A Mormon Hymn: If You Could Hie to Kolob

[TOmNossor]

If He created time (and He did), how then can the Father Himself have a Father? This makes Him a contingent being subject to time, not the Creator of it. In Mormonism man is the measure of God (thus “Kolob”), not God the measure of man.

First, I think Ostler deals with this sufficiently but in doing so he departs from what you think a LDS believes.

However, how can Christ be eternal if He has a Father? How can one “begotten” be eternal.
If I recall correctly it is Calvin who is accused of being a tri-theist for boldly denying that Christ is somehow contingent upon the Father.

I would suggest that most people do not deal with the difficulties of their theology. For those LDS who do not wish to deal with your above question, I suggest they echo what I hear often from Christians when they are confronted with issues like this, “It’s a mystery.”

For LDS who wish to boldly address these seeming contradictions, I recommend Ostler and a number of other folks who deal with these issues. For critics who think these issues are huge, I also recommend Ostler, but I would suggest that as a Catholic you have much in your house you must order before you make too much hay about such things.

Charity, TOm

 

[twopekinguys]

Or

Here I am, Lord
Is it I, Lord
I have heard you calling in the night

and

Here’s the story
Of a lovely lady
Who is bringing up three very lovely girls

Please tell me your name isn’t “Marcia”…

 

[RebeccaJ]

To me, it seems as if it and “Praise to the Man”(Joseph Smith) are the two hymns most known by non-Mormons.

“Battle Hymn of the Republic”, as sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, is up there.

 

[simspt]

I consider the Catholic solution to doctrine to be far more solid than the Protestant solution. Cardinal Newman and other authors have detailed the development of Christian doctrine under the guidance of folks who claimed to have authority to define what they defined. I still find the Protestant reasons (or more frequently lack of reasons) for embracing this developed doctrine to be lacking.
As a LDS there are plenty of areas for exploration. Barry Bickmore wrote a book where he suggested that the ECF evidence a development from many things LDS believe to many things that are believed within non-LDS Christianity at odds with LDS beliefs.

I am wondering where you are coming from in your queries however. I think there are many reasons to not be a LDS and many reasons to not be a Catholic and many reasons to not be a Protestant. The fact that God lives and Christ dies and was resurrected demands IMO that those who KNOW this do something with their knowledge. I find the invitation to abandon Catholicism offered by Protestants to Catholics to frequently be as problematic as their invitations to LDS. While there are some facts that form some of the cores of these invitations we should always remember what the disciples said to Christ, “to whom should we go?”

If you were to read the best books by Catholics and LDS detailing problems with Catholic authority claims and development of doctrine claims, to whom would you go?
Charity, TOm

I apologize in advance if I do not answer what you are specifically asking. I guess at the most basic level I am interested in historical Christianity and am curious about why and what Mormons believe in relation to specifically the origins of Christianity. The OP has nothing to do with this however. Sorry…

 

[KathleenGee]

I think that is my issue all along is that other churches and groups that invalidate our Christianity should not dismiss the faith of the early Christians who lived in the Sub-Apostolate age and thereafter, because the successors to the Apostles were faithful to the word of their teachings.

I think early Church history is something we should all study, and someone suggested, ‘Faith of our Fathers’. Of what I have read, it is very fascinating…My father recommended Daniel De Lerope…spelling…remember the name pronounced. Read some passages years ago…

 

[zerinus]

I guess at the most basic level I am interested in historical Christianity and am curious about why and what Mormons believe in relation to specifically the origins of Christianity.

I am not sure what you mean by the "origins of Christianity ". Christianity was originates by Jesus Christ, and later disseminated by His immediate followers, disciples, and Apostles as He had commanded them: “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” (Mark 16:15, 16.)

 

[TheosisM]

First, I think Ostler deals with this sufficiently but in doing so he departs from what you think a LDS believes.

However, how can Christ be eternal if He has a Father? How can one “begotten” be eternal.
If I recall correctly it is Calvin who is accused of being a tri-theist for boldly denying that Christ is somehow contingent upon the Father.

I would suggest that most people do not deal with the difficulties of their theology. For those LDS who do not wish to deal with your above question, I suggest they echo what I hear often from Christians when they are confronted with issues like this, “It’s a mystery.”

For LDS who wish to boldly address these seeming contradictions, I recommend Ostler and a number of other folks who deal with these issues. For critics who think these issues are huge, I also recommend Ostler, but I would suggest that as a Catholic you have much in your house you must order before you make too much hay about such things.

