I'm LDS....let's learn from eachother.....

[J_C]

another thing which is bothering me about mormans that I am detecting among four young mormans that i personally know, is that they never talk about Jesus. I mean never, as in never. Not just sometimes, but never. they sometimes mention Joseph Smith, sometimes talk about having a “witness of the church”, but the Name Above All Names doesn’t come out of their mouths or appear in their emails.

could one of our morman friends plase explain why this might be?

Here is the thrust of my prblem with this omission; i have been a christian for most of my adult life and have known many hundreds of christians personally. among all of them, the relationship between them (us) and Jesus is personal and immediate, in such a way that the name of Jesus is always on the tip of our tongues. Jesus is the focal poiknt of our faith, He is the aim of our litrugy, our all in all. Yet among these few mormans I have known, it is as if they never heard of Jesus. Before I begin to probe this question with these young mormans I would appreciate an understanding from more knowedlegable morman friends why this might be the case, whether it is something by nature of the morman religinon, or whether I am maybe misunderstanding what I am seeing, or maybe it is just the luck of the draw with these young people that they are a few who don’t know Jesus very well, or whatever.

 

[MrS]

So have we learned anything from each other yet?

We learned that the OP posted 6 times on March 9th… period.

.

 

[Jerusha]

Well, perhaps their lack of belief in Jesus indicates that they really don’t believe in the Book of Mormon which says that Jesus preached the Gospel in the Americas shortly after His Resurrection.

Perhaps their religion confuses them?

 

[J_C]

yes that is another thing that i am confused about in their teaching, this idea that Jesus came to America and brought the Godspell to the people here. It seems like Jesus must have failed in that project, because until the eruopeans arrived in wooden ships they found no trace of Jesus here according to my learning of history.

This, combined with the failure of Jesus to sustain the church after promising that he would remain with it until the end of time, makes it seem as if the mormoans believe in a very small and ineffectual god.

 

[TemplarKnight]

Do any of our mormon friends like Kool-Aid? It’s delicious!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[zerinus]

zerinus:
you stated the following:

One of the doctrines that has changed is that the early RCC taught that children who die in infancy without baptism go to hell, iredeemably.

Bunk…

Try again… show me one… just one… DOCTRINE which the Catholic Church teaches which has changed, or which has ever been denies…

and I will become a blooming Mormon.

(That is Doctrine not discipline or practice)

If the question of what happens to unbaptized children after they die is not “doctrine,” what else is it?

Yes, flollowing these threads for a few months i think that zerinius consistently singles out this idea of limbo as example of a catholic doctrine which has been changed. it seems like it has been explained so many times he would have understood it better by now.

myabe he could find another doctrine that has changed. even if it was admissable according to his definition that limbo is a changed doctrine, which it isn’t, but for sake of arguamtent to allow it for now, that would only be one. Would there be any others besides?

Not true. “Limbo” is not the main issue here. The truth is that the fait of unbaptized children in Catholic theology, who die in infancy, until the 12th century at least, was that they are irredeemably damned, and will go to hell for eternity. That doctrine has since then been gradually whittled down until it has reached the present teaching as taught in the Catechism, which is completely different from what was originally taught. That represents a change in doctrine, nothing less. I have already discussed that in these two posts:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2972974&postcount=69
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=2974155&postcount=88

zerinus

 

[J_C]

Not true. “Limbo” is not the main issue here. The truth is that the fait of unbaptized children in Catholic theology, who die in infancy, until the 12th century at least, was that they are irredeemably damned, and will go to hell for eternity. That doctrine has since then been gradually whittled down until it has reached the present teaching as taught in the Catechism, which is completely different from what was originally taught. That represents a change in doctrine, nothing less. I have already discussed that in these two posts:

thank you z i think I understnand your position, but I believe you are exaggerating the significance of this. Again for the sake of argument, let’s say that limbo does mean a change in “doctrine” and call that one change, just for the sake of this argument. If the catholiic chruch changed one doctrine then it must have also changed many others, at least two or three or a half dozenn or so. Can you nam any of these others that have changed? tjhank you.

 

[zerinus]

Not true. “Limbo” is not the main issue here. The truth is that the fait of unbaptized children in Catholic theology, who die in infancy, until the 12th century at least, was that they are irredeemably damned, and will go to hell for eternity. That doctrine has since then been gradually whittled down until it has reached the present teaching as taught in the Catechism, which is completely different from what was originally taught. That represents a change in doctrine, nothing less. I have already discussed that in these two posts:

thank you z i think I understnand your position, but I believe you are exaggerating the significance of this. Again for the sake of argument, let’s say that limbo does mean a change in “doctrine” and call that one change, just for the sake of this argument.

I don’t know why you keep bringing up “Limbo”. I am not talking about “Limbo”. I am talking about the 180 degree change in Catholic theological position of the fate of unbaptized children from damnation to salvation. The original teaching was total, complete, and eternal damnation. The current position is salvation. From the Catechism:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

That is a 180 degree change. It has nothing to do with Limbo.

If the catholiic chruch changed one doctrine then it must have also changed many others, at least two or three or a half dozenn or so. Can you nam any of these others that have changed? tjhank you.

