W
wilsonpd
Guest
Well Said!!
- Status
A
Arandur
Guest
If we’re so similar, on what basis do you reject the Catholic Church and accept the LDS?
Is it that it just appeals to you more? (you like the answers better)
Is it that Catholic beliefs don’t make sense to you or you don’t think they explore enough? (you should look deeper)
Is it that you believe and follow what a single man said? (Joseph Smith–yes there were “witnesses” to various things, but all those teachings are really based on his testimony)
Is it that you doubt God could hold together His Church?
Really, it mystifies me that people, particularly those who see a lot of things that parallel what they’re used to and what they agree with, can look at the only institution that can trace itself back to Jesus Christ himself and not give that institution a very strong “benefit of the doubt” over any other.
W
wilsonpd
Guest
So, if God wants me to be Catholic and he loves all of his children equally he must want you to be Catholic too!Because he wanted you to be catholic? I don’t know-- ask him. He only gives me SOME of the answers!
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
As you wish.I just love it that so many people are interested in ME.Now go away.
A
Arandur
Guest
You misunderstand original sin. It’s not “God punishing us” for the sins of Adam and Eve. It is a spiritual affliction upon humankind. It is what happened when these children of God sinned, changing their nature and that of their race. What did Jesus do if not make all things new? We needed him to repair the human race. Remove original sin and Jesus is absolutely pointless and worthless and makes no sense whatsoever and nobody really needs him for anything. Say that Adam and Eve’s sin did nothing that Christ had to repair and you make Jesus’s life a lie.
Stephen168
New member
Except ‘Telephone’ is a false analogy. Apostolic succession doesn’t work that way. A better analogy is 83 men in a room that knew Christ personally and heard the gospel. One guy dies and they bring in another guy. As the Church grew they added more guys to room; replacing each as needed. All the guys talked to each other and got the same story and passed on to new men as they were added to the room.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I think you’ve already established your interest, or lack thereof, in honest dialog, but to address the subject at hand, it was a response to your suggestion that we change many of the major doctrines of the Catholic church to match the heresy of Mormonism.
Or, to put it more succinctly “turn the Truth into a lie”.
It was your premise that was flawed. You have reaped what you have sown. It’s no one’s fault but yours if you don’t like the results.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
No, this is a misunderstanding. My only point is that we get hassled for not having a “central place” for finding doctrine, and I was just turning it around. It seems you don’t have one either. You say the cathechism, I say the standard works. Ok we’re even.
I think there have been a few apostates from the Catholic church. Like maybe the reformation? How did the catechism stop that? I don’t know what you are driving at here.
Not sure how you got that from this.
Well this is your opinion of course, nothing more, nothing less. Many many protestants Mormons Hindus and Buddhists might disagree. Certainly it is a long lasting human organization. But the rest is debatable. And Judaisim is older. If oldness proves truth, should we all be Jewish?
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Oh good. I feel better.Don’t worry, we’re not interested in you.
A
Arandur
Guest
Love is the point of free will. True love can only be had with true choice. So God made us with free will so that we could love Him fully. That free will also meant that we could choose not to love Him. Not loving Him is sin. That’s the fruit of the tree. It was necessarily a possibility the moment He gave us free will.
Now why would you say that someone HAS to choose something that is evil? If that has to happen, then there was no choice and free will did not exist. So no, no one ever HAD to choose against God. For those who did, God made it possible to repair the error by becoming one of us and taking all that sin upon Himself. It is a mathematical necessity when you start dealing with the infinites and the metaphysics of it. Since we are finite and God infinite, in order to bridge the breach caused by sin, only God could have crossed that infinite gulf, and only by doing it from our side of the gulf–through Christ.
To answer your questions directly and in brief, yes the choice to choose against God was always there so long as free will existed; yes God knew that some people would make that choice (and had a plan for it, though He wished it would not be so and did not intend for it to be so, which is where all the difference comes in–He did not Will sin, He was just ready to deal with it); and God provided the choice (which was not a set up) so that we could love Him in return.
You’ve posted an example list of the things you don’t think Catholics have attempted to answer and I and several others pretty quickly and easily provided you with summary answers. It’s not that the Catholic Church hasn’t asked and answered these things; it’s that you haven’t looked into it very well.
I recommend him because he speaks very clearly, so you should like that. He really brings out the full meaning of simple words. By “towering” and “deep” I just mean that the concepts some of these men deal with they’ve explored to levels that it takes me quite a while to grasp. They’ve explored the lower branches where I am pretty thoroughly and started picking the choice fruits higher up the tree
A
Arandur
Guest
Here’s a difference, I think: you view the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods as some sort of special order or station or type of priesthood, that even Jesus was a part of. The Aaronic priesthood, however, was a special provision given in limited fashion because the people screwed up at Sinai. It was also revoked. Melchizedek is referred to as an example, a pre-Israel priest-king. He was a type and shadow of Christ, for Jesus IS the priesthood. He is the High Priest, eternal and unique. The ordained offices only partake in his priesthood (not Melchizedek’s or Aaron’s). They act in the person of Christ in persona Christe, such that it is actually Christ who exercises his office through them in the Sacraments, and in various other ways. No one has priesthood of themselves. Christ is really, in this fashion, the only priest–and prophet and king.
