Dealing With Family Members That Are Anti Church

[teddyaware]

Just think of how well the conversation would have gone if he would have started with in with them?  It sounds like it went south before he could even get to number one.   I think your points would be fine in two scenarios.  1.  would you like to know why I believe and attend the Mormon church?   or 2.  Why do you attend and believe in the Mormon church?   Beyond that, I thing it has great potential just to be a Ford/Chevy debate.  I prefer to drive my Ford because (and then point out everything Chevy doesn't do to the Chevy driver).  That usually (not always) gets the Chevy owner riled up a bit and then it becomes a peeing match of which is better.

If I were to attempt to engage in a discussion with a critic of the LDS Church, utilizing my list of 10 points, I would terminate the discussion the very moment a spirit of contention began to manifest itself. I once had two separate doctrinal discussions with two Protestant ministers, both of whom threatened me with physical harm (one of them stood above me with a clenched fist and said that if I didn't "shut up" he was "going to punch my teeth down my throat"), yet all the while I never raised my voice in anger but remained a perfect gentleman, graciously exiting both of the unpleasant situations, bidding them both, and their supporters, a good day. These incidents happened quite a while ago, but viewing these encounters with 20/20 hindsight, the Ted of today would have exited both of those situations much earlier in the game, at the very moment the spirit of enmity first reared its ugly head.

Edited June 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[Tacenda]

I just love how the former members here, the anti's like to chip in how "the church" and it's members treated them the same when they left the LDS Faith.

Of course, they omit the big difference... that is that they are actually the ones saying bad things about the Church and it's members, not the church or it's members saying bad things about them.

Context is everything. Thus, it then comes as no surprise that members would be hostile. 99.9% of the time that I myself or have seen anyone leave the church, there has been some concern, but always tolerance. After all, it is our FAITH to tolerate all peoples personal beliefs, and treat them with respect, unlike many other faiths especially Evangelical. The almost only time members don't treat ex-LDS with respect is because of their own disrespect toward the church and it's members and leaders.

LDS aren't required to respect bigotry. So, be aware when the ex-LDS try's to claim they all experienced the same bigotry as the OP indicates in his story. They almost certainly did not. They distort the truth.

Where do you think their anger came from? Being treated well?!?!

[saemo]

I just love how the former members here, the anti's like to chip in how "the church" and it's members treated them the same when they left the LDS Faith.

Of course, they omit the big difference... that is that they are actually the ones saying bad things about the Church and it's members, not the church or it's members saying bad things about them.

 

Context is everything.  Thus, it then comes as no surprise that members would be hostile.  99.9% of the time that I myself or have seen anyone leave the church, there has been some concern, but always tolerance.  After all, it is our FAITH to tolerate all peoples personal beliefs, and treat them with respect, unlike many other faiths especially Evangelical.  The almost only time members don't treat ex-LDS with respect is because of their own disrespect toward the church and it's members and leaders.

 

LDS aren't required to respect bigotry.  So, be aware when the ex-LDS try's to claim they all experienced the same bigotry as the OP indicates in his story.  They almost certainly did not.  They distort the truth.

I just love it when Mormons brag how tolerant they are towards former members, by posting a warning to beware of former members.

[why me]

I just love it when Mormons brag how tolerant they are towards former members, by posting a warning to beware of former members.

I think that you misunderstood the poster's beware remark. It had nothing to do with shunning but rather with an awareness of what to look out for. However, lds are different in their understandings and behavior too, just like anyone else. What can be annoying is when someone picks out something a lds person may say on the board and put it as a plural, mormons. It shows a generalization of what someone said and it would be a mistake. Should I generalize with catholics, protestants etc?

 

And you must know that catholics have given problems to their own children when they joined the mormons.

 

A human being is a human being in all their imperfections. Mormons do not have a monopoly on ignorance by some of its members. There is plenty of ignorance to go around among all faiths.

Edited June 29, 2014 by why me

[saemo]

As I counseled in an earlier post on this very same thread: If the original poster were to decide to utilize my list of 10 LDS doctrines in his discussions with his family, if at any point in those discussion (including on the very first bullet point) things ceased to be cordial and started to get contentious, that he should without delay terminate the discussion immediately. My intention was not to have the gentleman cram the list down somebody's throat, but only to use it as long as the discussion remained friendly. I guess this an example of what can happen when a participant on a thread doesn't read every post on that thread. So you've been grumbling over a mute point.

