For the LDS - Please Define the Great Apostacy

[RebeccaJ]

Only up to a point. Mormons would claim that the catholic church has a great deal of truth but not the whole truth. And as far as the bible is concerned, mormons would believe it to be the world of god but they would also claim that the bible has been bastardized through the corruption of men. In other words the bible is a perfect book up to a point.

And where exactly does the JST fit into this?

Mormonism stands alone because it claims to be the restored church of christ. And as such, it has brought new understanding to christianity.

No, it does not stand alone in this claim. They are a restorationist church, one of many. Others are , the Church of Christ, Disciples of Christ, Independent Christian Churches, Christadelphians, Adventist movement (including the Seventh Day Adventist), Jehovah Witness and Iglesia ni Cristo.

They all claim to have restored Christianity to a purer form. They have not brought new understanding, only the musing of men. About like this entire thread.

 

[Chris-WA]

Brigham Young:

Charity, TOm

Tom, I did read BY’s quote and I still maintain that even his position on the sacrament falls far short of the Catholic belief in the Eucharist, and short of what I think you believe the Eucharist is. I think it’s great that you are making visits to Eucharistic adoration and mass from time to time. That says a lot about you, especially as a faithful LDS. When I hear you talk about the Eucharist I sense that there’s more to it than just an intellectual reasoning that it “makes sense” based on John 6.

I will admit that you probably have a greater appreciation of the Eucharist than most Catholics I know. The bottom line with all of this, though, is that it’s not a matter of what spiritual feelings one may receive by observing or participating. Mother Teresa, possibly one of the most holy and faithful persons of the 20th century, had long spells of not feeling anything spiritual, even though I’m sure she was a very frequent partaker of the Eucharist. Yet she remained faithful and continued to do God’s will. So what’s important is not what we feel from it, but whether or not we believe in it.

 

[mfbukowski]

Mother Teresa, possibly one of the most holy and faithful persons of the 20th century, had long spells of not feeling anything spiritual, …

This seems like a total contradiction to me. How would it be possible?

If one is “holy” one is in communion with God. It seems almost like the definition of “holy”

Communion with God is the very basis of your idea of theosis

Either she was in communion with God or she wasn’t. You cannot be in communion with God and not “feel anything spiritual”.

 

[Chris-WA]

This seems like a total contradiction to me. How would it be possible?

If one is “holy” one is in communion with God. It seems almost like the definition of “holy”

Communion with God is the very basis of your idea of theosis

Either she was in communion with God or she wasn’t. You cannot be in communion with God and not “feel anything spiritual”.

I totally disagree. One can be a very holy person and go through desert-like periods of time where one doesn’t “feel” anything at all. That can even be a period of great spiritual growth. You’re approaching this issue from an LDS perspective, where burning in the bosom is your most important indicator of what you call communion, and lack of the burning is interpreted as not being on the right path. For us Catholics, communion and spiritual feelings aren’t necessarily two halves of the same coin.

 

[mfbukowski]

I totally disagree. One can be a very holy person and go through desert-like periods of time where one doesn’t “feel” anything at all. That can even be a period of great spiritual growth. You’re approaching this issue from an LDS perspective, where burning in the bosom is your most important indicator of what you call communion, and lack of the burning is interpreted as not being on the right path. For us Catholics, communion and spiritual feelings aren’t necessarily two halves of the same coin.

How does one know if one is in communion then?

Or how do you know if you are “holy”?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Sorry to all. I’ve been slammed with work for the past few days and have a lot of reading to do to catch up on the discussion before I chime in again. It looks like there’s been quite a lot of interest in the topic. Glad to see it.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

. Mother Teresa, possibly one of the most holy and faithful persons of the 20th century, had long spells of not feeling anything spiritual, even though I’m sure she was a very frequent partaker of the Eucharist. Yet she remained faithful and continued to do God’s will. So what’s important is not what we feel from it, but whether or not we believe in it.

And yet many here are lifted spiritually by partaking in the Eucharist. As LDS I understand this totally, because I am lifted spiritually by partaking of the sacrament, frankly, more than I was as a Catholic.

But if she was a frequent partaker, why would she not also be lifted spiritually?

 

[Chris-WA]

How does one know if one is in communion then?

We are in communion with God when we are obeying the commandments, partaking of the sacraments, and praying.

Or how do you know if you are “holy”?

Well, I really don’t think it’s up to an individual to determine whether or not he/she is holy. It’s more something that we can recognize in one another. But what makes one holy is the person’s actions in accordance with the commandments of God, not spiritual feelings resulting from those actions. I say someone like Mother Theresa was very holy because of how she lived out her life as a Christian, which had nothing to do with whether or not she had spiritual feelings.

