L
- Status
S
StevieD
Guest
Hi, I am a ‘cradle Catholic’ who has been away and come back more than once. I am also familiar with Mormonism which has fascinated me for some years because it appears to be provably false and yet retains so many committed adherents.
The same thing drew me back to the Church each time and that is the miracle of Fatima. The miracle of the Sun was predicted and it occurred, was witnessed by thousands and photographed by an anti-Catholic press of the day. The messages to the children are simple and urgent and prophesies made by Our Lady were fulfilled. The Church is abundant in miracles many in our own age (e.g. Padre Pio but there are also many others like him), the LDS is not rich in miracles despite Smith’s promises that it would be. My advice would be to study the Marian apparitions especially Fatima and ask Our Lady to pray with you in your difficulties.
The same thing drew me back to the Church each time and that is the miracle of Fatima. The miracle of the Sun was predicted and it occurred, was witnessed by thousands and photographed by an anti-Catholic press of the day. The messages to the children are simple and urgent and prophesies made by Our Lady were fulfilled. The Church is abundant in miracles many in our own age (e.g. Padre Pio but there are also many others like him), the LDS is not rich in miracles despite Smith’s promises that it would be. My advice would be to study the Marian apparitions especially Fatima and ask Our Lady to pray with you in your difficulties.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I am sorry you feel that way, it is just that so much of what appears here is so almost violently anti-mormon that sometimes I do get carried away and come off as “anti-catholic”. That is not my intention, and I apologize for it and will try to do better on that.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
History confirms Catholic beliefs. History of the Church is a testimony of the Church itself, the Church Christ created and promised to be with until the consummation of the world. Has that happened yet?
Again, history confirms the Catholic Church. Is the Mormon Church right because it’s “new”? There have been many Churches started since the Mormon Church, does that invalidate the Mormon Church? Your argument seems to indicate it’s so.
They haven’t washed any converts and they are not annointing below the belt, as Mormons do, or used to to do.
Did you choose the Coptic Church to try and make a connection to “reformed Egyptian”?
How could Joseph Smith known any of the “secrets” behind the temple ceremony? None of them are listed in the New Testament, under the new covenant of Christ.
Please do talk about it. We have begged you to produce evidence of an apostasy. There is none!
There are many writings about Christ, many from sources other than Christians; Muslins, Jews, Romans and other non-Christian sources. There is nothing written from anyone about the Christ Mormons claim came to the Americas and converted thousands.
With all these sources writing about Christ himself, no one recorded a great apostasy.
We have produced many aspects that are questionable and unanswerable by you. Did any of it help enlighten you on your journey?
C2M2C,
Pray for the gifts of the Holy Spirit, pray, read scriptures and the other material that’s already been suggested for you. You are in my prayers.
God Bless,
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
It is not so much what you say, but how you get there. You seem to use people to get a Mormon missionary message across. I don’t like being used.
We are called to spread the Good News. Mormonism, by all Catholic estimates, has much that is contrary if not heretical. It is not for us to support error, but rather, to teach the ignorant and correct error.
It is hard, if not impossible, to do without clarifying what exactly is wrong with Mormonism. Mormons are so incredibly tuned into “persecution”. So much so that to me it appears you seek it, in order to validate your faith.
Correcting error is not persecution. It is a spiritual mercy.
All that being said, I work at being charitable myself. I have nothing against Mormons, as individuals. As I have said many times, I have a large Mormon family who I love. However, their Mormon beliefs are so injurious to their souls, it pains me to think about it.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Hey, that’s not too bad results for a few prayers!!It has helped, and sometimes it’s nice to ask here instead of trying to dig for it. It’s also nice to hear about other’s thoughts and opinions. Prayer is what I struggle with right now. Or more of trusting what i feel in response to those prayers. If you read my initial post you’ll see that I’ve prayed before and look where that got me. …
Maybe I needed to leave the Catholic church, gain 18 more years of experience and then come back? What I do know is that I wouldn’t change the experience. It got me to my wife whom I adore and then 4 kids.