Interestingly enough, “secondarily,” not in the primary role. Still, those were roles rather than offices/titles being described.
Many act as prophets. We don’t try to force God through one
Only their legitimate children were recognized. Cultural allowance was made, just as Jesus described that it was for divorce, when the true law is only and has always been and can only ever be one man and one woman marriage as long as both shall live.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I think I have answered that.
I have a strong personal need to come up with a rational theory that binds all of reality together.
That’s why I got into philosophy, and then left it when I realized it too couldn’t give me answers. It is a methodology, that’s all.
I find the best theory where I am. I came up with about 85% of Mormonism on my own, especially the philosophical postion, which I hope to get into someday with you. But to me, the “philosophy of Joseph Smith” is phenomenal. No one has been able to put together philosophy with Christianity the way he did. He could not have done it without inspiriation
And the bottom line is that I had a very strong – actually several very strong spiritual experiences which I cannot deny. And I know that God knows that I had them, and they were of Him.
To me the question is, why would anyone take anyone else’s word for the truth? Why would you take the church’s self-styled historical roots as the truth? History is written by people who have an ax to grind. If you read Catholic sources, you will get Catholic answers. If you use your own mind, you get answers that make sense to you, and I think it is a God-given responsibility to find the truth. I have the same problem with Mormons who accept it all without thinking about it.
All we have is the ability to have a relationship with God and go where He leads us. And this is where He has led me. And I am convinced that there is nothing “better” out there, and if you think there is, you are wrong. And all that I see and here shows me that I am right about this.
I don’t want to criticize your faith, I really don’t. I am inquiring because that is what my brain does. I seek truth wherever I can find it. And I know what is true by how it coheres with what I know already-- that is how I think everyone should do it, but many don’t. Many just accept what they are taught and are unthinking robots. I am not saying you (plural) are-- that is for you to decide.
But you can prove anything with history. People attack Joseph with history. But history is in the eye of the beholder. None of us were there, and no one but no one could put together a coherent world view like Joseph. I have done enough counseling to know that even when you listen to any one side of the story, that is not enough. Talk to a husband getting a divorce, and you will say-Dang that poor guy married a real… not nice lady. Talk to the wife and you will come out saying – Waith a minute-- he is a real rat after all! So where is the truth? Nobody put it together like Joseph - not Plato not Aristotle not anybody- and combine it with Christianity? No way.
So I am positive he did not do it himself. He had to be divinely guided and directed. That is the only explanation.
I suppose I will get one or two replies.
But life is short and posting takes time. You asked, I answered. I get along with Arandur, and will reply to him. Others maybe, if anyone cares.
A
Arandur
Guest
Except that I don’t think you have to show every reference TO a doctrine to say WHAT the doctrine is. Thus, the Catechism sufficices, and provides an indisputable basis of belief. Collections of scripture do not, for they lead to division over interpretation.
This is my point: Can those who broke communion point to the doctrines explained in the Catechism and say they agree with them all and say they are not Catholic? No. Can they point to the Scriptures and say they agree with them all and say they are not Catholic? Yes.
So we point to the defined doctrine collected and explained in a the single source of the Catechism. We know what we believe and there is not confusion about what the Church holds to have been established as truth. Thus we fit in that first sentence.
You point to the collection of scriptures in your standard works (which is UNdefined doctrine). Interpretations vary wildly, with all the interpreters claiming to hold the same sources as true. The fruit is division, with no beacon lighting the way to what God’s church holds to have been established as truth. Thus you fit in that second sentence.
By your implying that God’s works should decay over time. That’s not God, that’s either man or Satan you’re talking about. If your ideal is only of a decaying truth, then your ideal is not God’s everlasting and self-sustaining Truth once and for all renewed and enlivened in Christ, but is rather an ideal of man’s decaying “wisdom” or Satan’s deceits.
Oh, it’s quite a bit more than my opinion. How many people have observed rightly that the Jews, after all they have gone through throughout the ages, should not exist at all? They have endured more trials than any other group in history while holding together their identity. This is the Covenant of God at work.
Note, however, that the Jews do NOT have the unity or consistency of belief that the Catholic Church has had. The ways in which the Church has held together and demonstrated its durability are unique and are evidence of God’s preservation. All those other belief systems and cultures and so forth have not held together consistently and in union anywhere near like the Catholic Church has.