Yes, that's right, a different pov is grumbling. Good luck .

[MiserereNobis]

I will now respond to you by reposting what I just posted in response to saemo:

"As I counseled in an earlier post on this very same thread: If the original poster were to decide to utilize my list of 10 LDS doctrines in his discussions with his family, if at any point in those discussion (including on the very first bullet point) things ceased to be cordial and started to get contentious, that he should without delay terminate the discussion immediately. My intention was not to have the gentleman cram the list down somebody's throat, but only to use it as long as the discussion remained friendly. I guess this an example of what can happen when a participant on a thread doesn't read every post on that thread. So you've been grumbling over a mute point."

 

I did read your post.  I disagree with it, including this explanation, and thought I explained why, but I guess I was unclear.

 

If I were to attempt to engage in a discussion with a critic of the LDS Church, utilizing my list of 10 points, I would terminate the discussion the very moment a spirit of contention began to manifest itself. I once had two separate doctrinal discussions with two Protestant ministers, both of whom threatened me with physical harm (one of them stood above me with a clenched fist and said that if I didn't "shut up" he was "going to punch my teeth down my throat"), yet all the while I never raised my voice in anger but remained a perfect gentleman, graciously exiting both of the unpleasant situations, bidding them both, and their supporters, a good day. These incidents happened quite a while ago, but viewing these encounters with 20/20 hindsight, the Ted of today would have exited both of those situations much earlier in the game, at the very moment the spirit of enmity first reared its ugly head.

 

As a Catholic, I'm not going to defend protestant ministers but I will reiterate what I tried pointing out earlier.  In the context here, your list will create the spirit of enmity and contention.  That's why it's a bad idea, especially given the way you worded it.  The fact that you keep your cool during the discussion does not mean that you are not creating the contention itself.  For example, anyone could cooly and without ever raising their voice or using aggressive body language say some harsh things about someone else.  It would be silly to say, when the person hearing these statements gets upset, that they have the spirit of contention because they were the one who got upset while I kept my cool.

 

I'll repeat myself.  Your list throws fuel on the fire of an already explosive situation.  Why do that?  Why not focus instead on repairing a damaged relationship instead of pointing out how Mormon theology is better?  I just don't get it, I guess.  A discussion of the differences between beliefs should probably wait until the relationship could handle them, and then been done in a factual way, not a "my way is better than your way and here are the reasons."  From what the OP said, the discussion of specific beliefs seems a long ways off, especially the discussion of the Mormon beliefs that others find so hard to fathom.

[teddyaware]

Deleted

Edited June 29, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

I did read your post.  I disagree with it, including this explanation, and thought I explained why, but I guess I was unclear.

 

 

As a Catholic, I'm not going to defend protestant ministers but I will reiterate what I tried pointing out earlier.  In the context here, your list will create the spirit of enmity and contention.  That's why it's a bad idea, especially given the way you worded it.  The fact that you keep your cool during the discussion does not mean that you are not creating the contention itself.  For example, anyone could cooly and without ever raising their voice or using aggressive body language say some harsh things about someone else.  It would be silly to say, when the person hearing these statements gets upset, that they have the spirit of contention because they were the one who got upset while I kept my cool.

 

I'll repeat myself.  Your list throws fuel on the fire of an already explosive situation.  Why do that?  Why not focus instead on repairing a damaged relationship instead of pointing out how Mormon theology is better?  I just don't get it, I guess.  A discussion of the differences between beliefs should probably wait until the relationship could handle them, and then been done in a factual way, not a "my way is better than your way and here are the reasons."  From what the OP said, the discussion of specific beliefs seems a long ways off, especially the discussion of the Mormon beliefs that others find so hard to fathom.

I've taken your recommendation seriously and I would now start off each point in my list of ten LDS beliefs with the expression "I like the idea that" rather than with "I choose to believe that." How's that? Any better?

Some questions.

1) Why would any fair-minder Christian find it "unfathomable" that God Himself is fair-minded enough to make sure that all who never had the opportunity to accept the Gospel in this life will have that opportunity after death?

2) Why would any Christian who loves his or her spouse and children find it unfathomable that God

intends for that loving and committed family unit to endure forever?

3) Why would any reasonable Christian find it unfathomable that God would want to bless this terribly troubled modern age with guidance of living Prophets, just as He blessed the people of previous ages?

