Could The Mormon Church Be The "true Church" Of Christ

[dianaiad]

I’d like to ask some clarification of your belief here. I understand that the BoM says infant baptism is an abomination and that either it or the D&C (both, I think) prescribe baptism at the age of 8, but setting aside just taking those things based on your latter day writings alone, can I ask about the reasoning behind the belief?

You seem to say that the difference is that we must “become aware of the difference between right and wrong, and thus capable of sin.” As you say in the previous paragraph, not knowing the difference between right and wrong means you are innocent of your actions.

So you must know the difference in order to sin. I don’t think that reasoning holds up in light of Adam and Eve, since they did not know the difference between right and wrong until they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil–yet they still sinned, big time.

Evidently they did know; they were told not to partake. They knew that they had been commanded not to, and they did anyway. That’s knowing.

Likewise, children lie long before the age of 8; I can remember knowing what was wrong to do well before the age of 8; and I think most parents will agree that healthy children learn the difference and know guilt and obedience and right and wrong well before the age of 8.

Some may. Some may not; it’s an average. There is some evidence now that people don’t actually become fully able to control themselves until they are 21 or 22, since that’s when the frontal cortex is finally fully developed.

So is this really the reason? It doesn’t seem to me that you can use “knowing the difference between right and wrong” as your foundation for sin and need for baptism.

Perhaps you cannot see it, but that’s what we are told, and that’s what we use.

Perhaps you mean to say that children under the age of 8 are not to be held accountable for right and wrong behavior? God doesn’t hold them responsible for their behavior? What is it, then, that makes the age of 8 so magical?

It doesn’t sound to me like the admonishment to become like little children would fit very well if it means something like being ignorant of the different between right and wrong or the ability to do whatever we wish and not be held responsible for our behavior.

I have also heard Smithians

I am not a “Smithian.” I am a Christian, a Mormon and LDS, in that ‘drill down’ order. Joseph Smith was a prophet, but we do not worship him; he is no different from Paul or Peter or any other prophet called of God; no more and no less. Having you call us “Smithians” is a lot like me calling you a “Papist:” the same sort of insulting intent is in both names.

I have no intention of using “Papist” with you. How about you respecting us to the same extent?

(and fundamentalists) say that around 8 years old children can make a commitment to God, and that’s why they shouldn’t have baptism until then. If this is the reason (and not the sin thing), that enters a whole different area: what exactly constitutes making a commitment; do those criteria need to be met for a valid baptism; what if they weren’t really met; and what about circumcision in the Jewish custom, which involved the faith and commitment of the parents (with the automatic spiritual assent of the child) for the child?

It could be both of those; if a child is able, on a primitive level, to know the difference between right and wrong in small things, on a ‘practice’ level, that’s one thing. Indeed, I don’t know anybody that simply wakes up on his 8th birthday and suddenly knows the difference between right and wrong when he did not do so the day before.

If it is also a matter of the ability to make a commitment for oneself…that may well also play a part. I understand that Catholic children are confirmed right around that age partly because of this?

 

[dianaiad]

That’s really the source of nearly all the conflicts I see here between Mormons and others.

We read LDS publications detailing the teachings of the LDS leadership (i.e.:The Gospel Principles Manual) and bring up a topic spelled out clearly in that publication (i.e.: righteous Mormons will become gods and have spirit children of their own just like Heavenly Father and will have the same relationship with them that we have with Heavenly Father - Gospel Principles Chapter 47).

We know that the major feature of our relationship with Heavenly Father is that we worship Him. So we ask if you really believe you will be worshiped by your spirit children. One Mormon objects and says “We don’t believe we will have spirit children”. Another objects and says “We don’t believe we will be worshiped by our spirit children”. Another says “We don’t believe we will literally become gods in the sense that Heavenly Father is God”.

This leaves us shaking our heads and wondering "Are they lying to us? Do they not know what their church teaches? Or is there simply no theological orthodoxy in Mormonism? If any one of these is so, then it is impossible to have a cogent discussion about Mormon teachings with a Mormon, because we are never discussing what Mormonism believes, only what individual Mormons believe or are willing to admit they believe. And that is nothing but a frustrating waste of time.

As many have said, it is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

Can you suggest a solution to this communication problem?

Stop trying to nail jello to the wall, accept the individual Mormons for what they believe and discuss that?