And as many have pointed out here, the LDS church has undergone such change in its short history that it’s resemblance to what JS initially started is highly debatable with an abundance of clear and contemporary sources. True, it is much easier to compare a 180 year old organization these days to its original form than it is to compare a 2000 year old one with its origins, but that also means that one would sure hope the picture would be pretty clear if that organization is supposed to be consistent.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Of course we know that. But you don’t understand our doctrine, of course. But if Mary was born without original sin then, what good was that? Do you mean that had she not been assumed, she would never die? She never got sick, or had any afflictions of humanity? I guess Jesus would be another case since he voluntarily gave up his life, but what about Mary? So her “nature” whatever that means, was not like the rest of humanity?
See I am looking for coherent doctrine – a consistent theory if you will. The fact that no one answers these questions shows me that the doctrine is deficient. No, we cannot know the boundlesness of God, but if we should be able to answer all human questions consistently. I don’t expect to know how to resurrect someone, but if questions I CAN ask with my limited puny brain are not answerable, how do I know you have the answer to questions I haven’t even though of?
I find these answers in the LDS church. It is consistent.
A
Arandur
Guest
You came up with
And then got 15% and assurance from JS.
I believe that Catholic teachings present by far the most consistent and coherent worldview, able so far to explain absolutely everything I have ever questioned or heard questioned insofar as it is possible to know from our human perspectives–and quite a bit beyond.
I had to come around to a few things, though. And rather than having one guy’s philosophy that I admired to back me up, I had Jesus’s, plus many others–for even if you don’t believe Jesus is the source of the Catholic Church’s teachings, it is almost unique among denominations in that it at least comes from the minds and works of many, many people acting together and forming a coherent union–Many forming One, just what I would expect of One True Church, not One (JS, Luther, etc) forming Many (sects, individuals). How can those Many have formed a coherent One that has endured like this if they were not Inspired? The only one person that God acted fully through was Jesus, not Joseph Smith or any other single man. His pattern is one of using many of His children–and so that is yet another evidence that the Catholic Church is far more likely to be correct than these many others.
You see something brilliant in Joseph. That mystifies most people, who see such rank scientific error coupled with a truly weak and broken system used to build a house of cards that collapses when any one flimsy element falls apart. Sounds harsh, yes, but I have examined Smith deeply and, humble as I try to be, can’t help think he was an intellectual lightweight. Tolkein’s fantasy holds more creativity and truth than Smith ever came up with.
And so we probably have to just disagree about the quality of the viewpoints. Do consider what I said about the nature of the viewpoints, though (the whole Many to One thing). When subjectivity must be disregarded as unenlightening, objective factors can often prove more illuminating.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
Great analogy. I like it. But there was no such room.
They were out in the world preaching in different places and different people heard different messages. And they all died martyrs in different parts of the world. It would have been great if there had been such a room though. It would have worked with email and cell phones too. They could have been in constant contact and deciding which guy to put in and what guy was starting to get dotty and what guy was adding his own interpretations in etc.
Instead, one was in Greece and the other was in Jerusalem and maybe even somebody was in India. And the student in Greece added in some philosophy, and the student in India added in prayer beads etc.
Unfortunately most of them probably were illiterate, and communication was… well, not great!
Too bad there wasn’t such a room!
M
mfbukowski
Guest
??? I love the results! Why do you think I don’t?
Part of the problem is that sometimes I don’t know what post you are responding to.
A
Arandur
Guest
Mski, you really don’t think these questions have been asked and answered? You really need to take a look around. I just recently saw some of these show up on CAF and Catholic Answers Quick Questions.
I am going to request something of you. Will you kindly please stop claiming that we don’t have answers or haven’t asked questions and instead rephrase and admit that you just haven’t seen them yet, or chosen to acknowledge their presence?
Mary still lived under the condition of the Fallen State, just as Jesus did, just as we all do after baptism. The Fallen State is a condition caused by original sin but is now separate from it, like the ripples from a drop of oil on water are separate from the pollution that oil will cause.
We have explained why it was good for Mary to have been born without sin–because she is the Ark of the New Covenant and the New Eve. It was necessary because it was how God set up how He was going to do Salvation through Christ. She is only that way for and because of Christ. As subject to the Fallen State, she could die and could get sick. It was only that she was preserved from the stain of sin that she was different, which is not a difference in “nature,” as I would use the word. You know, don’t you, that we believe that her preservation from original sin is essentially the same as the condition we are rendered in after we are baptised, right? So it’s really not that unusual, not something that no one else has access to.
M
mfbukowski
Guest
I think this is a bad address. Doesn’t work for me anyway.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Yes, that may be true. And then there’s this other part…
- Status