Edited June 30, 2014 by teddyaware

[BCSpace]

my wife and I are getting baptised and whilst we knew certain family members wouldn't be over the moon due to their evangelical faith, we weren't quite prepared for the vociferous nature of their response.

 

 

Respond to them humorously.  Show them your new horns and talk glowlingly about your selections in that catalogue of potential additional wives etc.

[MiserereNobis]

Some questions.

1) Why would any fair-minder Christian find it "unfathomable" that God Himself is fair-minded enough to make sure that all who never had the opportunity to accept the Gospel in this life will have that opportunity after death?

2) Why would any Christian who loves his or her spouse and children find it unfathomable that God

intends for that loving and committed family unit to endure forever?

3) Why would any reasonable Christian find it unfathomable that God would want to bless this terribly troubled modern age with guidance of living Prophets, just as He blessed the people of previous ages?

 

I'll start off by saying that I don't really know the evangelical position, so I can only respond with the Catholic position.  And, interestingly enough, the Catholic position mainly agrees with you here.  In other words, your appeals to emotions (justice, love of family, help from God, etc) are not the "unfathomable" LDS doctrines.  The LDS doctrines that are unfathomable to Christians deal with the nature of God and Jesus, exaltation, esoteric temple rites, etc.

 

1)  God is just -- those who literally did not have a chance to hear the Good News will not be damned.

 

From the Catechism:

 

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

 

2)  In Heaven, we will meet those whom we knew and loved on earth.

 

From the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Heaven:

 

Moreover, the blessed see each other and rejoice in the company of those whom death separated from them.

 

3)  I have posted extensively on the LDS idea of modern revelation and how, in practice, it is nearly identical to the Catholic idea of the Magisterium.  Terminology can become an issue here, so it's important to look at what lies behind the terms.  In Catholicism, the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him guide the Church by the inspiration/revelation of God.  The clarification and unfolding of doctrine taught through infallible Papal decrees and Ecumenical Councils is testament to this.  God has not left His Church alone, and He guides us just as He did in the past.  I might even argue that the Catholic position goes even further than the LDS position.  If there was a great apostasy, then God removed His Church and His authority and left humans without it, left them alone without "prophets" (LDS term) for 1500-1800 years.  Catholics, obviously, strenuously deny this.  "Revelation" (to use the LDS term) has continued in the Catholic Church from the Feast of Pentecost to the present-day.  In fact, we have many more solemnly declared dogmas (think "thus saith the Lord" revelations) than the LDS church.

 

So, any fair-minded or reasonable (your words from your questions) Mormon should come on over and join the Catholic Church

Edited June 30, 2014 by MiserereNobis

[ELF1024]

My wife's mother and step-father are rabidly Anti-Mormon. I do not say that lightly as they attempted to take her (my wife's) son away via a trumped up court case that cost us around 10k to defeat.

 

Since that time, being a less than charitable person; and believing that a scorpion is always a scorpion, we cut off contact with them.

 

I wish you better luck, and fewer legal expenses in your trials.

Edited June 30, 2014 by ELF1024

[teddyaware]

I'll start off by saying that I don't really know the evangelical position, so I can only respond with the Catholic position.  And, interestingly enough, the Catholic position mainly agrees with you here.  In other words, your appeals to emotions (justice, love of family, help from God, etc) are not the "unfathomable" LDS doctrines.  The LDS doctrines that are unfathomable to Christians deal with the nature of God and Jesus, exaltation, esoteric temple rites, etc.

 

1)  God is just -- those who literally did not have a chance to hear the Good News will not be damned.

 

From the Catechism:

 

 

2)  In Heaven, we will meet those whom we knew and loved on earth.

 

From the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Heaven:

 

 

3)  I have posted extensively on the LDS idea of modern revelation and how, in practice, it is nearly identical to the Catholic idea of the Magisterium.  Terminology can become an issue here, so it's important to look at what lies behind the terms.  In Catholicism, the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him guide the Church by the inspiration/revelation of God.  The clarification and unfolding of doctrine taught through infallible Papal decrees and Ecumenical Councils is testament to this.  God has not left His Church alone, and He guides us just as He did in the past.  I might even argue that the Catholic position goes even further than the LDS position.  If there was a great apostasy, then God removed His Church and His authority and left humans without it, left them alone without "prophets" (LDS term) for 1500-1800 years.  Catholics, obviously, strenuously deny this.  "Revelation" (to use the LDS term) has continued in the Catholic Church from the Feast of Pentecost to the present-day.  In fact, we have many more solemnly declared dogmas (think "thus saith the Lord" revelations) than the LDS church.

