Do mormons really believe this?

[Brad_Haas]

BJ Colbert:

I have been reading the Catholic book called Good News about Sex and Marriage, by Christopher West.
Talk about waffling as you call it, check this book out. He says that Catholics will be judged for the children they do not have, but could have had if they had not prevented the conception. It is considered as great a sin as abortion, if a married couple have sex and deliberately prevent conception. That was very shocking to me, obviously Catholics do take birth control pills, so the church must have relaxed their views somewhat. I know many Catholics that limit themselves to two children through birth control. So the RCC must allow personal choice in this matter, or they just don’t ask. Officially the RCC says no contraception, no abortion etc. but unoffically they allow personal choice.

I’m afraid there is no “unofficial” position of the Catholic Church on contraception. Her only position is the official one, that it is intrinsically evil and never permissible. Whether members of a church follow their church’s teaching does not affect what that church’s teaching is.

I’m sorry to hear about your bad experience, and that your husband has so tainted your perspective on Catholicism. I hope you can find peace with the Church in spite of sinful people belonging to it.

I don’t quite understand what you were getting at with Christopher West’s book in this post. Maybe you could re-state your point?

 

[Brad_Haas]

BJ Colbert:

Brad, Your Catholic Church says sodomy is OK. Page 93 in the Good News about Sex and Marriage, by Christopher West. Foreword by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput OFM cap.
This article says it’s OK as long as you don’t ejaculate and wash afterwards. Now what were you saying about the official RCC poisition on Sodomy?

First off - the others are correct at pointing out that the book doesn’t have an imprimatur or nihil obstat (which means “nothing obstructs,” BTW). Nor does it claim to. In fact, the very article you cite points out that the Church doesn’t address the matter directly.

Second, I can’t find the phrase you cited. In fact, your summary cheated the article, and twisted its message horribly. If you want to insist that yours was a fair assessment of West’s answer, I’ll get permission from him and post it.

Finally, if you want to split hairs and insist that such a position is permissive of sodomy (which, I admit, has more than one definition, and therefore wasn’t the best analogy to use), I’d like to point out you missed the point of that post of mine. I could change it to, “Would you join me in the fight against widespread homosexual unions if I said homosexual unions are permissible in certain situations?”

 

[BJ_Colbert]

I guess we are getting to the real point, that you have writers that write things that are unofficial and that is OK, but Mormon writers always have to be official. Hmmmm, sounds like waffleing to me.

It was my ex-husband that was ex Catholic, but my present husband is Catholic currently and very strong. This book was given to him by a priest who was trying to explain why the marriage to his first wife even though she is 7th day Adventist and has been married to a Jehovah Witness for 25 years is still valid in the eyes of the Church and that my husband can not go to confession or take the Eucharist because of this first marriage, and of course we are living in sin. Some priests have said he can be forgiven, and some will not speak to him. So again waffleing and no one seems to follow the same line of thinking depending on which priest you talk to.
But this book was recommended by the Catholic radio priest and it says Christopher West works for the Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver, and is an advisor and educator on issues of human sexuality, marriage and family life. The foreword is offered by the Archbishop. I don’t think I horribly misquoted, go ahead and put your twist on what he says. I really would be embarrassed to write down everything he said. I would be very interested in reading your version. I have to say this book shocked me in a lot of places and also my husband was disturbed by it. It was recommended for us to read and we almost threw it in the trash, but I kept it out to answer your post.
I never heard of Christopher West, but apparently he has no validity as far as writing for the RCC, according to all of you.
So why would your priests recommend it and why would a Archbishop put the foreword in it? Can’t wait to see your explanation.
Are you seriously asking me to join some group to fight against homosexual unions? What does that have to do with anything in this thread? Also, what did sodomy have to do with gods and satan?
Casen actually answered the original question very well, I agree with him on the subject of gods, and Lucifer. Bravo! Casen.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

deb1:

Look on the back side of the title page of this particular book. Are the words Imprimatur or Nihil Obstat written there? I think that Catholic books have to bear these words in order to be considered official teachings of the church. If not then you are reading Christopher West’s opinion.

I might be wrong. I just learned this in RCIA.