 

[mfbukowski]

I totally disagree. One can be a very holy person and go through desert-like periods of time where one doesn’t “feel” anything at all. That can even be a period of great spiritual growth.

How does one define spiritual growth then?

Do the spiritual feelings increase after this period?

Or since you do not believe that feeling defines spirit, how does one define spiritual growth at all?

I would define spiritual growth as a feeling of unity and oneness with God. A sense of His constant presence within my heart, and a sense of constant direction by the spirit – so that I am doing and acting as He would have me do or act, and in every situation I do or act as He directs. The growth aspect is an increase in this ability and the sense of closeness.

So what is it for Catholics? RebeccaJ if you are out there, I suspect you understand the question. But would other Catholics agree with your answer? You have Mormon genes!

 

[Chris-WA]

And yet many here are lifted spiritually by partaking in the Eucharist. As LDS I understand this totally, because I am lifted spiritually by partaking of the sacrament, frankly, more than I was as a Catholic.

But if she was a frequent partaker, why would she not also be lifted spiritually?

I don’t know. You would have to ask her. What I do know is that she went through a long period of lack of spiritual “feelings,” for lack of a better word. My point is that we shouldn’t require God to send us spiritual feelings in order to believe in something. It can certainly happen, but is most certainly not required.

 

[mfbukowski]

We are in communion with God when we are obeying the commandments, partaking of the sacraments, and praying.

Well, I really don’t think it’s up to an individual to determine whether or not he/she is holy. It’s more something that we can recognize in one another. But what makes one holy is the person’s actions in accordance with the commandments of God, not spiritual feelings resulting from those actions. I say someone like Mother Theresa was very holy because of how she lived out her life as a Christian, which had nothing to do with whether or not she had spiritual feelings.

So holiness is something that others THINK they see?

Sounds like it would be easy to fake.

 

[mfbukowski]

I don’t know. You would have to ask her. What I do know is that she went through a long period of lack of spiritual “feelings,” for lack of a better word. My point is that we shouldn’t require God to send us spiritual feelings in order to believe in something. It can certainly happen, but is most certainly not required.

Don’t believe you.

I think that ultimately you believe in catholicism because you have a feeling it is true. Otherwise, you believe it only because of history and tradition. It’s like saying “America is the best country in the world” because you believe in its history.

Ah yes. So it’s the same old refrain – you believe the church because of its history

Or would you admit there is more?

 

[Chris-WA]

Do the spiritual feelings increase after this period?

They certainly can.

I would define spiritual growth as a feeling of unity and oneness with God. A sense of His constant presence within my heart, and a sense of constant direction by the spirit – so that I am doing and acting as He would have me do or act, and in every situation I do or act as He directs. The growth aspect is an increase in this ability and the sense of closeness.

I don’t reject this at all. In fact I agree with you. But I think there is even more. Spritual growth can also be measured by how one is living his/her life in accordance with the commandments, how one treats others, how one better understands scripture, how one’s prayer life improves. There are many indicators.

 

[Chris-WA]

So holiness is something that others THINK they see?

What I mean is that we can recognize Christ working in others by what they do, what they say, how they act, etc. I’m sure you’ve met those kinds of people.

Sounds like it would be easy to fake.

Not really easy. I’m sure you know Peter Priesthoods and Molly Mormons out there who try to convince others of their holiness, but eventually you can see through it. We all know people like that.

 

[Chris-WA]

Don’t believe you.

I think that ultimately you believe in catholicism because you have a feeling it is true. Otherwise, you believe it only because of history and tradition. It’s like saying “America is the best country in the world” because you believe in its history.

Ah yes. So it’s the same old refrain – you believe the church because of its history

Or would you admit there is more?

Yes there is more. It’s a combination of everything and all my experience, but most importantly it’s faith, which is believing without seeing. I have faith that Jesus Christ extablished a Church to last forever, not just a few decades. I have faith that Christ kept His promiss to be with his Church until the end of the age. I have faith that Christ gave the keys to Peter and the authority to bind and loose. I have faith that Christ kept His promiss that He would not leave us orphans (especially not for 1800 years with no valid church or priesthood). And I have faith that Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist. So it is ultimately faith that makes me believe in the Catholic Church.

Now the history, Tradition, saints, martyrs, devotions, art, advancement of western civilization, the defeat of communism–that’s all gravy.

 

[mfbukowski]

Yes there is more. It’s a combination of everything and all my experience, but most importantly it’s faith, which is believing without seeing. I have faith that Jesus Christ extablished a Church to last forever, not just a few decades. I have faith that Christ kept His promiss to be with his Church until the end of the age. I have faith that Christ gave the keys to Peter and the authority to bind and loose. I have faith that Christ kept His promiss that He would not leave us orphans (especially not for 1800 years with no valid church or priesthood). And I have faith that Christ is really and truly present in the Eucharist. So it is ultimately faith that makes me believe in the Catholic Church.