 

So, any fair-minded or reasonable (your words from your questions) Mormon should come on over and join the Catholic Church

No cigar!

 

1) The God of the Latter-day Saints makes sure the Gospel is preached not only to the dead who lived good lives in accordance with the light they had, but also to the wicked sinners who had no opportunity to hear the Gospel and died in their sins. How could a perfectly just and merciful God condemn someone to an endless hell of unimaginable suffering, who through no fault of their own lived a life of wickedness as a direct consequence of being ignorant of Christ and God's plan of salvation?

14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?

15 And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! (Romans 10)

 

and,

35 And so it was made known among the dead, both small and great, the unrighteous as well as the faithful, that redemption had been wrought through the sacrifice of the Son of God upon the cross. (D&C 138)

 

The Latter-day Saints believe all the saved who inherit a mansion in the eternal realm will have heard the Gospel message and accepted it. Only the sons of perdition, who don't want to be saved, will be consigned to hell by their own choice...

110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These (the inheritors of the telestial heaven) all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever; (D&C 76)

 2) I would imagine virtually all non-LDS Christians believe they will meet and associate with their former family members and friends heaven. There is nothing new in this. The Latter-day Saints believe sealed husbands and wives, and their children, will continue as a family as they did while on earth. Remember, it was in paradise before the fall that God ordained marriage, family and procreation...

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (Genesis 1)

 

and,

23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2)

It's critically important to remember these verses of scripture speak of men and women in eternity before the fall. The Latter-day Saints believe it is God's design that when men and women are redeemed from the fall, they are meant to return to the Edenic state of eternal marriage and the commandment to have family. Had Adam and Eve not transgressed, they would have remained married in the immediate presence of God forever.

 

3) The Catholic position on revelation may be similar to that of the Latter-day Saints, and that's fine. But let's face it, with the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price there's still a dramatic difference.

 

4) From a Latter-day Saint point of view, there is a delicious irony that you would call the LDS view of the Godhead unfathomable. I say this because the LDS understanding of the unity of the Godhead is quite simple and easy to understand. We believe the Godhead is composed of three distinct divine persons who are perfectly unified in word, thought, purpose and action; and that all three of these personages are filled to eternal fullness with the uncreated Spirit of divine intelligence that enables the thoughts of one to be the thoughts of the other, and the perfect divine attributes of one to be the perfect divine attributes of the other. In other words, the unity of the Godhead is of the same nature as the spiritual unity that exists between Peter, James and John, only in the case of the Godhead that spiritual unity is infinite, eternal and ultimately perfect.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. (John 17)

Observe here how the Lord, without qualification, equates His oneness with His disciples to His oneness with the Father. If this rather simple explanation of divine oneness is unfathomable to some, so be it.

 

Meanwhile, the traditional explanation of the Trinity is indeed unfathomable, and apparently will ever remain so; because by willing admission the whole thing is acknowledged to be an incomprehensible mystery.

 

5) Your Orthodox Christian friends believe in theosis. So I suggest you read up on their explanations of divine heirship (perhaps you already have) as a stepping stone to the more full explanation of this ennobling principle by the Latter-day Saints.

 

6) The LDS temple rites are indeed unfathomable to many, but to Yours Truly, as one who has been privileged to understand much of the profound symbolic meaning of those sacred rites, they are sublime but easy to understand once you "get it."

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Corinthians 2)

 

All the best...

 

Addendum. Edited to add: I believe the thing non-LDS Christians find unfathomable about the LDS view of the Godhead is not that the explanation is difficult to understand, but what's unfathomable to them is how the Latter-day Saints could have come up explanation of the unity of the Godhead that is so simple and easy enough for a child to understand. After all, the Trinity is supposed to remain an unfathomable mystery, don't you know? So the thing that makes the LDS Godhead so unfathomable is that it is fathomable. Get it?Go figure,,,

Edited July 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[ChristKnight]

No cigar!

 

1) The God of the Latter-day Saints makes sure the Gospel is preached not only to the dead who lived good lives in accordance with the light they had, but also to the wicked sinners who had no opportunity to hear the Gospel and died in their sins. How could a perfectly just and merciful God condemn someone to an endless hell of unimaginable suffering, who through no fault of their own lived a life of wickedness as a direct consequence of being ignorant of Christ and God's plan of salvation?

