue with red herrings and ad hominems. So I think there is no point to continuing our dialogue.

Peace be with you.

Edited January 1, 2014 by saemo

[Stone holm]

Not actually clear how or why this thread got derailed into a discussion of secrecy v sacred. Totally unsure how Pope Francis got selected, but my Mormon family thinks he rocks, and we would do well to follow his lead in our attitudes.

[thesometimesaint]

Salvation and exaltation are not separate things, to a Catholic mind. (Thanks ChristKnight.) either we are saved, and reconciled to the Father through Jesus Christ, or we aren't. We don't believe in a middle, sort of kinda, salvation.

As I said, at least twice now, and this will be the last! I am not against Mormon devotions, I reject the notion that secrecy is required for salvation...or exaltation.

Peace be with you, and have a happy new year.

 

They aren't separate. Exaltation is the totality of Salvation. Not visa verse. We can only be saved to whatever extent we want.

 

True that there is but one path to the Father's Kingdom, and that is through Jesus the Christ. The mansion we occupy in that Kingdom is dependent on us.

 

Yet the Bible itself talks about it. In my fathers house there are many mansions. A glory of the sun, glory of the moon, and glory of the stars.

 

Christ told us to not cast our pearls before swine. To do things in secret, that he may reward us openly. He also told us to not hide our light under a bushel. Sometimes he taught openly and other times he taught only his closest Apostles, and other times he said tell no man.  IOW We have to do all those as circumstances provide.

 

Only a very small part of our devotions are closed to the general public, and those are not required for Salvation.

 

Peace, happiness, and prosperity to you and yours in this new year of our Lord 2014.

[Stone holm]

They aren't separate. Exaltation is the totality of Salvation. Not visa verse. We can only be saved to whatever extent we want.

 

True that there is but one path to the Father's Kingdom, and that is through Jesus the Christ. The mansion we occupy in that Kingdom is dependent on us.

 

Yet the Bible itself talks about it. In my fathers house there are many mansions. A glory of the sun, glory of the moon, and glory of the stars.

 

Christ told us to not cast our pearls before swine. To do things in secret, that he may reward us openly. He also told us to not hide our light under a bushel. Sometimes he taught openly and other times he taught only his closest Apostles, and other times he said tell no man.  IOW We have to do all those as circumstances provide.

 

Only a very small part of our devotions are closed to the general public, and those are not required for Salvation.

 

Peace, happiness, and prosperity to you and yours in this new year of our Lord 2014.

Whatever happened to the old maxim, salvation without exaltation is damnation. But what has the Temple to do with why we should be admiring Pope Francis?

[thesometimesaint]

Whatever happened to the old maxim, salvation without exaltation is damnation. But what has the Temple to do with why we should be admiring Pope Francis?

 

It's still there. However as we individually get to chose our salvation and exaltation. it's a non-issue for me. God is generous but he can only give us what we are willing to accept.

 

While Pope Francis is a brave and good man, and I agree with some of his statements especially about our responsibility to the poor. I see little connection to what we do in the Temple.

[Stone holm]

It's still there. However as we individually get to chose our salvation and exaltation. it's a non-issue for me. God is generous but he can only give us what we are willing to accept.

 

While Pope Francis is a brave and good man, and I agree with some of his statements especially about our responsibility to the poor. I see little connection to what we do in the Temple.

Neither do I.

[why me]

Hello why me and happy new year.

This whole side track started when it was asserted that private ceremonies are required by LDS in order to be saved. Which for me, includes the results of Salvarion, ie, everlasting life in the immediate presence of God. Besides the misunderstanding I caused by not separating what I don't view as separate, people (including yourself) made comparisons to Catholic private devotion and ceremony.

 

I took your statement as an attack against the lds church and not an assertion. That was why I responded. An assertion is one thing...an attack is quite another thing. It is all in the tone.

[why me]

Here is an interesting article from the NYDailyNews:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/mad-millionaires-wary-st-patrick-pope-talk-article-1.1562984

 

In the comment section to the article there are people stating their confusion as to why the catholic church needs donations from rich catholics. Why can't the catholic church pay for the renovations itself through vatican coffers is their logic. Interesting how the pope is alienating rich catholics.