Religion uses concepts and languages like mathematicians use words to attempt to explain concepts of physics. Sometimes the vocabulary simply doesn’t translate well. It’s not your fault. It’s not our fault. It’s…culture and syntax.

I understand the problems…I’ve attempted to make sense of Thomas Aquinas and Peter Abelard.

 

[mfbukowski]

McConkie believed in using the term “virgin birth”, but qualified the term:

Here, McConkie says that he only calls Mary a virgin because the man she had sex with was an immortal man (as if that doesn’t count). He explains (as did Orson Pratt) that Jesus was conceived in the same way that mortal men are conceived by mortal fathers (i.e.: through sexual intercourse).

This is the common Mormon tactic of saying two completely different and opposing things and trying to harmonize them by changing the definition of one of the words - in this case the word “virgin”.

It won’t fly here.

Paul

This is not true. You take things out of context.

And what of the catholic practice of not changing “doctrine” but of allowing it to “evolve” as it “maginified” into teachings so far removed from the source that it is laughable.

The Immaculate Conception is implied in the bible? I won’t say what I think of that. Surely this is changed doctrine. Limbo is another one.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Melanie…

I only see attacks when:’

a: we are invited into a forum through deceitful means; that is, a promise of civil discourse only to have that promise broken. In other words, the use of ad hominems and other personal attacks.
b; when the person disagreeing with us insists that we believe what they think we do, and will not accept correction–and goes on to criticize us for beliefs that we don’t actually hold.
c: when they see our presence in the forum as ‘proselyting’ when the only thing we are doing is correcting erroneous information about what our beliefs actually are.

You want to discuss what I ACTUALLY BELIEVE? Come ahead. I will happily explain why I believe what I do. I’m not going to mock your beliefs. I’m not going to argue with you about them, and I’m not going to tell you what you “Really” believe and then call you a liar if you correct me.

It would be a rather nice change, actually, to have a conversation about what my beliefs actually are; why I believe in modern public revelation that results in scripture (an open canon), for instance, or why I believe in baptism for the dead, or why some aspects of the Word of Wisdom are requirements for Temple Recommends and others are not…

It would REALLY be a nice change if, once in awhile, I would say that I believed this or that, and be believed–and had THOSE beliefs actually addressed.

I don’t see evidence for what you are complaining about. No “regular” here sets out to be deceitful or attack anyone personally. Indeed, personal attacks are contrary to forum rules and can be grounds for disciplinary action including suspension and banishment. But if a Mormon is going to view a statement such as “I don’t believe Mormonism is Christian” (i.e. a forum member stating THEIR beliefs about Mormonism) and the Mormon takes that as a personal attack, that’s not a rational reaction. A Catholic doesn’t have to be hateful or mean to be dubious about Mormonism.

If I said the sun is purple, when you believe it is yellow, would you take it personally? Somehow I doubt it. But when it comes to Mormonism, any disagreement or criticism (much of it simply based on lack of evidence) is often taken as a personal attack. An intellectual discussion is not possible if one party personalizes every area of disagreement.

Deceit? We have had one Mormon after another come into the forum ostensibly to discuss religion only to proselytize. Some (ultimately) like to boast about their record of converting Catholics. Who is being deceitful in that situation? Perhaps you’re not here to proselytize, but many are. When they find out they cannot support their religion, they often leave. In the view of most Catholics here, any Catholic converted to Mormonism really didn’t know their Catholic faith. It’s not a big feather in anyone’s cap. In your own case, while it is not right to accuse you of proselytizing when you are not, your Mormon brethren may share some of the blame for this reputation of Mormons in general.

As for “what Mormons believe”, it appears there is quite a diversity of belief and Rebecca is accurate when she says there appears to be no orthodoxy in Mormonism. Some of the older, more obscure beliefs that have been discussed in this thread may not be ones you personally share, but to deny that other Mormons believe them, or that they were never taught ANYWHERE when you have people right here in the forum who were in Seminary and other classes where they WERE taught is at best disingenuous.

You appear not to like it when someone tells you what you believe when, in fact, you believe something else. I can understand that, I wouldn’t like it either. Those of us who have had various experiences with Mormonism, some from the sidelines, such as having Mormon friends, and others, such as Rebecca and Paul as former Mormons themselves, appear to have had different experiences than you have, and to have been taught different things. It is preposterous for someone to tell Rebecca, for example, that she never heard something in Seminary when she absolutely did. I submit it is just as unsettling as being told you believe something you don’t.