Now the history, Tradition, saints, martyrs, devotions, art, advancement of western civilization, the defeat of communism–that’s all gravy.

Well I agree with this direction. I have no problem with it and I wish you well. Of course we disagree about the history, but your description of faith - I have no problem with.

Actually I agree pretty much on everything in this post, if we could freeze it and say no more, I’d be outa here.

I even agree that we weren’t “left as orphans” for 1800 years. The catholic church preached the truth of Jesus Christ that whole time. Some of the “details” we would disagree on, but for purposes of this post, we are in complete agreement

 

[RebeccaJ]

How does one define spiritual growth then?

Do the spiritual feelings increase after this period?

Or since you do not believe that feeling defines spirit, how does one define spiritual growth at all?

I would define spiritual growth as a feeling of unity and oneness with God. A sense of His constant presence within my heart, and a sense of constant direction by the spirit – so that I am doing and acting as He would have me do or act, and in every situation I do or act as He directs. The growth aspect is an increase in this ability and the sense of closeness.

So what is it for Catholics? RebeccaJ if you are out there, I suspect you understand the question. But would other Catholics agree with your answer? You have Mormon genes!

Dying to oneself, the oft repeated theme of being a disciple of Jesus, requires change.

This does not always feel good, quite often, it requires decisions that are painful. The love of God is a consuming flame.

But how do you know God is guiding? Because, you pray and ask Him, and He answers. And one day, you are like the song and asking yourself, “how did I get here?” And there is no denying that you did not do it on your own.

You are struggling, and not understanding the Eucharist, or even the basic question of How do you know God is there? The big question. Asked by anyone who has contemplated God, including atheists.

You pray, not that God will give you signs, or burning feelings, or bushes set on fire. You just want to be where God is. He leads you to Him, if you ask. He helps you understand, clearly, the questions, the fog, struggles, one by one they leave you and you are left agape. Awestruck. And you just know, that even if you doubt, or worry, or struggle, or get frustrated with blind Mormons, that God is there.

Mother Theresa had these experiences, of knowing, of finding herself in places where she knew that God led her. That she didn’t get there on her own. And so in the dark times, it is faith that gets us through. We don’t forget that God has done many wonderful things. The He heard us when we called. That the world changed because we changed and it was all God’s doing. You don’t forget, and so you have faith, that even when God seems to have gone silent, and the suffering all around you never ceases. The kind of suffering the Mother Theresa dealt with on a daily basis. That kind of suffering. Where is God? She knew, she had faith, that He had not left the innocent around her. Had not deserted them. And WE know that God had given them Mother Theresa.

That is the recognition. We see God working in people like Mother Theresa. Mother Theresa, she was just one of us. The knower of her weaknesses. The disbelief that God had given her for His purposes. But we see it. We know. And so do many who know nothing of Catholicism or even Christianity for that matter.

We also know that we aren’t called to sit and gaze and Mother Theresa and think on how wonderful she is. She was following a Person, and so are we. Our faith is not an idle faith, or should not be, but often it is. Perhaps Mother Theresa’s darkness was that the suffering was to great for her to handle on her own, and she needed the help of others. Like us. Who are sitting comfortably in our climate controlled homes with cupboards full of food and admiring wonderful Mother Theresa.

Spiritual growth is about following a Person. Jesus Christ. He has shown us the Way. You know your own weaknesses. You search your own self, and confess your sins, and ask God to help you improve. And He listens. And soon enough, He gives you the opportunity to improve, and you realize even more that grace He has given to you to follow Him. What was impossible yesterday, is possible today.

This is not a feeling. It is real life. The alcoholic who becomes sober and works tireless at charitable giving. The young man who gives his life to God, and serves His Church. The former atheist who tells another how to know God is there. The orphans in abject poverty who find care in the arms of a sisterhood.

This is where God is and how you know you are following His Way.

 

[Stephen168]

Anyway, I think your point that God can lift us to divinity and loves sufficiently to lift us to divinity is clear and powerful!

No knowledgeable Catholic would disagree with you that God desires to lift us to divinity. The Catholic Church has always taught that. Theosis was Catholic doctrine 1800 years before it ever occurred to Joseph Smith.

What Catholics disagree with Mormons about is their depiction of God the Father as an ascended master - a human being whom some other god raised to divinity (and of course that other god was raised by some other god and so on regressing into infinity). We find that blasphemous.

Where I Catholic I would embrace the following things:
*God the Son is homoousian with God the Father in His divinity.
*God the Son is homoousian in His humanity with mankind.
*Mankind may become homoousian with God (Father and Son) in his future deified state becoming gods via grace. This will result in man having a duel nature like Christ.
Do you embrace these three things? If not why not?