Edited January 1, 2014 by why me

[The Nehor]

Well this just shows another point where Catholics and Mormons split ways. We hold no conspiracy about what Jesus might have taught in secret. Anything He taught in private has been made public, a long, long, long time ago.

 

Must have led a pretty dull life then. I can read everything we have about his mortal life in a few hours. You sure we are not missing anything?

[why me]

Must have led a pretty dull life then. I can read everything we have about his mortal life in a few hours. You sure we are not missing anything?

And that was one of my points too. However, many christians are not taught to question logic. Many mormons would make the same comment as yours because mormons know that the bible is incomplete, especially about the life of christ. Mormons have a much more questioning christian understanding of scriptures. Many christians lack the understanding that the bible was written for one purpose: to increase faith among the early christians. They needed a text to draw faith from. Anything that was not faith promoting was left by the wayside by the gospel writers.

[why me]

Peace be with you, and have a happy new year.

This thread was a rather positive take on the pope with many lds praising him for the words he says and for what he does. I would love to see such a positive impression of the lds church on the catholic apologetic site. I just went there and read the antimormon comments by catholics. Sad...really sad to read that mormons are not christian, that the lds have a different jesus and a different god and the mocking of joseph smith.

Edited January 1, 2014 by why me

[Stone holm]

This thread was a rather positive take on the pope with many lds praising him for the words he says and for what he does. I would love to see such a positive impression of the lds church on the catholic apologetic site. I just went there and read the antimormon comments by catholics. Sad...really sad to read that mormons are not christian, that the lds have a different jesus and a different god and the mocking of joseph smith.

Well to be fair, we have been pretty harsh in our comments about the Catholics over the years, BRM in his early editions of his infamous Momrmon Doctrine was truly harsh. And truth be told, we really do worship a radically different Christ and Heavenly Father than any of the mainline Protestant or Catholic Churches . But I too yearn for us to see us with a Prophet someday who was praised for teaching peace, protesting the economic establishment, seeking justice for the working poor, etc. by the general populace.

[Robert F. Smith]

This thread was a rather positive take on the pope with many lds praising him for the words he says and for what he does. I would love to see such a positive impression of the lds church on the catholic apologetic site. I just went there and read the antimormon comments by catholics. Sad...really sad to read that mormons are not christian, that the lds have a different jesus and a different god and the mocking of joseph smith.

Maybe Pope Francis is teaching by example a better way of behavior for his worldwide flock.

 

The latest well deserved award for the Pope (after being named as Man of the Year by Time) is Esquire awarding him Best Dressed Man of the Year, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/30/pope-francis-best-dressed-esquire_n_4519163.html?ir=Religion .

The Huffington Post says:

 

Pope Francis has picked up yet another year-end honor which may be his most surprising yet!

Esquire named him "The Best Dressed Man of 2013," chiefly for the symbolism of his papal style choices. Pope Francis has largely avoided splendor, and is most commonly seen in a plain white robe and skullcap. He chose the simplest papal ring out of those proposed to him, and passed over the red leather shoes that were previously a customary part of papal dress.

The humble pope has overseen a great shift in tone for the Catholic Church, and hisforthright reforms have garnered him global attention.

"Pope Francis understands that menswear is meant to express the character of the man wearing the clothes," says Mary Lisa Gavenas, author of The Fairchild Encyclopedia of Menswear, told Esquire. She added, "No rapper-style popewear for him."

Ann Pellegrini, Associate Professor of Performance Studies & Religious Studies at New York University commented to Esquire, "The humility of his garments offers a way to visibly display his theological and material concerns for the poor. This Holy Roman emperor really does have new clothes."

[Calm]

But I too yearn for us to see us with a Prophet someday who was praised for...protesting the economic establishment

Even if you approve of that establishment?

[Calm]

"No rapper-style popewear for him."...

 

 This Holy Roman emperor really does have new clothes."

I find both of these comments rather disrespectful myself.  Perhaps they don't get the symbolism of the richer style of clothing or it doesn't speak to them, still the other papal clothing (is the right word "vestments" or is that for just certain articles of clothing?) has value to believers and should be respected imo as greatly as any style that they are fond of.