Charity, TOm

Which volume of Ostler is this found in?

 

[dianaiad]

If He created time (and He did), how then can the Father Himself have a Father? This makes Him a contingent being subject to time, not the Creator of it. In Mormonism man is the measure of God (thus “Kolob”), not God the measure of man.

You are insisting that there be no ambiguity in our faith: that God be instantly identifiable and understandable within LDS view or else we are patently false, yes? However, that’s a problem, because of course He is not so instantly understandable and comprehendable to you, except by fiat: if you can settle the question simply by saying 'He just Is, so shut up…" then this is fine, but any speculation as to How He Became is a problem?

This causes difficulty for me, y’see. Let’s take, for instance, the Catholic view of baptism. According to the scriptures and what I have been told by Catholics, baptism is required for salvation. No baptism–no salvation. That’s pretty clear, and it is WHY infants are baptised, to be certain that they are ‘invited in,’ or become participants, in God’s presence…something that we, as Mormons, are denied. Indeed, Catholicism has declared that we are not a Christian faith, and thus have no claim upon that salvation/presence/whatever it is. However, when it is pointed out that if this is so then infants who die without baptism are thus damned…

well, erk.

There is this idea of limbo that was promoted–yet that is not something that Catholics MUST believe in. What y’all do in this matter is, since it is incredibly difficult to imagine God condemning infants to hell, to leave it up to God; to trust (without, I might add, a single scintilla of scriptural support for the idea) that He would not DO that.

This provides the same level of logical disconnect to those who look in from the outside as you seem to see with our view of Who God is…yet you don’t seem to see it as a problem from where you are. You are willing to accept the ambiguity/apparant contradiction as something that will be better understood later, and in the meantime you will act in faith.

…and that’s fine. All religious belief systems have these, and quite a number of non-religious systems have them, as well. The problem here is that if you expect the rest of us to accept YOUR ambiguities without insisting that they make your belief system unteneble and false, then you don’t get to insist that our beliefs, when we tell you that there is no real contradiction, are illogical because YOU don’t accept the ambiguity you see.

Suffice it to say that we have no problem understanding that two apparantly contradictory statements actually are not, even if we don’t understand why not NOW.

Like a puzzle with a bright green piece and a clear blue one that obviously do not go together, but still fit in the greater picture, so is our belief system to us, as yours is to you.

…and it is really not a good idea to decide for us that the sky piece doesn’t go with the lake piece, and therefore the puzzle needs to be thrown away. You need to see the rest of the pieces–and you don’t show a whole lot of interest in that.

 

[TheosisM]

This causes difficulty for me, y’see. Let’s take, for instance, the Catholic view of baptism. According to the scriptures and what I have been told by Catholics, baptism is required for salvation. No baptism–no salvation. That’s pretty clear, and it is WHY infants are baptised, to be certain that they are ‘invited in,’ or become participants, in God’s presence…something that we, as Mormons, are denied. Indeed, Catholicism has declared that we are not a Christian faith, and thus have no claim upon that salvation/presence/whatever it is. However, when it is pointed out that if this is so then infants who die without baptism are thus damned…

This isn’t completely correct. Catholicism doesn’t teach if someone is not baptized they are damned [to Hell]. The Catholic Church also holds a belief in “baptism of desire”.

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."63 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.

From the perspective of the Catholic Church, as you already said, LDS baptisms are not valid. So, that is an interesting situation, because Mormons do know the necessity of baptism, however they don’t “know” that their baptisms don’t do anything (from the Catholic Church perspective of course). However, from the above definition of baptism of desire, Mormons can be included in being saved through baptism of desire, as can “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”.

Also, I’m sure you know this, but the reason why Limbo of Infants was/is speculated on is because Catholicism teaches that one is sent to Hell when they die in mortal sin (in effect, one sends themselves to Hell), and having original sin denies one from the immediate presence of God (i.e. Heaven). So, unbaptized infants that die have no mortal sins to send them to Hell, yet still are in original sin, so Limbo of Infants is speculated as an alternate destination for that situation. The position of hoping for the mercy of God for the salvation of infants to Heaven is just that: hope, not sure knowledge. There is no revelation (in Catholicism and the rest of traditional Christianity) that states that unbaptized infants will be saved. Instead, what has been revealed leads to a “prayerful hope” in the mercy of God for them (while still allowing for one to believe in Limbo of Infants).