First, to all on this thread I would like to say that I am responding only to C2M2C on this thread.
To C2M2C
Hi. As I mentioned before I was Catholic and now I am Mormon, been so 30 years temple marriage, heavy callings etc. I get where you are coming from.
I don’t think that there is a thinking Mormon who has not had their faith shaken at some point. The issues you raise are real ones, and it is important to get your thinking exactly clear.
There are many churches that are close to Mormon doctrine, for my money, the Swedenborgians and the Orthodox churches are to me the closest. Both have concepts of being married in heaven, sort of, and also the idea found most abundantly in John 17 that we will share in our father’s glory. LDS call this doctrine “exaltation” and the orthodox call it “divinization” or “theosis”. I don’t mean that those doctrines are even close to “exaltation” in the Mormon sense, but they are in the ballpark in the John 17 sense.
I know what you mean about history, both for the Catholics and Mormons. Anytime you have imperfect humans trying to live and teach perfect doctrine, you are going to have … well let us say “some inconsistencies”. The difference to me is that as a Mormon, you have a personal experience to hang your hat on. You have a testimony or prayer, you have experienced it.
So what do you do with the historic problems found in both churches?
At some point we have to come to grips with the fact that the only alternatives out there are basically “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”. So ultimately, I find that the only thing I have to decide with is my testimony.
Sometimes there are conflicts with “rationality”. That is why we need “faith”. Really, no one can “prove” anything, or more to the point CAN prove virtually anything, true or false. But ultimately, I have learned that if I go with testimony, the rational issues ultimately resolve themselves. You have to go with what you know is right.
Historic “facts” in general are problematic. I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, and even if we both had been, we would still have different interpretations, different perceptions and different understandings of what had happened. You can make the case in favor of Catholicism, or in favor of Mormonism or against either or both historically. Who knows what really happened? No one.
To me, the criterion has always been, “with my experience, what makes the most sense?” Ultimately we are all responsible for our own salvation, and our decisions, and these are weighty issues.
So for me, the issue is to study it out and pray about it. Testimony is the most important thing. How do you know anything about what to do in life, after you study all the options rationally? How do you pick a wife, or a place to live or even a car to buy. You look for what works best for you, and if it is important, you pray about it, and make a decision. You have to do what feels right to you. To me, this is the “rational basis” of testimony. Ultimately EVERYONE picks even what clothes to wear by “what feels right to them”.
But that is not all that testimony is, and many on this thread will try to change your mind about it. It is not a “psychological” or “emotional” thing. You know that. You have felt it many times. You have received answsers to prayers and been guided. There is a major qualitative difference between a testimony and “just what feels right”. You don’t get a testimony about what car to buy or what shirt to wear.
You know the difference, and don’t lose that.
I will take on a few of the points you have mentioned, and we could go into them at more length if you like.
Study Nicea carefully. Essentially, it was called by Constantine because all the various heresies had made the empire nearly ungovernable. It was totally politically motivated. The pope was essentially constantine’s puppet.
Read the epistles carefully. You can see the apostasy already in operation. Read the early church fathers, and notice that largely they are arguing against what we would see as the “LDS position”. That is because those “heretics”, though apostate themselves, were closer to our truth than the “early church fathers”
Catholics love to cite the “gates of hell” prophecy, but if you read it you will see there are other intepretations. One of the most convincing is that Jesus was founding a church which would break the gates of “hades” by doing work for the dead. Gates don’t come up and attack the church. It is the church which is attacking the gates, and the gates don’t “prevail” against it. The meaning is plain if you read it that way.
One of the “biggies” for me in returning to the Catholic church, would be no marriage in the hereafter. As we know, that scripture says there is no “giving in marriage” in the hereafter because sealings have to be done here, in this life, not in the hereafter.