When it comes right down to it, there are many things in Mormonism that are unusual. As a general rule, Mormons appear to be uncomfortable discussing certain topics, particularly with non-members. It’s almost as if they’re taboo. Such things as Heavenly Mother, the practice of Polygamy in the Celestial Kingdom, Eternal Progression, God as an Exalted Man, Becoming a God of your own world ~ Mormons today appear distinctly uncomfortable about these things, even though they are all part of Mormonism in some way, even if they are now viewed only as some arcane historical anomaly.

Denying the very existence of these things, a lot of them reaching back into the origins of the faith, does nothing to further a reputation of intellectual honesty among Mormons. Perhaps doctrine has changed. Perhaps some things never were doctrine. But to deny them utterly when someone else has been taught it in a class at a Mormon church only serves to increase suspicion that Mormons are hiding things. Correcting the record is fine. A lot of Mormon denials go far beyond that.

 

[Stephen168]

This is not true. You take things out of context.

Could this be true? Maybe Bukowski will put it in context for us.

And what of the catholic practice of not changing “doctrine” but of allowing it to “evolve” as it “maginified” into teachings so far removed from the source that it is laughable.

The Immaculate Conception is implied in the bible? I won’t say what I think of that. Surely this is changed doctrine. Limbo is another one.

Oh, nevermind.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Bukowski, you’ve been told before that the concept of Limbo was never doctrine. If something never WAS doctrine, then if the concept is dropped, doctrine hasn’t changed.

The Immaculate Conception just makes sense. It’s completely logical for God to create a holy vessel for the incarnation. Of course there are more scholarly references, and I’m sure you can find them if you care to look. Naturally, if you’re just using this example as something to poke at Catholics about, then you probably won’t care about the the more scholarly references.

 

[dianaiad]

Bukowski, you’ve been told before that the concept of Limbo was never doctrine. If something never WAS doctrine, then if the concept is dropped, doctrine hasn’t changed.

<snip to end…I’m not touching the doctrine of Immaculate Conception; I still don’t understand it enough to address it.)

Ok. “Limbo” never was doctrine. Yet it was taught by many of your great spiritual leaders. I have personally been told, by several Catholics, that it is true. I have read books by Catholics that describe it in some detail.

Yet it was never doctrine.

Y’know, I actually believe that, and am perfectly willing to accept it; it is one of those things that a Catholic can a: make their own mind up on or b: is a mystery. You have no problem with it one way or another, and if you don’t, I certainly don’t.

And yet y’all don’t seem to want to allow others the same flexibility; you get all bent out of shape when Mormons disagree about certain things, and tell YOU that ‘it’s not doctrine’. if some Mormon somewhere has taught it, or believed it, then to you of course we must all bow down and believe it as if it were carved on twin tablets on a mountain.

Well, next time, think of Limbo. Perhaps you will understand a little bit more what the problem REALLY is.

 

[ricko]

This is not true. You take things out of context.

And what of the catholic practice of not changing “doctrine” but of allowing it to “evolve” as it “maginified” into teachings so far removed from the source that it is laughable.

The Immaculate Conception is implied in the bible? I won’t say what I think of that. Surely this is changed doctrine. Limbo is another one.

Christ is the new Adam (1 Cor 15:45), Mary is the new Eve. Mary is the Ark of the NT.

A cloud of glory covered the Tabernacle and Ark. Exodus 40:34
"And the angel said to her: "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Luke 1:35

The Ark spent three months in the house of Obededom the Gittite 2 Sam 6:11
Mary spent three months in the house of Zechariah and Elizabeth Luke 1:26

King David asked: “How can the ark of the Lord come to Me?” 2 Sam 6:9
Elizabeth asked Mary, “why is this granted to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” Luke 1:43

David leaped and danced before the Lord when the Ark arrived in Jerusalem. 2 Sam 6:14
John the Baptist leaped for joy in Elizabeth’s womb when Mary arrived. Luke 1:44

The OT Ark prefigured Mary. God insisted that this Ark be without stain or defect because it was to carry the written Word of God.Even more would God want to preserve Mary, the NT Ark who carried the Living Word of God (Jesus) from all stain or defect.

 

[MelanieAnne]

<snip to end…I’m not touching the doctrine of Immaculate Conception; I still don’t understand it enough to address it.)