 

Miserenobis already stated that from the Catholic perspective, such a thing would not happen.  He quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church as stating:

 

"1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.  Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

 

Now, Catholics don't really get into the mechanism of how this would occur, as LDS do (such as missionaries in the spirit world preaching to those in prison, accepting/rejecting proxy ordinances, etc), however Catholicism does not teach that someone would go to endless hell of unimaginable suffering if they through no fault of their own, were ignorant of Christ and God's plan of salvation.

 

5) Your Orthodox Christian friends believe in theosis. So I suggest you read up on their explanations of divine heirship (perhaps you already have) as a stepping stone to the more full explanation of this ennobling principle by the Latter-day Saints.

Catholics also believe in theosis.  I assume what Miserenobis was referring to was the specific differences between such beliefs  and LDS exaltation (what you perhaps are alluding to by "the more full explanation").

 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (this paragraph is the most frequently quoted, however deification is addressed elsewhere, as well as in other documents, in the liturgy, etc):

 

"460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":⁷⁸ "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."⁷⁹ "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."⁸⁰ "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."⁸¹

[teddyaware]

Miserenobis already stated that from the Catholic perspective, such a thing would not happen.  He quoted the Catechism of the Catholic Church as stating:

 Now, Catholics don't really get into the mechanism of how this would occur, as LDS do (such as m

"1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

issionaries in the spirit world preaching to those in prison, accepting/rejecting proxy ordinances, etc), however Catholicism does not teach that someone would go to endless hell of unimaginable suffering if they through no fault of their own, were ignorant of Christ and God's plan of salvation.

 

 

 

Catholics also believe in theosis.  I assume what Miserenobis was referring to was the specific differences between such beliefs  and LDS exaltation (what you perhaps are alluding to by "the more full explanation").

 

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (this paragraph is the most frequently quoted, however deification is addressed elsewhere, as well as in other documents, in the liturgy, etc):

 

"460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":⁷⁸ "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."⁷⁹ "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."⁸⁰ "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."⁸¹

Thanks for the post. But you seem to have missed my point because MiserereNobis' quote is speaking of a different category of person that I am. In my post, in response to MiserereNobis I said:

1) How could a perfectly just and merciful God condemn someone to an endless hell of unimaginable suffering, who through no fault of his own lived a life of wickedness as a direct consequence of being ignorant of Christ and God's plan of salvation?

Meanwhile, in the quote you and MiserereNobis offer it says:

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity."

 

To make my point clear: MiserereNobis' quote appears to say only those who seek the truth and do the will of God on earth will be saved, while in my quote I point out that in LDS soteriology even those who live unrepentant lives of wickedness and die in there sins can still be saved. This is the great principle of mercy Peter taught in his First General Epistle:

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3)

 

Can you now see that the point MiserereNobis made and the one I made are not the same? His quote says the ignorant who lived good and godly lives while on earth will be saved, While I was saying even the ignorant wicked can be saved. There's an important distinction between these two scenarios of salvation.

 

Edited to add:

 

As for your second well-made point: Why all the fuss, then, in claiming the LDS concept of theosis is so unfathomable? If the Catholics do in fact believe in theosis, why say the LDS concept of the same principle is so unfathomable to Catholics? All the Latter-day Saints have done is take the concept of theosis to its logical conclusion. Why would the Saviour say the faithful will rule and reign as kings on the throne of God in heaven if they are not going to be like Him?

21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Revelation 3)

Edited July 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

What follows is an addendum to my post # 62 in response to MiserereNobis:

I believe the thing non-LDS Christians find unfathomable about the LDS view of the Godhead is not that the explanation is difficult to understand, but what's unfathomable to them is how the Latter-day Saints could have come up with an explanation of the unity of the Godhead that is so simple and easy enough for a child to understand. After all, the Trinity is supposed to remain an unfathomable mystery, don't you know? So the thing that makes the LDS Godhead so unfathomable is that it is fathomable. Get it? Go figure,,,

Edited July 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ran]

To make my point clear: MiserereNobis' quote appears to say only those who seek the truth and do the will of God on earth will be saved, while in my quote I point out that in LDS soteriology even those who live unrepentant lives of wickedness and die in there sins can still be saved. 