And then there is the analogy of Jesus and the church being married and becoming “one flesh”. Men and women are to become one flesh as Jesus and the church are one flesh. You should love your wife as Jesus loves the church. Why is that analogy there? Because that one flesh relationship is eternal, just as Jesus relationship to the church is.
I also understand what you mean by feeling closer to the savior in reading the New Testament than the BOM. To be honest, my favorite standard work is the NT. But that is because the entire NT is about Jesus. If the whole BOM was only 3rd Nephi, it would feel the same throughout also. My least favorite is the Old Testament. You really have to dig to get Jesus out of the OT.
Degrees of glory is another issue for me. It just doesn’t make sense that those who are extremely righteous would have the same reward as those who barely “scrape by” and beat their wives and get drunk nightly, but have a deathbed repentance.
And what happens to those who never hear of the gospel? The catholic church says that they don’t really know if or how they are saved. They have replaced limbo for unbaptized babies with “(some term) ignorance” that just states that they don’t really know what happens to unbaptized babies, but God will take care of it. How could a church not have clear doctrine about THAT?
And this idea that you have to believe exactly the church’s interpretation of scripture would drive me nuts. God gave us a brain, but I guess we are not supposed to use it.
Follow your testimony and keep praying. God calls all of us in strange directions, and I would never presume to try to tell anyone what is right for them, as opposed to some on this thread. But keep the notion of testimony alive in your heart, and keep being directed. It is ultimately all we have!
I am sorry about Utah culture, but I am afraid that you are right that it will not be easy to take all that on either. Move to California! No one would care, and right now houses are cheap!
At least you don’t live in Vatican City while you are becoming a Mormon!
C
C2M2C
Guest
mfbukowski thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.Hey, that’s not too bad results for a few prayers!!
First, to all on this thread I would like to say that I am responding only to C2M2C on this thread.
To C2M2C
Hi. As I mentioned before I was Catholic and now I am Mormon, been so 30 years temple marriage, heavy callings etc. I get where you are coming from.
I don’t think that there is a thinking Mormon who has not had their faith shaken at some point. The issues you raise are real ones, and it is important to get your thinking exactly clear.
There are many churches that are close to Mormon doctrine, for my money, the Swedenborgians and the Orthodox churches are to me the closest. Both have concepts of being married in heaven, sort of, and also the idea found most abundantly in John 17 that we will share in our father’s glory. LDS call this doctrine “exaltation” and the orthodox call it “divinization” or “theosis”. I don’t mean that those doctrines are even close to “exaltation” in the Mormon sense, but they are in the ballpark in the John 17 sense.
I know what you mean about history, both for the Catholics and Mormons. Anytime you have imperfect humans trying to live and teach perfect doctrine, you are going to have … well let us say “some inconsistencies”. The difference to me is that as a Mormon, you have a personal experience to hang your hat on. You have a testimony or prayer, you have experienced it.
So what do you do with the historic problems found in both churches?
At some point we have to come to grips with the fact that the only alternatives out there are basically “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”. So ultimately, I find that the only thing I have to decide with is my testimony.
Sometimes there are conflicts with “rationality”. That is why we need “faith”. Really, no one can “prove” anything, or more to the point CAN prove virtually anything, true or false. But ultimately, I have learned that if I go with testimony, the rational issues ultimately resolve themselves. You have to go with what you know is right.
Historic “facts” in general are problematic. I wasn’t there, you weren’t there, and even if we both had been, we would still have different interpretations, different perceptions and different understandings of what had happened. You can make the case in favor of Catholicism, or in favor of Mormonism or against either or both historically. Who knows what really happened? No one.
To me, the criterion has always been, “with my experience, what makes the most sense?” Ultimately we are all responsible for our own salvation, and our decisions, and these are weighty issues.
So for me, the issue is to study it out and pray about it. Testimony is the most important thing. How do you know anything about what to do in life, after you study all the options rationally? How do you pick a wife, or a place to live or even a car to buy. You look for what works best for you, and if it is important, you pray about it, and make a decision. You have to do what feels right to you. To me, this is the “rational basis” of testimony. Ultimately EVERYONE picks even what clothes to wear by “what feels right to them”.