This book has these things just where you said they would be…Nihil obstat: Rev.Gerard Beigel S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
Imprimatur: Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver July 28, 2000

So does that mean it is official Catholic Church Doctrine?
BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Brad Haas:

I’m afraid there is no “unofficial” position of the Catholic Church on contraception. Her only position is the official one, that it is intrinsically evil and never permissible. Whether members of a church follow their church’s teaching does not affect what that church’s teaching is.

I’m sorry to hear about your bad experience, and that your husband has so tainted your perspective on Catholicism. I hope you can find peace with the Church in spite of sinful people belonging to it.

I don’t quite understand what you were getting at with Christopher West’s book in this post. Maybe you could re-state your point?

I guess I did not understand your reason for the sodomy issue, that just appeared out of no where in your post.
My other post of my personal experience with birth control was to point out that sometimes the decision has to be made according to the health of the mother, to practice birth control for a period of time, so that the mother may regain her health to take care of and give birth to more children. God is the final judge as to when it is necessary to give the mother a rest. What good is it to kill the mother by having more that she can physically give birth to, and leave the children as orphans? On the other hand when it would be for selfish reasons then there should be no birth control. All persons physically and mentally capable of bearing children should have as many as they may provide for and care for. That is my opinion based on my understanding. As you see each person puts a personal spin on their own understanding of what the Church teaches, based on their own experiences. Then you have the Catholics putting their personal spin on Mormon teachings, and there is mass confusion. BJ

 

[deb1]

BJ Colbert:

This book has these things just where you said they would be…Nihil obstat: Rev.Gerard Beigel S.T.D.
Censor Librorum
Imprimatur: Most Reverend Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap.
Archbishop of Denver July 28, 2000

So does that mean it is official Catholic Church Doctrine?
BJ

I am in RCIA which means that I am in the process of converting. I could be wrong or have misunderstood. I think that someone already corrected me. SOrry about the confusion.

 

[deb1]

BJ Colbert:

This is interesting. Maybe I’ll start a different thread and we could start a discussion on the differences between Mormon view of divorce and Catholic view. Has he sought an annulment through the church?

 

[BJ_Colbert]

deb1:

This is interesting. Maybe I’ll start a different thread and we could start a discussion on the differences between Mormon view of divorce and Catholic view. Has he sought an annulment through the church?

Yes, he has tried that, but they said he had to say that the marriage was coerced in some way and that they were never in love and never meant to be married. He could not in good concience say that, so after paying $150.00 to a tribunal, they said he was forgiven, and sent a retired priest to hear his confession.
That priest said he could take the Eucharist and say confession. But, then I wrote about this experience in this forum and a priest from this forum said it was impossible for him to be forgiven and that the tribunal was out of line and should be called before the Bishop.
It is really a long story. So now my husband is unsure where he stands because some priests have forgiven him and some have said the other priests are wrong. We have dealt with this for over 3 years now and he is very confused by the confusion among the different priests, Apparently, they don’t back each other up on the subject of divorce and remarriage.
His priest in his parish says if the retired priest forgave him, that he should go with that priest. But you can see how he wonders if they don’t all agree on this, which priest is correct? It has been very difficult for him because his health has been bad and he is paralyzed on the right side. I took him to confession in his wheelchair and the minute he told that priest his story, the priest turned him out and refused to hear his confession. My husband was in tears and very depressed over this. Sorry, to go so far off topic, but I don’t know where to ask these questions. I don’t think it would be in a Mormon site, so where would I get answers that would not later be rebuked by another priest who understands things differently. Is there someone besides the Pope who really knows the answers. Which priest should we believe? The one who makes us feel good, or the one who says the other priest is wrong?
BJ

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

So does that mean it is official Catholic Church Doctrine?

Nope. Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur mean “let nothing obstruct this from being printed” (playing loose and fast with the definitions). It is NOT a statement of official Church doctrine.

 

[tkdnick]

BJ Colbert:

but Mormon writers always have to be official.

You sure this it the position you want to take? After all the discussions on these forums about personal opinion and personal interpretation, you’re going to take the position that everything an LDS writer writes is official?

 

[marcadam]

More refreshing honesty from Casen!

Casen:

This may be true. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young speculated on many things without receiving revelations on those things and hence they are not canonized doctrine. LDS do not believe prophets are perfect or infallible.