Ok. “Limbo” never was doctrine. Yet it was taught by many of your great spiritual leaders. I have personally been told, by several Catholics, that it is true. I have read books by Catholics that describe it in some detail.

Yet it was never doctrine.

Y’know, I actually believe that, and am perfectly willing to accept it; it is one of those things that a Catholic can a: make their own mind up on or b: is a mystery. You have no problem with it one way or another, and if you don’t, I certainly don’t.

And yet y’all don’t seem to want to allow others the same flexibility; you get all bent out of shape when Mormons disagree about certain things, and tell YOU that ‘it’s not doctrine’. if some Mormon somewhere has taught it, or believed it, then to you of course we must all bow down and believe it as if it were carved on twin tablets on a mountain.

Well, next time, think of Limbo. Perhaps you will understand a little bit more what the problem REALLY is.

I’m not sure what it is you’re seeking to have understood. I understand a lot, but don’t agree with all that I understand. What is the point?

Limbo was a story. It’s not something I get worked up about. What is irksome is that some people, knowing it was never doctrine, like to keep poking around about it. I’m not a big fan of intellectual dishonesty and when you know better and you keep doing it anyway, that’s intellectually dishonest.

Maybe Mormonism is different, but the Catholic faith is the Catholic faith in its entirety. One is not a Catholic, not really, if they pick and choose what to believe. A Catholic is someone who believes the whole thing ~ everything the Church presents as doctrine. There is really no such thing as a “Cafeteria Catholic”. It’s not “flexible” ~ you either are a Catholic or you are not. You either believe it or you don’t. And just for the record, there are no Mormon Catholics or Catholic Mormons. Further, however the Catholic Church views Mormonism, it does not accept the Mormon baptism as valid.

Believing in stories like Limbo? I suppose believing other things is fine, as long as those other things present no conflict with doctrine. If the story of Limbo made some people comfortable at some point in time in history, fine. More recently (in the 70’s I think it was, but maybe the late 60’s) it was declared not to have ever truly existed. But it was never doctrine in the first place. Bukowski knows this, yet insists on bringing it up repeatedly as an example of “changes in Catholic doctrine”. It never was doctrine, it was never taught as doctrine. The Church declaring it an invalid concept does not constitute a ‘change in doctrine’. Bukowski is intellectually dishonest, or at least intellectually LAZY, to continue to present it as a “change in doctrine”.

I don’t get “bent out of shape” about “flexibility”. I do find intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy very off-putting. I am also not generally swayed by emotional appeals. The “appeal” of Mormonism is often very emotional and not grounded in reason.

The analogy you make is not valid. Having said that, I have no problem with your saying “Eternal Progression”, just as an example, is not “doctrine”. But let’s be clear. Are all these problematical issues in Mormonism just not doctrine NOW? Or were they NEVER doctrine? There’s a difference.

If Mormon “prophets” taught something as doctrine at some point in the past, and now such subjects are viewed differently, that’s quite a bit different from “never doctrine”. Perhaps the Mormons could benefit from the Catholic practice of pondering announcements of great importance and/or doctrinal significance for 100’s of years?

A lot of these problematical subjects that appear to be, at least currently, rejected by Mormonism, were taught as doctrine by one or more Mormon prophets in the past. Some persons posting to this forum, once Mormon and now Catholic were taught some of these things in various Mormon classes. It is ludicrous to tell someone who was in such a class and heard such a teaching that they didn’t hear what they heard. Maybe it was different from what you heard, but to say they were not taught that, to deny the very possibility, does nothing to further the cause of Mormon intellectual honesty.

THAT’s what I find odd. I’m not going to go back and cite examples, but any Mormon saying that something is not current Mormon doctrine is one thing, but for a Mormon (any Mormon, not just you) to say that someone in a Mormon class didn’t hear what they heard is just silly. In other words, we all know what has been taught before and it’s just nuts to deny it.

Bottom line, I don’t know where such things as “y’all don’t seem to want to allow others the same flexibility” come from. What’s inflexible? Catholics don’t have a change in doctrine, Mormons do, but what’s the point? Or Mormons don’t either, so what? Intellectual honesty and forthrightness even on subjects Mormons would prefer to set aside would further your cause better.

 

[MelanieAnne]

<snip to end…I’m not touching the doctrine of Immaculate Conception; I still don’t understand it enough to address it.)