But that is not all that testimony is, and many on this thread will try to change your mind about it. It is not a “psychological” or “emotional” thing. You know that. You have felt it many times. You have received answsers to prayers and been guided. There is a major qualitative difference between a testimony and “just what feels right”. You don’t get a testimony about what car to buy or what shirt to wear.
You know the difference, and don’t lose that.
I will take on a few of the points you have mentioned, and we could go into them at more length if you like.
Study Nicea carefully. Essentially, it was called by Constantine because all the various heresies had made the empire nearly ungovernable. It was totally politically motivated. The pope was essentially constantine’s puppet.
Read the epistles carefully. You can see the apostasy already in operation. Read the early church fathers, and notice that largely they are arguing against what we would see as the “LDS position”. That is because those “heretics”, though apostate themselves, were closer to our truth than the “early church fathers”
Catholics love to cite the “gates of hell” prophecy, but if you read it you will see there are other intepretations. One of the most convincing is that Jesus was founding a church which would break the gates of “hades” by doing work for the dead. Gates don’t come up and attack the church. It is the church which is attacking the gates, and the gates don’t “prevail” against it. The meaning is plain if you read it that way.
One of the “biggies” for me in returning to the Catholic church, would be no marriage in the hereafter. As we know, that scripture says there is no “giving in marriage” in the hereafter because sealings have to be done here, in this life, not in the hereafter.
And then there is the analogy of Jesus and the church being married and becoming “one flesh”. Men and women are to become one flesh as Jesus and the church are one flesh. You should love your wife as Jesus loves the church. Why is that analogy there? Because that one flesh relationship is eternal, just as Jesus relationship to the church is.
I also understand what you mean by feeling closer to the savior in reading the New Testament than the BOM. To be honest, my favorite standard work is the NT. But that is because the entire NT is about Jesus. If the whole BOM was only 3rd Nephi, it would feel the same throughout also. My least favorite is the Old Testament. You really have to dig to get Jesus out of the OT.
Degrees of glory is another issue for me. It just doesn’t make sense that those who are extremely righteous would have the same reward as those who barely “scrape by” and beat their wives and get drunk nightly, but have a deathbed repentance.
And what happens to those who never hear of the gospel? The catholic church says that they don’t really know if or how they are saved. They have replaced limbo for unbaptized babies with “(some term) ignorance” that just states that they don’t really know what happens to unbaptized babies, but God will take care of it. How could a church not have clear doctrine about THAT?
And this idea that you have to believe exactly the church’s interpretation of scripture would drive me nuts. God gave us a brain, but I guess we are not supposed to use it.
Follow your testimony and keep praying. God calls all of us in strange directions, and I would never presume to try to tell anyone what is right for them, as opposed to some on this thread. But keep the notion of testimony alive in your heart, and keep being directed. It is ultimately all we have!
I am sorry about Utah culture, but I am afraid that you are right that it will not be easy to take all that on either. Move to California! No one would care, and right now houses are cheap!
At least you don’t live in Vatican City while you are becoming a Mormon!
I have serious concerns about both sides. My initial reaction was look at where I came from, and to be honest that’s the direction I’m leaning. But make no mistake this isn’t something I take lightly at all and I don’t imagine that it will be decided quickly.
The Councils are a concern. Is it that I am used to being directed by a Prophet that I believed only directed us based upon revelation and therefore men getting together and trying to “sort through” things and then decide what “we” believe is hard to swallow.
But then again so is a lot of LDS history. I won’t go into detail now, but anyone that has studied at all about the church knows what the issues are.
And like I mentioned in an earlier post- I am very comfortable in my Mormon world and the last thing I want to do is make my kids or my wife or myself uncomfortable. That ultimately has nothing to do with the decision, but when taking it into consideration, I don’t want to do anything drastic unless I know for sure that it’s right.