 

 

The Catholic teaching on moral conscience may be key here:

 

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

 

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

(Emphasis added)

 

 

Evil acts derived from invincible ignorance don't qualify a person for the definitive self-exclusion that Catholics call "Hell". What's necessary for that sad conclusion is mortal sin, which requires full knowledge and complete consent.

 

The Catholic and Latter Day Saint positions therefore don't seem to be all that far apart with regards to the possibility of salvation for those "who through no fault of their own lived a life of wickedness as a direct consequence of being ignorant of Christ and God's plan of salvation" (Post #62). 

[ERayR]

You interweave unique Mormon teachings into Biblical teachings, as though that has meaning to everyone. What is seen from the outside, is a changing of Biblical teaching. Romans 5:5 is talking about Jesus, not Mormon teaching of eternal marriage. So you apply what is being said about our hope in Christ, to a unique Mormon teaching. Makes sense to you, it doesn't to anyone else.

 

 

How it is perceived is a matter of interpretation by the perceiver.  As you are aware LDS interpret through the lens of Joseph Smith's revelations and those outside interpret without the benefit of such a revelatory position.

[teddyaware]

The Catholic teaching on moral conscience may be key here:

 

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

 

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one's passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church's authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

 

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

(Emphasis added)

 

 

Evil acts derived from invincible ignorance don't qualify a person for the definitive self-exclusion that Catholics call "Hell". What's necessary for that sad conclusion is mortal sin, which requires full knowledge and complete consent.

 

The Catholic and Latter Day Saint positions therefore don't seem to be all that far apart with regards to the possibility of salvation for those "who through no fault of their own lived a life of wickedness as a direct consequence of being ignorant of Christ and God's plan of salvation" (Post #62). 

 

Enjoyed this. This is good to know. But is it not also true that the Catholics and Latter-day Saints diverge greatly when speaking of the Latter-day Saint doctrine of a massive, ongoing and very well coordinated (from heaven) missionary effort to bring conversion to all the dead who have not committed what we LDS call the "unpardonable sin" (in Catholic nomenclature, 'mortal sin'). Now if you can provide documentation that demonstrates it's Catholic doctrine that there is a massive missionary effort in the world of departed spirits to convert unto Christ all the dead who are as yet unconverted, I will be very impressed indeed.

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, 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)

Edited July 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[Ran]

Enjoyed this. This is good to know. But is it not also true that the Catholics and Latter-day Saints diverge greatly when speaking of the Latter-day Saint doctrine that there is a massive, ongoing and very well coordinated (from heaven) missionary effort to bring conversion to all the dead who have not committed what we LDS call the "unpardonable sin" (in Catholic nomenclature, 'mortal sin'). Now if you can provide documentation that demonstrates it's Catholic doctrine that there is a massive missionary effort in the world of departed spirits to convert unto Christ all the dead who are yet unconverted, I will be very impressed indeed.

 

Benedict XVI's Encyclical Spe Salvi 46-48 proposes the eschatological encounter with Christ himself as the context wherein those who die with an "ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God" (46) are healed of any remaining moral disorders.

 

This encounter offers the closest thing to the post-mortem conversion of the invincibly ignorant. In this view, Christ — who is sent from the Father — could be described "The Missionary".

[teddyaware]

Benedict XVI's Encyclical Spe Salvi 46-48 proposes the eschatological encounter with Christ himself as the context wherein those who die with an "ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God" (46) are healed of any remaining moral disorders.

 

This encounter offers the closest thing to the post-mortem conversion of the invincibly ignorant. In this view, Christ — who is sent from the Father — could be described "The Missionary".

But what about the fate those who die without an "ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God?" There have been many mortals on earth who at one time did not have that interior capacity to be open to the truth, but latter developed that openness by repentance after hearing the Gospel message of salvation through Christ. The wicked people of Noah's day surely seemed to demonstrate no openness to truth, love and God, yet the Lord made sure they got the chance to hear the Gospel message sometime after they drowned in the flood.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3)

 

The salvational message of the Latter-day Saints is that God does not easily give up on His disobedient and recalcitrant children, even the very worst of them. As long as men and women have not committed the unpardonable sin, in the likeness of Lucifer and his followers, they can be saved, even after death, if they will only come unto Christ and repent. 

 

In LDS soteriology there in fact will come a time when the day of grace is over and there will be "time no more;" but until that day does come, the God of perfect love, mercy and justice will do all in His power, without violating the free agency of man, to bring His wayward children safely back into the fold. I take great comfort in this, for this is the attitude and behavior one would expect from a God who truly is the embodiment of perfect love.  

