M
mtolympus
Guest
In your opinion, why would you say that members of the Church no longer share all things in common?
- Status
L
Lochias
Guest
'cause a bunch of people chose to opt out of that Church, and a bunch more now no longer know any better.
In a perfect world, we’d all be Catholic.
S
SteveVH
Guest
If you take a close look at the verse its says:
“…and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need”.
I think that we do still share all things in common “as any has need”. We feed the hungry all over the world and the money to do that comes right out of the pockets of the congregations all over the world. We feed and house the poor on a local level as well.
This does not mean that we all throw our money into a big pot and divy it up. We give as there is need to give.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The image of the early church is the first church, based in Jerusalem, Jewish Christians, Nazarenes/Galileans. During the Diaspora, many Jews left, including the followers of Christ.
We have to look to St. Justin the Martyr who described the ancient Mass in Rome, 155 AD, describing the Mass as it was said throughout the world at that time, to the Roman Emperor.
It states that the rich were to support the orphans and widows, and that they were to give only what they chose to give. So you did not have entire congregations supporting one another, and the model of the Church of Jerusalem’s model did not last because it simply did not work in real life.
However, we live by the spirit of the first church of Jerusalem, we seek to be one heart and one mind, reflective of the essence of universal Christianity: communion with the Holy Trinity and with each other. No one is to be forced to anything. We must give freely and generously, and ordinary families should not be obligated to care for others when they have so many needs of their own.
Likewise, I have found the young Catholic families most generous with their time and sacrifice in parishes.
We have to look to St. Justin the Martyr who described the ancient Mass in Rome, 155 AD, describing the Mass as it was said throughout the world at that time, to the Roman Emperor.
It states that the rich were to support the orphans and widows, and that they were to give only what they chose to give. So you did not have entire congregations supporting one another, and the model of the Church of Jerusalem’s model did not last because it simply did not work in real life.
However, we live by the spirit of the first church of Jerusalem, we seek to be one heart and one mind, reflective of the essence of universal Christianity: communion with the Holy Trinity and with each other. No one is to be forced to anything. We must give freely and generously, and ordinary families should not be obligated to care for others when they have so many needs of their own.
Likewise, I have found the young Catholic families most generous with their time and sacrifice in parishes.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Yes…when you have families, you have dependents. You think of times past in how hard it was to live, and the high infant mortality.
Then, you look to the so-called Dark Ages, which in reality were anything but.
You had countless men renouncing themselves and seeking solely the kingdom of Christ, and living the celibate life. You look what began from their choice to the construction and monastic life, – where they did indeed share anything and everything in commune. They took care of their elderly. But they did not involve themselves with providing care and nurturing to infants and children in their formative years.
Instead, the monastics, who lived in commune, were the ones who supported the surrounding populations of believers. The scholastic and agricultural contributions to science and education by the monks is tremendous. And they shared their gifts with the families around them.
Subsequently, such a model worked and still does.
Then, you look to the so-called Dark Ages, which in reality were anything but.
You had countless men renouncing themselves and seeking solely the kingdom of Christ, and living the celibate life. You look what began from their choice to the construction and monastic life, – where they did indeed share anything and everything in commune. They took care of their elderly. But they did not involve themselves with providing care and nurturing to infants and children in their formative years.
Instead, the monastics, who lived in commune, were the ones who supported the surrounding populations of believers. The scholastic and agricultural contributions to science and education by the monks is tremendous. And they shared their gifts with the families around them.
Subsequently, such a model worked and still does.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Hi Kathleen, sorry I didnt get back sooner. Got caught up into the new Holy Father excitement!!! Im sure you understand…
The best way to sort of give an idea (though I am not sure that this is what you are asking) of the Catholic equivalency (if that can even be done, to be honest) is this…
Catholic pastor of a parish is similar to the Mormon bishop of a ward.
A bishop of a diocese is similar to the Mormon stake president of a stake.
But for the LDS, with the exception of the real higher levels of the general authorities of the LDS church, all of the bishops and stake president are laymen and those “callings” are for a time (typically 5-7 years? something like that, or at least they used to be)
in the understanding of the Mormon priesthood, there are two. The lesser, known as the Aaronic priesthood, which is typically boys from the age of 12-18.
Three divisions with in that. Deacons are 12,13 years old. Teachers are 14,15 years old, priests are 16,17 years old. The young men who are priests (age 16,17) can bless the sacrement and baptize.