Therein lies another problem. “Knowing” what is right. I have prayed about a lot of things and in my mind I have recieved a lot of answers. So that isn’t easy to dismiss. But did those answers come because I am LDS? The church teaches that all men can have the spririt with them to guide them from time to time. The difference is that if we stand worthy we can have it with us (Mormons) all of the time. So if the Catholic church is true was I just in the right place at the right time, having my prayers answered “from time to time”?
Aside from the doctrine. a big issue is physical evidence to prove the existence of the people, places, animales, events in the BoM. I have heard both sides but the Mormon response is “well they did find an elephant bone in Arizona”. Who is “they” and where is the bone? Where are the bees? etc, etc, etc. Like I said, anyone that has looked into church history knows what the issues are, as I am sure you have.
Which I guess brings me to a question since we’re on it, how do you reconcile the history, the changes to the BoM (not the grammar or spelling), changes to the temple ceremony, Mark Hoffman, Soloman Spaulding, archeology, and the whole other list of items that just don’t seem to add up to me?
Thanks in advance for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
:ehh:
I’m not going to do a point by point rebuttal of your entire error laden post. It is painfully obvious that you don’t have even the most basic grasp of what the Catholic Church teaches. The quoted excerpt jumped out as particularly egregious example of your misrepresentation of the Catholic Church.
Limbo is not Catholic doctrine or dogma, only speculation.
Read catholic.com/library/salvation_outside_the_church.asp because you’ve got that wrong too.
T
tundramom
Guest
Everyone’s had good responses… I just wanted to welcome you to the forums and let you know that I’m praying for you. 
in Christ
Steph
in Christ
Steph
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Yeah, that was a train wreck. Same here, to go through point by point…
I did find this to be a good example of double-think.
Yes, please do study Nicaea carefully. The real history, not the Mormon spin. lol.
J
JRKH
Guest
mf,Hey, that’s not too bad results for a few prayers!!
First, to all on this thread I would like to say that I am responding only to C2M2C on this thread.
SNIP
One of the “biggies” for me in returning to the Catholic church, would be no marriage in the hereafter. As we know, that scripture says there is no “giving in marriage” in the hereafter because sealings have to be done here, in this life, not in the hereafter.
I will respect that your post is directly to C2M2C, but I felt the need to address the point above which makes no sense.
The Scriptural Passage is this one.
If this passage is to be interpreted as you suggest, “because sealings have to be done here”, then Jesus would have needed to have an answer to their question as to whose wife she would be. After all, all of the marriages, (sealings) did take place here, in this life. So whose wife would she be?
But this is not what Jesus says, He says that “You do not understand Scripture”, and that we do not marry after the resurrection, but rather live like angels. Do angels marry? Do angels have offspring and raise families?
No they do not. They live eternally in the Loving Presence of God in a unity that trancends any bond that could we could know on this earth.
Certainly I hope to see my Dear Wife in Heaven, just as I hope to see my Grandparents, Parents and other loved ones. There we shall all be, “Living as Angels” in the Love of God.
Peace
James
M
mfbukowski
Guest
WHY I AM A MORMON:
Assumptions:
1.- God is good and just. If God is not good and just, there is not much point in worrying about anything!
If God’s will is only knowable indirectly, through history, scripture or other people’s word for it, how will we ever know for sure that these sources are true? If you were raised in a Hindu culture, you would be Hindu etc. and believe Hindu history, scriptures and other people’s testimony of Hinduism.
But all these could be false.
Conclusion: If God is true and just, it must be possible for all to have direct knowledge (experience) that He exists, and His will for us
In other words, direct revelation or nothing.
Assumptions:
1.- God is good and just. If God is not good and just, there is not much point in worrying about anything!
- He either doesn’t care (A) what church we belong to or (B) He DOES care what church we join.
An Example of A:-" I am a good person and that is all that matters."
An Example of “B”: "You must do these specific things to reach heaven: (1-2-3…).” - If God is good and just, and he cares which church we join, that fact must be knowable to all his children.