Forgot to say ~ the essentials of the Immaculate Conception are pretty easy. The Church pondered it for a very long time before announcing it as doctrine. This is not to say it was “new”. But at the announcement it was formalized.

In its essence, the Immaculate Conception acknowledges that in preparation for the Incarnation, God made Mary sinless, without the stain of Original Sin and she remained sinless thereafter during her life. It makes perfect sense that God could only inhabit a Holy place, including Mary’s womb. Hence, Mary was made that way, without sin.

Is she divine? No. God made her sinless, but she is still human. She is not sinless by her own power but only through the grace and power of God. She is not worshiped but she is obviously revered as the Mother of Jesus.

Others have quoted scriptural references that point to the Immaculate Conception, mine is just the every-day explanation.

 

[matt1985]

To answer the question posed in the topic I would say no. I don’t believe the book for mormon was inspired by God. The bible warns of false profets. I believe every profet that came after Jesus was not inspired by god. The bible warns about this.

 

[pismopal]

Well, I’m pretty much over the cold.

So I have a question…when did I ever say you were 'cursed by God?"
…and when have I ever been nasty to you about your beliefs?

I substituted the word " black" with “Cursed by G-d” because I thought the early thoughts of JS or BY were that blacks were …never mind… maybe on second thought the play on words wasn’t funny…especially since I don’t think blacks were cursed by G-d…now or ever and furthermore, I’m certain that you don’t either.
Have you ever been nasty to me about my beliefs? No…emphatically no…but you accused me of being rude ( paraphrased) when there was no rudeness in word or inference. I am willing to let you be an LDS member in good standing without any criticism from me to you personally but my challenges have to do with points you make…nothing more. If they are well made or not, so then that is the way it is, nothing more. Have a nice day.

 

[Arandur]

Evidently they did know; they were told not to partake. They knew that they had been commanded not to, and they did anyway. That’s knowing.

That’s debatable. Seems the general interpretation, and the one that Satan used to tempt them with, was that they did not know and would not know the difference between good and evil until they ate of the tree.

Makes no difference however. You are saying that obedience is a matter of right and wrong, of sin. I agree. God cares very much about obedience, and treated His children like little children through must of our history (and still does in many respects).

Notice: “like little children.” Little children learn very quickly what obedience means, and that they should obey, that there are consequences (which they may not fully understand) for not obeying. How is that different from Adam and Eve?

Some may. Some may not; it’s an average. There is some evidence now that people don’t actually become fully able to control themselves until they are 21 or 22, since that’s when the frontal cortex is finally fully developed.

Are people who are addicted or have a predisposition towards something ever fully in control by that measure? Are they not still at least partly responsible for sin? Psychological control and degree of self-discipline does not change sin, only culpability (in terms of the full assent of the will); it is no measure for what is sin and what is not.

Your assertion that the experience of children varies calls the question of why, then, baptism for the remission of sins should wait if they have committed sin earlier. Why such an arbitrary standard? Is it subject to change with the aforementioned psychological developments?

Perhaps you cannot see it, but that’s what we are told, and that’s what we use.

I see other connections, like that with circumcision. Like Jesus not wanting the children (even infants, as the Greek demonstrates) from being kept from him. Why prevent baptism? You have said children are already with Jesus. That’s not what he said in that passage. We are also called sons of Adam, sons of Satan, who must be reborn in Christ. It is not that I cannot see what you base your belief on; it is that I see other things that lead me to my belief.

I am not a “Smithian.” I am a Christian, a Mormon and LDS, in that ‘drill down’ order. Joseph Smith was a prophet, but we do not worship him; he is no different from Paul or Peter or any other prophet called of God; no more and no less. Having you call us “Smithians” is a lot like me calling you a “Papist:” the same sort of insulting intent is in both names.

I have no intention of using “Papist” with you. How about you respecting us to the same extent?

Maybe I didn’t state this earlier on this thread; perhaps it was on another. I use the term “Smithian” primarily to describe the several various groups that accept the Book of Mormon and that had their origin in Joseph Smith’s actions. These include LDS, CoC, Remnant and Restoration branches. I have had quite a bit of experience with the first and last of that list, and some of the others. The beliefs of these groups have some common threads, but their theologies are wildly different.

So I use the term “Smithian” to include those groups. Feel free to use “catholic” or “orthodox” with a small “c” or “o” if you wish, if you want to describe not just Catholic teachings but those of other mainline conservative Christians (depending on the belief in question, this could include Catholic and Orthodox to Coptic, Anglican, even Methodist and Lutheran and beyond, but less so with evangelical fundamentalists and many baptists).