Edited July 2, 2014 by teddyaware

[BouncingSouls]

They will get over it in time.  Im not LDS but alot of my family are.  I still love them.  Religion doesnt even cross my mind when it comes to them.  They are my family and I love them not matter what.

[saemo]

How it is perceived is a matter of interpretation by the perceiver.  As you are aware LDS interpret through the lens of Joseph Smith's revelations and those outside interpret without the benefit of such a revelatory position.

Yes, I know what you believe. From the outside, it isn't a revelatory position but innovation that has nothing to do with the Bible. I don't say that just to be a jerk, but to point out the root problem.

[Ran]

But what about the fate those who die without an "ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God?" There have been many mortals on earth who at one time did not have that interior capacity to be open to the truth, but latter developed that openness by repentance after hearing the Gospel message of salvation through Christ. The wicked people of Noah's day surely seemed to demonstrate no openness to truth, love and God, yet the Lord made sure they got the chance to hear the Gospel message sometime after they drowned in the flood.

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Peter 3)

 

The salvational message of the Latter-day Saints is that God does not easily give up on His disobedient and recalcitrant children, even the very worst of them. As long as men and women have not committed the unpardonable sin, in the likeness of Lucifer and his followers, they can be saved, even after death, if they will only come unto Christ and repent. 

 

In LDS soteriology there in fact will come a time when the day of grace is over and there will be "time no more;" but until that day does come, the God of perfect love, mercy and justice will do all in His power, without violating the free agency of man, to bring His wayward children safely back into the fold. I take great comfort in this, for this is the attitude and behavior one would expect from a God who truly is the embodiment of perfect love.  

 

Benedict supposes that this "ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God" remains in "the great majority of people" (Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi 46). Among the minority, then:

 

There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37].

 

This condition described by Benedict would pertain to the consequence of committing "the unpardonable sin, in the likeness of Lucifer and his followers" (Post 70).

 

One could speculate whether the demographics of the spirits in prison reflects Benedict's notion of a "great majority of people" who, deep down inside, are open to truth, yet whose "concrete choices of life" obscures — although not irrevocably — this openness with "ever new compromises with evil" (46).

 

"With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge," writes Benedict. The definitiveness of death in Catholic eschatology parallels your description of LDS soteriology: "there in fact will come a time when the day of grace is over and there will be 'time no more'" (Post 70).

[Antoni]

The individual conversations have gone a lot better with one close family member attending the baptism. Which we were shocked about but genuinely pleased they made that very tough decision. this person and their partner are making a real try to understand which has a been a tender mercy.

 

Light, Love and Peace

[teddyaware]

Benedict supposes that this "ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God" remains in "the great majority of people" (Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi 46). Among the minority, then:

 

There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves. This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history. In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell[37].

 

This condition described by Benedict would pertain to the consequence of committing "the unpardonable sin, in the likeness of Lucifer and his followers" (Post 70).

 

One could speculate whether the demographics of the spirits in prison reflects Benedict's notion of a "great majority of people" who, deep down inside, are open to truth, yet whose "concrete choices of life" obscures — although not irrevocably — this openness with "ever new compromises with evil" (46).

 

"With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge," writes Benedict. The definitiveness of death in Catholic eschatology parallels your description of LDS soteriology: "there in fact will come a time when the day of grace is over and there will be 'time no more'" (Post 70).

 

Interesting and enlightening.

In LDS eschatology, the only individuals capable of committing the 'unpardonable sin' are those who were once saved, greatly favored of God and mightily enlightened by the Spirit. In order to get to the point where one is capable of being culpable for the commission of the unpardonable sin, one must have a deep communion with God and enjoy a fullness of spiritual enlightenment by the indwelling of the Spirit of God. Then, in the brightness of 'spiritual noonday,' they sin against the greater light and knowledge of God they possess. Like Lucifer, they live in the "presence" of God, partake of His grace and divine favor in very great measure, and then, in spite of all these supernal blessings, turn away from Him in hateful open rebellion. All others who have not sinned against the greater light, in like manner, remain within the reach of the mercy of God.

4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

7 For the earth which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God:

8 But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing; whose end is to be burned (Hebrews 6)

and,

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

38 Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord... (D&C 76)

Edited July 3, 2014 by teddyaware