Off topic, but hope that cleared up some things.

 

[why_me]

This isn’t completely correct. Catholicism doesn’t teach if someone is not baptized they are damned [to Hell]. The Catholic Church also holds a belief in “baptism of desire”.

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."63 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.

From the perspective of the Catholic Church, as you already said, LDS baptisms are not valid. So, that is an interesting situation, because Mormons do know the necessity of baptism, however they don’t “know” that their baptisms don’t do anything (from the Catholic Church perspective of course). However, from the above definition of baptism of desire, Mormons can be included in being saved through baptism of desire, as can “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”.

Also, I’m sure you know this, but the reason why Limbo of Infants was/is speculated on is because Catholicism teaches that one is sent to Hell when they die in mortal sin (in effect, one sends themselves to Hell), and having original sin denies one from the immediate presence of God (i.e. Heaven). So, unbaptized infants that die have no mortal sins to send them to Hell, yet still are in original sin, so Limbo of Infants is speculated as an alternate destination for that situation. The position of hoping for the mercy of God for the salvation of infants to Heaven is just that: hope, not sure knowledge. There is no revelation (in Catholicism and the rest of traditional Christianity) that states that unbaptized infants will be saved. Instead, what has been revealed leads to a “prayerful hope” in the mercy of God for them (while still allowing for one to believe in Limbo of Infants).

Off topic, but hope that cleared up some things.

Very few catholic mothers knew of baptism of desire when their babies were are the verge of death before vatican II, Most prayed that the priest would arrive in time for the baptism before the baby died. All, to my remembrance, knew that if their baby died before baptism, it would not be good for the baby’s soul. And many performed the baptism themselves if the priest was no where to be found in hope that this would save the baby’s soul.

And how can an infant have original sin? And isn’t god the master of life and death? And so, why would he allow a baby to die in original sin and have its eternal position affected? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

 

[TheosisM]

Very few catholic mothers knew of baptism of desire when their babies were are the verge of death before vatican II, Most prayed that the priest would arrive in time for the baptism before the baby died. All, to my remembrance, knew that if their baby died before baptism, it would not be good for the baby’s soul. And many performed the baptism themselves if the priest was no where to be found in hope that this would save the baby’s soul.

And how can an infant have original sin? And isn’t god the master of life and death? And so, why would he allow a baby to die in original sin and have its eternal position affected? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

Feel free to start another thread to discuss original sin (or post in the latest one a few threads below this one).

Baptism of desire is not the same thing as “prayerful hope” for infants, you’re confusing two concepts.

 

[Answersplease]

Catholicism has declared that we are not a Christian faith, and thus have no claim upon that salvation/presence/whatever it is.

"Answersplease:

The verse Moroni 10:5 from the Book of Mormon shows that Mormons can know the truth of all things.

And RebeccaJ shows a quote from a Mormon leader.

"The **pseudo-Christian **

world has stumbled over the meaning of this simple text, and not a few commentators have tried to explain away its true applicability to all mankind of the Savior’s teachings." (McKay, David O., “The Purpose of Temples”, Ensign Magazine, January 1972)

David O.McKay was the Mormon president/prophet from 1951-1970.

Compared to Mormonism they are “pseudo-Christians”. Mormonism is the true, pure, pristine form of Christianity.

Moroni 10:5

And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

[Answersplease]

According to the scriptures and what I have been told by Catholics, baptism is required for salvation. No baptism–no salvation.

Answersplease:

(Color red, bold type, and underlining added to highlight to the original text.)

The following quotes show No Salvation Without Joseph Smith:

mrm.org/no-salvation-without-joseph-smith

…second LDS Prophet Brigham Young

, who, in 1859, stated, “From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up things of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are – I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent” (Journal of Discourses 7:238. See also Search These Commandments, 1984, pg. 133).

…Joseph Fielding Smith, Mormonism’s tenth president

, went on record as saying that there is “no salvation without Joseph Smith.” (Doctrine of Salvation 1:189).

The following quotes show that a woman must be called by her husband in order to enter the Celestial Kingdom (highest heaven):

utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

The wife must tell her husband her new name, and no one else, as he is supposed to call her up in the resurrection.

LDS Apostle Charles W. Penrose wrote:

...**Every man**

who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof.