It is hard to detach the barb you perceive from this appellation while still including the other groups. Heck, I thought “Mormon” was a term many LDS didn’t like.

Please understand, though, that “Smithian” is quite different from “papist.” “Lutheran” does not imply worship of Martin Luther, just of following in worship along the lines of the church structure he advised. Many believe it was the Spirit who led Luther to do this just as much as you believe God led Joseph Smith to a restoration. Members of both churches must rely on the truthfulness ultimately of their founders–Luther and Joseph Smith. So yes, as much as Lutherans are Lutherans, those who believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith are Smithians. Since there is no single person to point to as founder of the Catholic/Orthodox faiths (except for Jesus), it is not analogous in any fashion to attempt to apply a similar appellation. Even calling us “Nicene Christians” (which I think most Catholics would accept proudly) misses the ante-Nicene origins of our teachings and organization.

If it is also a matter of the ability to make a commitment for oneself…that may well also play a part. I understand that Catholic children are confirmed right around that age partly because of this?

Usually confirmation is now around 12-16. It can happen at any time, however. It is not the same as baptism. The reason for waiting does involve a greater capacity to understand, and I think the change has mostly to do with practical desires to improve catechism.

 

[Just_Returned]

I don’t know that you can explain the difference clearly. If you don’t agree with a church why would you join it?

How do you know a church is “true” if you disagree with portions of it?

Why are you not Baptist even though you disagree with some of their doctrine? Where do you draw the line?

Yes I was being a bit sarcastic, but I think the point is a real one.

What portions of Catholicism do you disagree with? How far can you go before you are no longer Catholic?

I am Mormon because I believe it all.

I am a Catholic and I agree with you. I get so frustrated with what we call “Cafeteria Catholics” that pick and choose what they want to believe.

You’re right! If you don’t believe it all then you are NOT what you say you are. Either you’re a Catholic or You’re a Protestant.
If one believes Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church and that Jesus IS The Allmighty God who became flesh then why does that same person say, “Well? The Church got it right on Doctrine A’, but on doctrine B’ their full of it”??? I don’t get it?
I was always Taught that if you’re opinion is different than God’s opinion, you’re the one who’s wrong. Of course I know God doesn’t deal with opinions. God deals only in Truth. And the “TRUTH” is a person, Jesus Christ.

“If they will not listen to the Church let them Be as the Heathen.”

Good Luck to you sir, may God Bless you always.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not sure what it is you’re seeking to have understood. I understand a lot, but don’t agree with all that I understand. What is the point?

Limbo was a story. It’s not something I get worked up about. What is irksome is that some people, knowing it was never doctrine, like to keep poking around about it. I’m not a big fan of intellectual dishonesty and when you know better and you keep doing it anyway, that’s intellectually dishonest.

Exactly. The idea that God had sex with Mary is a story. It’s not something I get worked up about. What is irksome is that some people, knowing it was never doctrine, like to keep poking around about it. I’m not a big fan of intellectual dishonesty and when you know better and you keep doing it anyway, that’s intellectually dishonest.

Do you begin to see…??

The thing is, there ARE many Catholics who believe Limbo is more than ‘a story.’ However, their individual beliefs do not mean that every Catholic must agree, or that it must be seen as ‘doctrine.’

It is, in fact, a double standard that is being used here, and THAT is the point I’m attempting to make.

Maybe Mormonism is different, but the Catholic faith is the Catholic faith in its entirety. One is not a Catholic, not really, if they pick and choose what to believe. A Catholic is someone who believes the whole thing ~ everything the Church presents as doctrine. There is really no such thing as a “Cafeteria Catholic”. It’s not “flexible” ~ you either are a Catholic or you are not. You either believe it or you don’t. And just for the record, there are no Mormon Catholics or Catholic Mormons. Further, however the Catholic Church views Mormonism, it does not accept the Mormon baptism as valid.

Yet:
a: there are some (make that quite a few) Catholics who believe in Limbo. (for example.)
b. I am aware that there are no “Mormon Catholics” or “Catholic Mormons” and that the Catholic church does not accept LDS baptisms. We don’t accept yours, either. I don’t know what this has to do with the topic, but I am aware…though…
c. I thought that once a Catholic is baptized, that baptism is not ‘removable?’ So I guess I’ll have to amend that: there might be Catholic Mormons, since “once a Catholic, always a Catholic,” but Mormons don’t see it that way–you can’t be a Mormon Catholic.