It might be knowable directly – He speaks to us and tells us (“testimony”) OR
It is knowable only indirectly. (Scripture, history, other people’s word for it)
If God’s will is only knowable indirectly, through history, scripture or other people’s word for it, how will we ever know for sure that these sources are true? If you were raised in a Hindu culture, you would be Hindu etc. and believe Hindu history, scriptures and other people’s testimony of Hinduism.
But all these could be false.
Conclusion: If God is true and just, it must be possible for all to have direct knowledge (experience) that He exists, and His will for us
In other words, direct revelation or nothing.
1
1holycatholic
Guest
J
JRKH
Guest
How does one know that “Direct Revelation is from God and not from Satan”?
Peace
James
B
Believe_85
Guest
M
mfbukowski
Guest
BELIEVE 85
Please put your comments down below the quote box where they belong. Do not put words in my mouth that I did not say. That is dishonest.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
No, they were not sealed. For that reason, they will be as the angels in heaven
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I agree with you about the councils. That is one of the things I have the biggest problem with also. Especially when you look at the accounts of the “politicing” that went on.
Your perspective on the holy ghost inspiring your interest in the Catholic church is an interesting one. I would not totally rule out the possibility, because I have heard cases of such things happening. But what is interesting is YOUR perspective on it which is a totally Mormon perspective. Maybe others will jump on this and say I am wrong, but catholics to my knowledge do not believe that the holy ghost leads anyone anywhere. If they do, I think that they would be acknowleging that a “testimony” is a valid experience which they do not. I don’t see how they could believe that the Holy Ghost could testify of the truth of the catholic church without acknowledging the validity of ‘personal revelation’. I think that if one really does believe in personal revelation, one must believe to follow it where it leads. And I think that is also the LDS position - though it might seem paradoxical to some. It is after all the only check and balance we personally have to “blind obedience” to the prophet. conscience must be paramount.
Your questions about historical evidence are interesting ones. I assume you are familiar with fair and farms, but in case not:
fairlds.org/
farms.byu.edu/
I will mention some categories of answers I have found
1-So few people actually came over - really all we know about scripturally were Lehi’s immediate family, and the BOM indicates that soon after Nephi’s unfortunate encounter with his brothers, other people appear on the scene. So there were others besides the Nephites and Jaredites on the continents. This accounts for the lack of genetic evidence. Reformed Egyptian could have been a priestly language spoken only by a very few, perhaps only even Lehi’s family and direct descendents. Remember “Roots” and how that family passed down a few African words?
2- Joseph interpolating. Joseph wrote what he knew about, and that is how he translated. That is why there are similarites to King James English. Perhaps he translated “big beast” as “elephant”, or that sort of thing.
3-Not recognized for what they are - I think there are many cultural evidences that don’t get acknowledged. I am sure you are acquainted with chiasmus. That is one example. I did a study once of Aztec relgion and found a jillion parallels to Second Nephi-- the Isaiah chapters-- in Aztec religion. Look at quezelcoatl and Cortez. And compare Quezelcoatl to the “brazen serpent” of the bible. It is clear that Quetz. was a figure very like the savior – represented by a “plumed serpent” and highly similar to the “brazen serpent” of today. Even the cadeucus (spelling?) that represents doctors (The Blue Cross logo) is related to both quetz and the brazen serpent-- all are symbols for the healing power of the savior.
5-history is a construction- or “reconstruction” especially archaeology. Even events from Joseph’s time are subject to interpretation. I wasn’t there and neither were you. We have to take SOMEBODY else’s word for it, and we have evidence on both sides of any historic issue.
