Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Yes Catholics can attend the services of other churches, they just can’t attend them instead of attending Mass.
- Status
J
Jerusha
Guest
Perhaps I used the wrong word. In LDS theology, God punishes people for the sins of their ancestors. The position of Blacks in American society was a punishment on them for the sins of Cain or Ham. The Natives were being punished for the sins of their ancestors as described in the BoM. Abiandi pronounced a curse upon the descendants of those who martyred him. Joseph Smith pronounced a curse on the descendants of those who would harm him. And there are other examples.
We don’t even know if my ancestor stayed home on that day in June in 1844. But he is on the list of the Warsaw militia.
Many ex-LDS from the founding families express shame at the deeds of some of their ancestors. But they also know that God does not punish them for that.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Because it is a mortal sin not to attend Mass? (I’m trying to learn)
I seldom ditched my church to attend Mass with my friend, usually just juggled schedules to attend both.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Ok, I’m not going to argue what any Mormon person might or might have not believe at one point. But I shall say what I believe—
I do NOT believe in any hereditary curse for anyone. I have never been taught this, I do not believe this, and would strong object to anyone trying to teach this. To quote LDS Articles of Faith:
“2 **We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, **and not for Adam’s transgression.” (Bolding mine).
A person is only accountable before God for their own sins. Most definitely not the sins of their grandparents.
Again, I’m trying to set the record straight for my own beliefs, and not interest in debating what some other person might have said/believed.
J
Jerusha
Guest
I recognize that you do not hold to the whole kit and kaboodle. That would be a real brain-strain. 
The articles of faith were a master-stroke of PR for Joseph Smith. Too bad so many don’t observe them.
The articles of faith were a master-stroke of PR for Joseph Smith. Too bad so many don’t observe them.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Jerusha, I know a lot of Mormons, and I do not know a single one who would agree with your previous statement.I recognize that you do not hold to the whole kit and kaboodle. That would be a real brain-strain.
The articles of faith were a master-stroke of PR for Joseph Smith. Too bad so many don’t observe them.
J
Jerusha
Guest
You agree that LDS culture in your area is pretty laid-back, though. I agree with that. Good rules to follow when one lives among non-Mormons. So I understand why you see it that way.
J
jane_doe
Guest
J
Jerusha
Guest
The curse thing? It is not an opinion. I have seen it expressed among radical Mormons, and it is well-documented in LDS literature-- BoM, D&C, Journal of Discourses. There are many contradictions in Mormonism. That is just one. However, #2 of the AoF can also be read as a denial of Original Sin, which is another radical difference between Catholicism and Mormonism. Again, it goes back to Mormonism being literal about the Bible.
It is in the nature of humanity to do what Adam and Eve did. We all defy God’s instructions from time to time.
T
Telstar
Guest
Same, here. Thanks!
Well, that’s not too bad. Hopefully, any problems will get worked out over time.Oh, it’s not so hard. My family is very accepting and loving of my husband, and visits more than my husband would like!
Occasionally I do have some religiously based problems with my evangelical mother-in-law though (mostly based on misconceptions).
Yeah, I can’t complain, too much. We’ve had our ups and downs, but we made it through without too many ‘scars’.
Just being in the building is probably not a problem at all. But, if there’s any kind of preaching or evangelizing going on, even if it’s only among the children, then that would definitely not be acceptable, IMHO.
You’re right, zaff. We are allowed attend services in other churches, as long as we also attend Mass, now. But, when I was a kid, we weren’t even allowed to step inside of another church, at all. Just visiting another church, talking to the minister, or talking to the people in a nonreligious social gathering, is probably not too much of a problem, at least not for an adult. Even for a teen that is accompanied by a responsible Catholic adult that can answer any questions they might have, it’s probably OK. Anything more that, tends to make me a little more uncomfortable.
As Catholics, we should certainly never partake in any kind of communion service with members of another faith. I, personally, have had a very profound experience that convinced me of that. It’s one thing that I’m very sure about. For teens or younger children, I would not be comfortable having them participate in a social situation, especially where there might also be some sort of preaching, or discussion of any differences between beliefs. Maybe some people will think I’m being too “old fashioned”, but I do tend to use more caution when it comes to matters that can seriously affect our own, or our children’s faith.