In the case of a man marrying a wife in the everlasting covenant who dies while he continues in the flesh and marries another by the same divine law, each wife will come forth in her order and enter with him into his glory. ("Mormon" Doctrine Plain and Simple, or Leaves from the Tree of Life, by Charles W. Penrose, p.66, 1897, Salt Lake City, UT.)

LDS Apostle Erastus Snow preached the following on Sunday, Oct. 4, 1857:

Do the women, when they pray, remember their husbands?... Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? "What!—my husband to be my lord?" I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him?...You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom [during the temple ceremony] without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her,

if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 291)

William Clayton, secretary to Joseph Smith, also discussed some of the temple work in his journals. In the Introduction to An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton we read:

…each husband escorted his wife through a veil, calling her by a “new temple name.” The woman’s salvation would depend upon her husband’s priesthood authority.

Clayton reported Brigham Young saying that “the man must love his God and the woman must love her husband,” adding that “woman will never get back, unless she follows the man back.” (Introduction to An Intimate Chronicle: The Journals of William Clayton, edited by George D. Smith, Signature Books, p. xxxvi-xxxvii; see also p. 204-240.)

Writing in 1870, former Mormon Mary Ettie Smith related her experience with the LDS Church and the temple ritual:

…We were next led into what is called the Terrestrial Glory; where Brigham Young received us, . . . he gave each a pass-word and grip necessary, he said, to admit us into the “Celestial Glory;” . . . there are many gods, and they do not acknowledge the one Triune God of the Bible, but that every man will sometime be a “god;”

and that women are to be the ornaments of his kingdom, and dependent upon him for resurrection and salvation; and that our salvation is dependent upon the recollection of these passwords; . . ." (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition. Embracing the Narrative of Mrs. Mary Ettie V. Smith, of Her Residence and Experience of Fifteen Years with the Mormons…, by N. W. Green, Hartford, 1870, p. 42-48)

After Mrs. Smith and her first husband, Wallace Henderson, left Nauvoo and headed west, their marriage began to fall apart. Among other indiscretions, Mr. Henderson took another wife and Ettie left him. When she later explained to Apostle Orson Hyde why she had left her husband, Mr. Hyde replied:

"The reasons you have given do not constitute a lawful excuse for leaving your husband, according to the laws of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints."

I then rose up to go...he stopped me, and said, "You may, if you wish, be 'sealed' to me, and then you know there would be no risk to run, in case you should die. Otherwise, if by chance you should drop away, having no husband to raise you at the last day, you could not be 'resurrected' as a saint, and would only be raised like any Gentile, as a servant for the Saints, i.e., for the Mormons.' "

I was so much disgusted with this proposition, that I left him in the most unceremonious manner, in the midst of his disinterested effort for my salvation. Orson Hyde was, at this time, forty years of age, and had at least three wives and one daughter about my own age. I was then nineteen years old. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 132)

 

[Answersplease]

…yet you don’t seem to see it as a problem from where you are.

…in the meantime you will act in faith.

"Answersplease:

How much faith do Mormon women have that their husbands will actually call them?

What if the husband forgets his wife’s (or one of his wives’) secret name?

What if the husband decides he doesn’t want to call his wife or one of his wives?

(Red color and underlining added to highlight the original text.)

I also know that the women in Utah have the highest use of Prozac…they are held to such high level of perfection and if they do wrong, their husband will not allow them entrance into heaven…

From the thread: LDS Question - How did the first church fail? (Link to the thread is below.)

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6263962#post6263962

Post #926

Xavierlives:

Well the way I understand the story, it goes like this: The men know their wives “secret name” so that when the time comes, he can call up them. Say he doesn’t like wife number 3 with the name Sarah, well he can… err… just not call her and they are no longer sealed

.

I don’t know if she becomes a free agent at that point or what.

utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

Later in her book, Mrs. Smith discussed the LDS concept of priesthood and salvation:

The priesthood, in some form, is understood to be necessary to the salvation of a male, or at least, to his exaltation; and a female cannot be saved without being "sealed" to some male who is a Priest.

Hence all true Mormons are Priests, and women really do not amount to much in themselves, . . .
(Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 154 )

utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

The following is a summary of the early Utah temple ceremony as found in History of Utah, 1540-1886, by H. H. Bancroft:

…In the morning of the resurrection, this veil is to be lifted by the husband; otherwise no woman can see the face of the almighty in the next world.

 

[Answersplease]

Suffice it to say that we have no problem understanding that two apparantly contradictory statements actually are not, even if we don’t understand why not NOW.