Changes to the temple ceremony? I think it is important to look at the real purpose of the endowment. What is the purpose? To give us something that takes us farther along the gospel path by providing sybolism and iconography that we can seek spiritual guidance to understand. It is a symbolic vocabulary. What you learn there from that perspective never changes. If you have ever worked there, you know there are guidelines of what constitues a “valid ordinance” and the criteria is always on the side of spiritual guidance and intention. If there was an error, what was it, and how material was it to the ordinance? Invariably, it is up to the Lord to judge validity. But for all the attention to detail, that is the ultimate criterion. The message is that we have to try very very hard to get this stuff RIGHT, but ultimately it is up to the Lord. There are no magic words that make things so. What is important is the PROCESS and the EFFORT to get it all “right”. This is also a metaphor for our lives. What is important is doing the VERY BEST we can. If we have done that, the details of the “performance” are irrelevant. There was an interesting conference talk once about music in the church. Some felt that sacrament music should be “perfect”, and the GA came out and said that music which draws attention to itself is a “performance” whereas it should be a “prayer”. To me, that is the essence of the endowment. It needs to be a prayer, and the details of the “performance” are irrelevant. It is not magic. It is ritual, and the function of ritual is to bring us closer to God.
To me, the bottom line is really what alternative is there? You have the blatant philosphies of men - Lutheranism, Calvinism, etc. You have the Catholics with their flawed and changed doctrines,and spotty history or you have the Mormons who are clearly not perfect in all these matters either. So how do you judge? What works for you and your family – that is how you judge. And ultimately, you also have a testimony which is at once the bottom line and the icing on the cake. No one else makes that claim.
C
C2M2C
Guest
Undertsood, but that doesn’t make Mormonism true. I need meat, history, something tangible. Something I can see in writing that is fact. I know that there needs to be faith which I have. I have faith in God, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. Not sure if they are one or three (but one in purpose) any more and aside from that I don’t really know what I believe. What I do know is that what I believe doesn’t make a church true. For example; I was married in the Salt Lake Temple for the obvious reason. If the Mormon church is true, then celestial marriage is true, if the Born Agains are right then nothing in the world can make my temple marriage valid after I die. So as I mentioned in an earlier post, the doctrine is almost secondary, because what I believe is irrelevant and what I believe won’t ever make the wrong church right. I will believe and follow the church that I deem to be the right one based on study, prayer, & history. But believing the history by itself, or basing it on feelings alone, or taking the Methodists word, based on scriptures that they think justify their point, by itself, isn’t going to be enough. It will be based on all of the above. I don’t know if that will get me where I want to be or not, but the belief that it will is all I’ve got right now.
I agree with your argument and I have to believe that there is an opportunity for everyone to go to Heaven. How exactly that happens, I’m note sure any more. My 27 year old brother died about two years ago. He was Catholic, as is the rest of my family but went to BYU on a football scholarship. I used to hear all of the time about how dumb the Mormon beliefs are. As all Mormons know, at BYU you have to take a religion class in which my brother learned things that only fueled the fire with my parents & family in their argumets against me and my beliefs. So now that he has died, did he have his chance to accept the gospel because he heard it in religion classes at BYU (and mocked it) and that was his one shot? Or did that not count and he’s being taught right now? Or is he in Purgatory? Or was he righteous enough that he is now already in Heaven. Again, I don’t know any more. But either way my belief in any of those possibilities doesn’t make Mormonism or Catholocism right or wrong. One is presumably right and the other presumably wrong.
And all I know is that I have serious doubts about the LDS church. The arguments that I hear in response to a lot of LDS history seems to be circular, hypothetical, conjecture in nature, speculative, and sometimes it frankly just doesn’t make sense. Granted I can see some of the same from the Catholic Apologists, but not nearly the same.
I want to hear valid points based on facts, based on history. Will I ever get that and be 100% satisified? Maybe not, probably not. My guess is that’s where faith will take over.
For now, I am hear to learn. I will continue to pray for guidance. I will continue to learn as much as I can and I hope that you and the other people on this web site will continue to help me understand.
Thanks
M
mfbukowski
Guest
When you covenant “til death do you part” that is precisely what you get. You must take on the right covenant in the right place with the proper priesthood. God honors covenants.
- Status