The comes the Melchizadek priesthood 18 years and older.
In the Melchizadek priesthood, there are 2 levels~~ elders and high priests.
In order for a man to be a bishop of a ward (it’s pastor) he has to be ordained to the level of High Priest. Other callings within the wards and the stakes require that the men be high priests. Eventually, all men usually being high priests.
There really is no emeritus status in the LDS church with a few exceptions. Members of the GA’s who are 70s may end up with that. The patriarchs (a special calling: men who give out what are known as “patriarchal blessings”) and perhaps those who have been part of what is known as the "Presiding Bishopric of the LDS Church)
Im trying to recall if the President of the Quorum of the 12 can end up being emeritus status if he is serious ill? Or maybe I am thinking of a member of the 12 who has been called to be a counselor in the 1st Presidency but ends up being too ill. Hard to remember.
But the idea being, you dont get “emeritus” status too much in the LDS church.
At least not that sticks out to me.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Thanks, Marie.
I didn’t disclose all my reference to a former poster here as being a possible high priest. I was referencing a former Mormon who had read this Mormon’s postings. And the reason he thought this Mormon could be a high priest was actually from a different perspective…more like personality and gifts etc.
But I will re-read what you are describing as the Mormon priesthood and hierarchy. I read some points that I didn’t know. I see that young age at different levels also has different categories.
I didn’t disclose all my reference to a former poster here as being a possible high priest. I was referencing a former Mormon who had read this Mormon’s postings. And the reason he thought this Mormon could be a high priest was actually from a different perspective…more like personality and gifts etc.
But I will re-read what you are describing as the Mormon priesthood and hierarchy. I read some points that I didn’t know. I see that young age at different levels also has different categories.
M
Marie5890
Guest
Im not sure why they would have suggested to you that someone was an LDS high priest based on personality or gifts. Doesnt really fit, as most LDS men become one sooner or later. I would suggest sometime in their 30’s if not sooner. Really depends on the callings they are given.
Perhaps it came across more in maturity and a sense of age. And a sense that they had served a calling such as in a bishopric, or what have you.
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
I have not forgotten my promise to look into Mormonism and I have done so a little bit over the week. However, I have been very busy with work, as well as with my class assignments, which are very difficult to say the least. In addition, I have been working on writing a proposal for my thesis, which is finally complete. What I have managed to find out thus far about Mormonism seems to contradict all of the writings of the early Church, such as the epistles of Ignatius of Antioch, The Martyrdom of Polycarp, Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, and so on. Not to mention the New Testament itself, which does not seem to reflect any of the beliefs Mormons seemingly adhere to. Post death baptisms, the notion that all of the other Christian denominations got it wrong seemingly from the beginning, the elevation of Joseph Smith (beyond the status we give saints), and so on are just a few of the many things that strike me as not being Christian in any way. The research will continue, though it will just have to take longer than I expected before I can come to an absolute conclusion. Nevertheless, I believe I have already come to the only conclusion there is to make. Since I only defended Mormons in the name of Christian unity, which is of great importance to me and being that I had absolutely NO intention of converting it will take a little longer than expected.
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
I must also add that I am only accepting these conclusions reluctantly, I feel equally sad as I do disgusted! I am sure that if the seemingly inevitable conclusion is the result of my search, great feelings of rage will will soon follow.
U
utahman1971
Guest
Kanuckistani;9221415:
Really, I am mormon and never seen blood oaths at all. They are examples without the blood. LOL. I swear people take things too serious. Not like we drink wine in sacrament. That is what Catholics do. I don’t discredit them for it. If they want to do that fine. Hand shakes are not only done in Temples, but done in churches too, as in friendships. They are just saying they will be obedient to the teachings with their husbands, the wives. Secret underwear. LOL!
I would not want to be walking down the street just with the underwear. Would you? Okay, then. There are things that seem that cultish to a lot of religions that are probably not at all. People just take things too serious, and twist them to no end to the way they want. Most of the stuff said about the L.D.S. is from someone that has left the church, and was bothered by what a member or leader said in what they can or can’t do in being probably put into a leadership calling, and got offended and left. Started saying things that are not even true at all, and now there are a lot out there saying different things that aren’t true.
Sorry, if this offends others, but it makes me just roll my eyes.