Answersplease:

Then you should have no problem understanding The Holy Trinity as described by Catholics and many Protestants.

 

[ParkerD]

Several quotes

To choose to persist in “getting it wrong” will certainly never mean that one has the eventuality of “getting it right” in terms of understanding LDS beliefs. One needs to begin with a foundation of understanding in order to even understand the language used about temple covenants, since language is always going to be limited by the understanding of the “hearer” or the reader. So I suggest that rather than asking questions that only reveal one doesn’t have any idea what they are asking, that the better approach would be to get some foundational background with a thorough study of the basics of beliefs rather than trying to find particular answers to particular questions when there is no foundation to even begin to understand an answer.

For example, married LDS men and women are equal partners, and both seek the exaltation of their partner through being supportive in every way, by definition of their eternal marriage covenant. They have already made that choice when they married by making a joint covenant with each other and with God. They don’t have a future “decision” to make, unless it be whether to keep their covenants, and those who choose against keeping their covenants do not even have the situation you have described come into play, because that means they are not qualified (by definition) to have an eternal marriage covenant in effect in their resurrection.

 

[dianaiad]

This isn’t completely correct. Catholicism doesn’t teach if someone is not baptized they are damned [to Hell]. The Catholic Church also holds a belief in “baptism of desire”.

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."63 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.

From the perspective of the Catholic Church, as you already said, LDS baptisms are not valid. So, that is an interesting situation, because Mormons do know the necessity of baptism, however they don’t “know” that their baptisms don’t do anything (from the Catholic Church perspective of course). However, from the above definition of baptism of desire, Mormons can be included in being saved through baptism of desire, as can “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”.

Also, I’m sure you know this, but the reason why Limbo of Infants was/is speculated on is because Catholicism teaches that one is sent to Hell when they die in mortal sin (in effect, one sends themselves to Hell), and having original sin denies one from the immediate presence of God (i.e. Heaven). So, unbaptized infants that die have no mortal sins to send them to Hell, yet still are in original sin, so Limbo of Infants is speculated as an alternate destination for that situation. The position of hoping for the mercy of God for the salvation of infants to Heaven is just that: hope, not sure knowledge. There is no revelation (in Catholicism and the rest of traditional Christianity) that states that unbaptized infants will be saved. Instead, what has been revealed leads to a “prayerful hope” in the mercy of God for them (while still allowing for one to believe in Limbo of Infants).

Off topic, but hope that cleared up some things.

Indeed, and thank you, especially for the perspective on the problem of LDS baptism! I can see where that could cause some ambiguity, at that.

Your other explanation regarding limbo is also welcome, especially since it illustrates more clearly the point I was making regarding the difficulty of reconciling one point of doctrine with another—from the outside, but where, from the inside, it is, if not reconciled, precisely, certainly accepted with equanamity and, well…‘prayerful hope.’

I do not insist that Catholics be able to instantly answer that question and turn their prayerful hope into established black and white certainty in their doctrine. Just because WE can, in terms of the salvation of infants, doesn’t mean YOU have to! The point I was making was that it is not fair to insist that we pin everything down to the understanding of our present minds, when those who expect us to do so cannot do the same for their own belief systems.

 

[dianaiad]

Very few catholic mothers knew of baptism of desire when their babies were are the verge of death before vatican II, Most prayed that the priest would arrive in time for the baptism before the baby died. All, to my remembrance, knew that if their baby died before baptism, it would not be good for the baby’s soul. And many performed the baptism themselves if the priest was no where to be found in hope that this would save the baby’s soul.

And how can an infant have original sin? And isn’t god the master of life and death? And so, why would he allow a baby to die in original sin and have its eternal position affected? It doesn’t make any sense at all.

Well, I’ve never figured out why original sin could even be a factor in the salvation of mankind after Christ died and was resurrected, myself. Wasn’t that the whole idea of His sacrifice, to get rid of original sin, and to give back to man that which Adam, by his choice, took away?

However, Most Christian faiths do believe that original sin is still a factor.

 

[dianaiad]

[edited]

I do understand it, m’friend. The problem isn’t that I don’t understand it. The problem is that I do…and don’t agree with it. There is also the problem that I keep running into people who claim to be trinitarians, but who are actually modalists, or something else ‘…ist…’ but not trinitarian as Catholics describe it.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

I didn’t write:

“For years, society has debated over the influence of rap music on today’s youth”

Don’t add any words or sentences that I didn’t write in one of my original posts.