My understanding as a Catholic would be:
*God the Son (ABC) is homoousian with God the Father (AB) in His divinity.
*God the Son (ABC) is homoousian in His humanity with mankind (C).
*Mankind (C) may not become homoousian with God (AB) in his future deified state (B), but can become gods (B) via grace (B).

That being said, the nature of man in the presence of God following the resurrection will be perfected, purified and glorified. We will become partakers of the divine nature, not by becoming a different nature, but by sharing in the nature of God.

I think of it like a poker placed in a hot fire. Outside the presence of the fire, the poker has no light and heat but is just a cold, black poker. But in the presence of the fire, the poker takes on the heat of the fire until the poker itself begins to give off light and heat. The poker is not the source of the light and heat and never could be, but has become a partaker in the nature of the fire and therefore possesses some of its characteristics.

No analogy is perfect, but I like this one.

I also like Paul’s analogy about the poker (C) in the hot fire (A) receiving its(AB) heat(B).

 

[TOmNossor]

Great stuff - if you have a chance, can I get a reference?

Ok. First, I should give credit to Blair Hodges:
lifeongoldplates.com/
Here is the general location of a large discussion on the Eucharist. It seems that BY specifically claims that the Catholic priest cannot Transubstantiate (BTW, I am not a fan of the word “Transubstantiate.” I am a huge fan of the idea of the real presence).

I quoted another section because I found it relevant. I am comfortable with the faith of those who partake and who are present being part of conferring the real presence. It seems that there is a priesthood component that I do not quite remember BY mentioning in this long section. I will respond to Chris here in a bit.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.2 - p.5, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853

When we eat of this bread, and drink of this water, do we eat the literal flesh of the Son of God? Were I a priest of the Roman Catholic church, and had been trained from my youth in that faith, I might believe fully, with my whole heart, that my prayers would transform the bread of the eucharist into the literal flesh, and the wine into the literal blood, of the Son of God. But notwithstanding my faith on that matter, the bread and wine would be just the same in their component parts, and would administer to the mortal systems of men, or of beasts, the same amount and kind of nutriment that the same quantity of unblessed bread and wine would. If bread and wine are blessed, dedicated, and sanctified, through the sincerity and faith of the people of God, then the Spirit of the Lord, through the promise, rests upon the individuals who thus keep His commandments, and are diligent in obeying the ordinances of the house of God. So I understand all the ordinances of the house of the Lord. You know we used to get down upon our knees and pray for the remission of sins; and we would pray until we got peace of mind, and then we thought our sins were forgiven. I have no fault to find with this, it is all right. Many in this way have been made to rejoice in the hope of eternal life, to rejoice in the gift of the Spirit of the Lord, and in the light of His countenance. Many received heavenly visions, revelations, the ministering of holy angels, and the manifestations of the power of God, until they were satisfied; and all this before the ordinances of the house of God were preached to the people. They obtained those blessings through their faith, and the sincerity of their hearts. It was this that called down heavenly blessings upon them. It was their fervency of spirit, and not their obedience to the celestial law, through which they received such blessings; and it was all right. What is required of us when the law comes? We might obey it, as old Paul did. He was a servant of God in all good conscience, when he took care of the clothes of those who stoned Stephen to death; but when the law came, sin revived in him, and he said, “I died.” That is, his former notions of serving God, his former incorrect traditions, all appeared to him in their true light, and that upon which he had trusted for salvation as baseless as a dream, when the law of the Lord came by Jesus Christ; and in it he found the promises and the gifts and the blessings of the holy Gospel, through obedience to the ordinances. That is the only legal way to obtain salvation, and an exaltation in the presence of God.
Charity, TOm

 

[mfbukowski]

Ok. First, I should give credit to Blair Hodges:
lifeongoldplates.com/
Here is the general location of a large discussion on the Eucharist. It seems that BY specifically claims that the Catholic priest cannot Transubstantiate (BTW, I am not a fan of the word “Transubstantiate.” I am a huge fan of the idea of the real presence).

I quoted another section because I found it relevant. I am comfortable with the faith of those who partake and who are present being part of conferring the real presence. It seems that there is a priesthood component that I do not quite remember BY mentioning in this long section. I will respond to Chris here in a bit.

Journal of Discourses, Vol.2, p.2 - p.5, Brigham Young, October 23, 1853

Charity, TOm

Thanks Tom – that is an amazing amazing quote, and for the record for the Catholics hereabouts I agree with it completely.

And I also agree with “real presence”, perhaps not as the Catholics do, but I believe that the spirit of the Lord is most definitely present in a real way in the LDS sacrament.

I know that that is not the same as your belief, Catholics, but I would say that the presence is as “real” as it can be in a spiritual sense, if not in a literal one as you believe.