K
kimg901
Guest
TexanKnight;9221840:
Ah, twisting is something you mormons would know all about. If you care to read the other threads here about mormonism and give us some answers to the questions asked would be a great help to clear up some confusion. And its pretty typical to say someone was offended by what another said and left the church and said bad things against itReally, I am mormon and never seen blood oaths at all. They are examples without the blood. LOL. I swear people take things too serious. Not like we drink wine in sacrament. That is what Catholics do. I don’t discredit them for it. If they want to do that fine. Hand shakes are not only done in Temples, but done in churches too, as in friendships. They are just saying they will be obedient to the teachings with their husbands, the wives. Secret underwear. LOL!
I would not want to be walking down the street just with the underwear. Would you? Okay, then. There are things that seem that cultish to a lot of religions that are probably not at all. People just take things too serious, and twist them to no end to the way they want. Most of the stuff said about the L.D.S. is from someone that has left the church, and was bothered by what a member or leader said in what they can or can’t do in being probably put into a leadership calling, and got offended and left. Started saying things that are not even true at all, and now there are a lot out there saying different things that aren’t true.
Sorry, if this offends others, but it makes me just roll my eyes.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
Maybe you don’t know mormon history very well then.
You know there have been several changes to the endowments right? You know the blood oaths from the previous versions were included in part to avenge JS’s death right?
The hand shake was originally a way to tell if your adversary was hiding a weapon up his sleeve. It was not originally a greeting.
Isn’t there something in mormon theology about an evil spirit won’t shake hands with you, but, a good one will?
As far as wine at Mass, try reading the Bible. Particularly John 6. They weren’t drinking water now were they?
Laughing at the term “magic underwear” is fine, but you know full well that term refers to the "Holy Garments’ that temple worthy mormons wear. I believe it was one of the Marriott’s that made the claim on 60 minutes, that his “garments” protected him from being burned in a fire.
You’re not very good at discrediting things I’m afraid. Make light of the garments all you want. We know they exist, we know what they’re for, we know about the symbols sewn into them.I would not want to be walking down the street just with the underwear. Would you? Okay, then. There are things that seem that cultish to a lot of religions that are probably not at all. People just take things too serious, and twist them to no end to the way they want. Most of the stuff said about the L.D.S. is from someone that has left the church, and was bothered by what a member or leader said in what they can or can’t do in being probably put into a leadership calling, and got offended and left. Started saying things that are not even true at all, and now there are a lot out there saying different things that aren’t true.
Sorry, if this offends others, but it makes me just roll my eyes.
They are just one aspect of what makes mormonism “cultish”. You are using standard LDS statements, " Oh someone must have hurt them, that’s why they left." Of course learning the truth never has anything to do with it. Another common LDS statement is, “He/she left so they could continue to sin.”
Character assassination is another tool used by the lds. It is probably the most widely used one. It is especially effective when used with shunning.
You’re going to learn one thing while you’re here. Too many people here know the truth about the mormon church, and your standard / stock answers won’t work.
Stephen168
New member
Wine is what Christ used and that is why his Catholic Church uses it.
OR they left because they researched the history and claims of Mormonism and found out they are false, so they left. And what they say is true because they were actually Mormons.
T
TexanKnight
Guest
K
kimg901
Guest
I doubt he will respond. But I get the feeling he typed faster then his brain was thinking.
T
twopekinguys
Guest
You’re right. He’s been online since he made his oh so powerful statement
He won’t be back to respond. He can’t.
Typical mormon tactic
P
Porknpie
Guest
J -
While sad, you have to keep a perspective that this is the work of the Devil…the great deceiver and that prayer can do great things. Also, God will judge wisely and with fairness all those who are misled.
Pork
J
J_the_Centrist
Guest
I don’t know if you read my above post or not, but I am only engaging in this search because I am taking up the challenge of my previous assumptions that Mormon’s are Christian. I never had any intention of converting and I previously defended them only in the name of Christian unity, nothing more. The devil has not deceived me, I don’t know if that is what you are suggesting and while he does mange to deceive me other times (as he deceives us all), that is not the case here. If that is not what you are suggesting than I am misreading you and I apologize, God bless you and keep you.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
J the Centrist.
Understood. You have good intentions and your openness to dialogue is in the spirit of the Church.
There are Mormons who do not know the history of their beliefs. It is opposite of Catholicism as ours have never changed, only expounded and deepened the same Creed and practice.
Understood. You have good intentions and your openness to dialogue is in the spirit of the Church.
There are Mormons who do not know the history of their beliefs. It is opposite of Catholicism as ours have never changed, only expounded and deepened the same Creed and practice.
- Status