Question: how are the various teachings of the LDS evaluated in order to become “canonized doctrine?” Smith seems pretty adamant about the progression of GodHead, saying in the King Follet discourse: “Do you believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it.” Doesn’t sound like it’s up for debate.

 

[marcadam]

BJ Colbert:

Brad, Your Catholic Church says sodomy is OK. Page 93 in the Good News about Sex and Marriage, by Christopher West. Foreword by Archbishop Charles J. Chaput OFM cap.
This article says it’s OK as long as you don’t ejaculate and wash afterwards. Now what were you saying about the official RCC poisition on Sodomy?

That it is objectively evil. But that doesn’t contradict what West wrote. If those acts aren’t pursued to male orgasm, if that is preserved for vaginal intercourse, and the intention of the couples is ordered towards that marital act, then sodomy has not occurred, by definition. If they are not pursued to or with the intention of achieving orgasm, those techniques are not properly called oral, anal, etc. “sex”, but rather “stimulation”.

…

Apologies if this isn’t appropriate for the forum.

 

[Brad_Haas]

tkdnick:

You sure this it the position you want to take? After all the discussions on these forums about personal opinion and personal interpretation, you’re going to take the position that everything an LDS writer writes is official?

I think it was a complaint against other people saying anything LDS writers write is official.

 

[tkdnick]

Brad Haas:

I think it was a complaint against other people saying anything LDS writers write is official.

Ah, got it. Looking back I think you’re right.

 

[Tmaque]

marcadam:

That it is objectively evil. But that doesn’t contradict what West wrote. If those acts aren’t pursued to male orgasm, if that is preserved for vaginal intercourse, and the intention of the couples is ordered towards that marital act, then sodomy has not occurred, by definition. If they are not pursued to or with the intention of achieving orgasm, those techniques are not properly called oral, anal, etc. “sex”, but rather “stimulation”.

…

Apologies if this isn’t appropriate for the forum.

Is that like “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky” ?

 

[iwonder]

“That we can become LIKE God we believe but what exactly that means we don’t know.” Um, that is rather like the sin of Adam and Eve, isn’t it?

 

[Casen]

Iwonder,
That we can become “like” God is plainly taught throughout the Bible.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

tkdnick:

You sure this it the position you want to take? After all the discussions on these forums about personal opinion and personal interpretation, you’re going to take the position that everything an LDS writer writes is official?

That was tongue in cheek, I was just saying that Catholics can write something that most Catholics say is not true, but if Mormons write something speculative or personal opinion, the Catholics all say it is the official “Mormon Doctrine” and thus if some other Mormon writes another personal opinion it is waffleing, or changing doctrine. All of what I write in these posts is my own interpretation of what I as a Mormon believe. There are many understanding based on personal experience of some of the subjects of the Scripture. Just look at all the different churches that all profess to believe in the Bible, but all of them put a different spin on what they believe the scriptures mean to them. I think as long as you have the basic understanding of the commandments and stick with God’s word, anyone, may take it and go further into what they feel it means to them. This should not be taken to say that all who read the same scripture will interpret it in the same way, and it is not to be taken as official church doctrine, any more than the Catholic book I referenced is official Catholic church doctrine to you.
Prophets have guidance and inspiration from God for the current problems the people are facing. When that problem passes and new problems arise then God gives more guidance and more information that is needed as the people advance in understanding the principles of the gospel. Just as in Moses time the rule was an eye for an eye, but then he was given the 10 commandments which stand today as a guide for us to follow. Still as simple as these 10 commandments are, very few people follow all of them.
BJ

 

[itsjustdave1988]

deb1:

IN the past I have read that Mormons have two rather strange beliefs.

1, That after death they can become Gods

1. Lucifer and Jesus were brothers

I have to admit that there is some false, but hateful things about Catholics and our beliefs floating around on the web. Perhaps the same is true of Mormons. Although I have known Mormons in the past-always lovely people-I have never had the courage to ask about these particular beliefs. Are these true beliefs of the Mormon church or are they falsehoods spread by anti Mormons?

See here…
**Mormon doctrine of “eternal progression” - **View

 

[Paul_G]

Dave

This site is preaching to the choir using sound bite theology. It is easy to throw unexplained quotes together gathered in such a way as to create indignation in the mind of the read. It can be done to the believes of anyone on anything. It is not very instructive on why we believe some of these things, but then it is not meant to be, is it.

Paul