Believing in stories like Limbo? I suppose believing other things is fine, as long as those other things present no conflict with doctrine. If the story of Limbo made some people comfortable at some point in time in history, fine. More recently (in the 70’s I think it was, but maybe the late 60’s) it was declared not to have ever truly existed. But it was never doctrine in the first place. Bukowski knows this, yet insists on bringing it up repeatedly as an example of “changes in Catholic doctrine”. It never was doctrine, it was never taught as doctrine. The Church declaring it an invalid concept does not constitute a ‘change in doctrine’. Bukowski is intellectually dishonest, or at least intellectually LAZY, to continue to present it as a “change in doctrine”.

I think he may be, as I am, pointing out the ‘story’ of Limbo as an example of what others are doing to US in terms of Mary’s virginity and other things. Look at how upset you are regarding Limbo. Now turn this around, as I did in that first paragraph, and put yourself in our positions regarding some of the things we are accused of believing that ‘just ain’t so.’

It’s very much a double standard…and if Bro. Bukowski isn’t using Limbo to point that out, then ***I ***sure am.

I don’t get “bent out of shape” about “flexibility”. I do find intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy very off-putting. I am also not generally swayed by emotional appeals. The “appeal” of Mormonism is often very emotional and not grounded in reason.

Well, I would say exactly the same thing about Catholicism, Melanie, and be exactly right. The thing is, both religions depend upon emotion and the suspension of ‘pure reason.’ because both of them depend upon other means to provide evidence for their truth. I happen to think that Mormonism is quite reasonable and internally consistent and that Catholicism is not. You have the exact opposite opinion…and we both come to that conclusion for other than “logical”, empirical, reasons.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Exactly. The idea that God had sex with Mary is a story. It’s not something I get worked up about. What is irksome is that some people, knowing it was never doctrine, like to keep poking around about it. I’m not a big fan of intellectual dishonesty and when you know better and you keep doing it anyway, that’s intellectually dishonest.

Do you begin to see…??

As I said before, I understand many things. But since I never brought things up like God having sex with Mary, I don’t know why you’re going on and on about it with me. Why not take that up with someone who did bring it up?

The thing is, there ARE many Catholics who believe Limbo is more than ‘a story.’ However, their individual beliefs do not mean that every Catholic must agree, or that it must be seen as ‘doctrine.’

It is, in fact, a double standard that is being used here, and THAT is the point I’m attempting to make.

Yet:
a: there are some (make that quite a few) Catholics who believe in Limbo. (for example.)
b. I am aware that there are no “Mormon Catholics” or “Catholic Mormons” and that the Catholic church does not accept LDS baptisms. We don’t accept yours, either. I don’t know what this has to do with the topic, but I am aware…though…
c. I thought that once a Catholic is baptized, that baptism is not ‘removable?’ So I guess I’ll have to amend that: there might be Catholic Mormons, since “once a Catholic, always a Catholic,” but Mormons don’t see it that way–you can’t be a Mormon Catholic.

There are those who post to this forum (not yourself and not Bukowski) who are active in both faiths and describe themselves as Catholic Mormons.

I think he may be, as I am, pointing out the ‘story’ of Limbo as an example of what others are doing to US in terms of Mary’s virginity and other things. Look at how upset you are regarding Limbo. Now turn this around, as I did in that first paragraph, and put yourself in our positions regarding some of the things we are accused of believing that ‘just ain’t so.’

It’s very much a double standard…and if Bro. Bukowski isn’t using Limbo to point that out, then ***I ***sure am.

The internet is an imperfect medium of expression, but then, sometimes language is too. I brought up Limbo as an example. When you write “look how upset you are regarding Limbo” I have to laugh. I am not the least bit upset about Limbo. I do recall when I was 19 or 20, wondering what happened to all the unbaptized babies that were supposedly in Limbo when Limbo was declared to never have existed. A priest later cleared it up for me ~ they’re in heaven. I’m sure, as a Mormon, that’s exactly where you’d expect them to be.