X
XuDan
Guest
I was taught in priesthood that if my children were to walk away from “the church” that it was due to being a poor patriarch in my family and I would bare the responsibility of their “sin” of leaving the faith. This was read out of the lesson manual. So at one point every priesthood holder was taught that. If it is not taught now, I would be surprised.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Growing up we were allowed to attend church with our friends families though about the only time it came up was a Saturday night sleep over. In that case I might go to church with my friends family on Sunday morning, if they stayed overnight with us they came to church with us.
I don’t know how “old fashioned” you mean by old fashioned, my mom and dad were born in 1925 and 1920 respectively are you older old fashioned than that
T
Telstar
Guest
When I was growing up (pre Vat II), that never would have happened.
My parents were born in 1900 & 1916, so I think I’m a bit more ‘old fashioned’ just from the influences from their era (even though I wasn’t born until the early 50’s). I already said I was an old fart, married for 44 years in May!I don’t know how “old fashioned” you mean by old fashioned, my mom and dad were born in 1925 and 1920 respectively are you older old fashioned than that
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
Some random thoughts:When I was growing up (pre Vat II), that never would have happened.
My parents were born in 1900 & 1916, so I think I’m a bit more ‘old fashioned’ just from the influences from their era (even though I wasn’t born until the early 50’s). I already said I was an old fart, married for 44 years in May!
My older siblings grew up pre Vat II and they did the same, we all had to go to Mass on Sunday though. Rural Nebraska was pretty old fashioned even in 1938 when my dad left for the Navy. My MIL was born in 1918 and it shocked me when I found out my DH and his siblings didn’t have to go to church until Kindergarten. That actually still amazes me.
J
jane_doe
Guest
It is interesting to see the changes Vat II brought to Catholic culture.
J
jane_doe
Guest
It is a parent’s duty to teach their children the ways of the Lord, and if you don’t do that then yes the sin is on you. Now, whether or not the children follow them is up to each kid, and they alone are responsible.
After all, in LDS theology, a third of God’s children choose not to follow His ways, and He was the perfect teacher. LDS scriptures (including the Bible) are also ripe with examples of children not following their parents’ righteous ways. You can only teach children, not force obedience.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Telstar, mind if I ask your reasoning for this?
Growing up, my Mom encouraged my talking to other faiths. I’ve been visiting other churches since my youngest childhood, with and without parental supervision. When there was an idea present that didn’t make sense, or sit right, I would ask my mom about it, just like I did when there was a strange idea at school. Mom and I would talk about things, and I would ask unorthodox questions, and that was cool: it was opportunity for learning more about other faiths, Mormon faith, and my own personal.
Note: I appreciate your sharing with me and by no means to insult your parenting style. I’m just curious about a methodology so different than what I’m used to.
J
jane_doe
Guest
Ah so that’s where you’re coming from. Makes more sense now.
(Speaking as myself)
Mormon theology has change over time, something I embrace and feel is a good thing. We, as a people, and me as an individual, grow more and more into Christ’s way. Gradually we let go of childish things (like grudges over past wrongs), and embrace a more Christ like way (like deep forgiveness).
X
XuDan
Guest
I’m sure that’s how you understand it, and perhaps how it is taught these days. However, that is not how it was once taught to the priesthood. It was once taught that if your child leaves the faith it is only because the patriarch failed to teach them properly and thus the sin is on the patriarch of the family (because the assumption is that if the child was indoctrinated correctly by their father they would never consider leaving, let alone do it). That is quite different. But, as you have pointed out, LDS theology changes. So perhaps it is taught differently these days.
S
Stevenrushing
Guest
I am sorry that it was taught to you that way, but in the 16 years of active Mormon life that I have had, I have never heard that taught, and I believe it has never been LDS doctrine. I think a teacher went off the rails in priesthood, which is all kinds of common in my experience.
The LDS scripture that this discussion comes from is D&C 68:25
25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.
There are very few sacred cows in LDS theology, but one of them is free agency. Children have the ability to choose, and while they are more likely to choose against Christ if they are not taught his ways (whatever the religious persuasion of the parents) the LDS church has always taught that their sins are their own.
Brigham Young himself and heck, JS had children who left the church. Anyone who taught what you said they taught was teaching incorrectly (according to LDS doctrine, already teaching incorrectly based on Christian doctrine).
- Status