What annoys me is when someone ~ in this case Bukowski ~ uses Limbo as an example of a change in doctrine when they KNOW BETTER and do it anyway. You get one pass, when you don’t know better. When you find out you’re wrong, and keep doing it, it is deliberate. In the context that Bukowski is doing it, it’s not to point out double standards. So it’s just rude and argumentative? Anyway, it certainly not conducive to productive dialog.

Well, I would say exactly the same thing about Catholicism, Melanie, and be exactly right. The thing is, both religions depend upon emotion and the suspension of ‘pure reason.’ because both of them depend upon other means to provide evidence for their truth. I happen to think that Mormonism is quite reasonable and internally consistent and that Catholicism is not. You have the exact opposite opinion…and we both come to that conclusion for other than “logical”, empirical, reasons.

I don’t find the analogy to be even a tiny bit persuasive. The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t get “bent out of shape” about “flexibility”. I do find intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy very off-putting. I am also not generally swayed by emotional appeals. The “appeal” of Mormonism is often very emotional and not grounded in reason.

I also believe they are irrational and illogical.
The two examples I have come across are their understanding of Baptism and ‘the Fall’ of Adam. Of course I don’t think their understanding of Baptism is unique to them but ‘the Fall’ seems to be.

 

[Arandur]

And yet y’all don’t seem to want to allow others the same flexibility; you get all bent out of shape when Mormons disagree about certain things, and tell YOU that ‘it’s not doctrine’. if some Mormon somewhere has taught it, or believed it, then to you of course we must all bow down and believe it as if it were carved on twin tablets on a mountain.

Well, next time, think of Limbo. Perhaps you will understand a little bit more what the problem REALLY is.

You have a fair point here. The only problem is that it is very hard to figure out what is actually “doctrine” among Mormons, even (perhaps especially) on MADB. Catholics, on the other hand have more definite things to point to, more objective references that don’t depend on the word of one person over another. The simplest and most direct is the Creed. Then there are the conciliar documents (some of which don’t make absolute definition, it is true, but they generally say when they do). Then there is the Catechism (again, small caveats within it about what is best known at the time and what is authoritatively defined).

It would help if Mormons could come up with something similar. And please don’t say the Bible, BoM, D&C, or PoGP. As seen on MADB and even among non-Mormon sects that believe in these works, there is much disagreement of theology. Just as Protestants don’t agree on the Bible and thus can’t just point to it to tell people what they believe, neither can anyone else do the same with other scriptures.

 

[mfbukowski]

Where do you get that? My last post was all about God sharing with us. It was in response to a post of yours saying that our “progression” into godhood “adds to God’s glory”–THAT is US sharing with HIM. I had it right the first time, mski

If you want to agree with my terminology and my way of explaining things (God sharing with us), please do. You keep sounding more Catholic, and that’s great! (Just in case you were tempted, don’t go and say that I’m sounding more Mormon; I’ve never heard a Mormon espouse the ideas you have, and we Catholics held and taught all of these beliefs first ).

Many different possibilities for each of them are debated, including the premise that the universe is expanding. As for change and perfection and all that, I’m not sure what you’re getting at, how you are relating that to this eschatalogical discussion. I expect that in eternal life we humans, still created as we are within time and with both physical and material definition, will always fundamentally exist within time and have the capacity for change in some respect. That’s consistent with how God created us. If He wants to transform us, He could, but that would make us something other than human, it would seem to me.

Well I definitely didn’t write it well, but we will have to talk about it. I haven’t got to that incidentally, I think I will have some time on Wednesday.

As far as the terminology, I am trying to speak “Catholic” and hopefully my Mormon accent is not so bad that I am not understandable. But I honestly think that the distinctions are not as great as many make of them. An interesting experiment would be for us to have a discussion on MADB which is an LDS board which also has a lot of Catholics on it. That way, those in the “peanut gallery” could help us translate. I am showing my age-- eveyone here who knows what the “peanut gallery” is raise your hands! Howdy Doody show – 50’s kids show–little kids in an on-camera audience were called the “peanut gallery”.

I can’t imagine how we could exist in time in heaven?

Is Jesus limited by his body then to always being in time? How about Mary? To Be Discussed.

 

[mfbukowski]

C-Sections, the anesthesia can be epidural, spinal or general. Only general puts you out completely. The other 2 are regional, and block pain, and all sensation, to a the lower portion of your body. You are completely conscious. But no, baptizing your own child would not be possible.

Been at the births of 4 of mine, and I think it would be possible. But maybe I am just being contrary for the fun of it