I am not interested in sifting through Catholic theology to find you more. The poster whom I was replying to had asked me to show him one change, and showed him one. I am not going to waste my time looking for more—although I am sure there are more. As I said before, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was completely revised by the Council of Trent. That means many changes, not one change. How many, God knows. I have no interest in going and looking for them.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

so which ecumenical council decree or infallible papal bull said unbaptized babies will definitely go to hell?

after all this is the same zerinus who only accepts “the standard works” as binding doctrine. (which has also changed multiple times)

 

[Nordar]

Well, perhaps their lack of belief in Jesus indicates that they really don’t believe in the Book of Mormon which says that Jesus preached the Gospel in the Americas shortly after His Resurrection.

Perhaps their religion confuses them?

Well it sure confuses me Jesus preached the Gospel in the Americas? I mean were do they get this from, I am not being nasty here but some of their teachings make me laugh, As in they are just too unbelievably funny!

 

[Nordar]

I don’t know why you keep bringing up “Limbo”. I am not talking about “Limbo”. I am talking about the 180 degree change in Catholic theological position of the fate of unbaptized children from damnation to salvation. The original teaching was total, complete, and eternal damnation. The current position is salvation. From the Catechism:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

That is a 180 degree change. It has nothing to do with Limbo.

I am not interested in sifting through Catholic theology to find you more. The poster whom I was replying to had asked me to show him one change, and showed him one. I am not going to waste my time looking for more—although I am sure there are more. As I said before, the Catechism of the Catholic Church was completely revised by the Council of Trent. That means many changes, not one change. How many, God knows. I have no interest in going and looking for them.

zerinus

OK can you show me where, anywhere that it says Limbo was a Catholic Doctrine. Where is that in print?

 

[MrS]

so which ecumenical council decree or infallible papal bull said unbaptized babies will definitely go to hell?

after all this is the same zerinus who only accepts “the standard works” as binding doctrine. (which has also changed multiple times)

If zerinus understood how Doctrine is declared, he could at least say he erred. But I don’t believe he really cares to know. He has his hands full looking for the OP, and dodging the errors in Mormonism,… so

Don’t hold your breath.

In typical Mormon fashion, he has moved on to argue about Limbo. How low can you go…

.

 

[MrS]

Brother Dorsey… where are you

You last posted on March 9th at 6:30 am

but you visit here again on the 10th at 8:30 pm… what say you??

.

 

[zerinus]

another thing which is bothering me about mormans that I am detecting among four young mormans that i personally know, is that they never talk about Jesus. I mean never, as in never. Not just sometimes, but never. they sometimes mention Joseph Smith, sometimes talk about having a “witness of the church”, but the Name Above All Names doesn’t come out of their mouths or appear in their emails.

could one of our morman friends plase explain why this might be?

I think that that is a question that you should ask them.

Here is the thrust of my prblem with this omission; i have been a christian for most of my adult life and have known many hundreds of christians personally. among all of them, the relationship between them (us) and Jesus is personal and immediate, in such a way that the name of Jesus is always on the tip of our tongues. Jesus is the focal poiknt of our faith, He is the aim of our litrugy, our all in all. Yet among these few mormans I have known, it is as if they never heard of Jesus.

It is easy to get all “Jesusy” and talk about nothing else but Jesus. That is what many Christian activists who like wearing their “faith” on their sleeves like to do. But that is not a true measure of one’s commitment to Jesus. The true measure is to what extent one is willing to keep His commandments. As Jesus said: “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15). And again: “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 7:21). LDS like to demonstrate their commitment to Jesus Christ with how they live their lives, not with the show of their mouths.

I don’t accept that Mormons don’t talk about Jesus. The Book of Mormon is called “Another Testament of Jesus Christ” for a good reason. It contains more references to Jesus Christ than the Bible does. It testifies of Jesus Christ as much as the Bible does. But Mormons like to talk about the symbols of the Restoration—such as the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, or prophets and Apostles—because they are excited about the Restoration of the gospel in the last days. It is a sign to them that God still lives, is an unchangeable Being, and still communicates to man through his prophets as He did in ancient times. He is “the same yesterday, today, and forever”. The heavens are still open. God has not forgotten about us, but still communicates with man in our day in the same way that He did in ancient times. That is what they are excited about, and so that is what they want to talk about most. But the underlying foundation of their faith is Jesus Christ, the restoration of Whose gospel they like to celebrate. Their talk about the symbols of the Restoration is demonstration of their faith in Him whose gospel has been restored.

Before I begin to probe this question with these young mormans I would appreciate an understanding from more knowedlegable morman friends why this might be the case, whether it is something by nature of the morman religinon, or whether I am maybe misunderstanding what I am seeing, or maybe it is just the luck of the draw with these young people that they are a few who don’t know Jesus very well, or whatever.

I don’t know who those young people are whom you are referring to. Are they related to you? Do you know them as friends? Are you their schoolteacher? What are their ages? But whatever the connection, if you intend to question about that, I suggest that you adopt a positive line of questioning than a negative one. Instead of asking them, “Why don’t you never talk about Jesus?” you might ask: “Does you religion teach you about Jesus? Tell me some of things that it teaches. Do you have a commitment to Jesus? What is your commitment to Him? How do you demonstrate that commitment? If you adopt that line of questioning, you are likely to learn a lot more about them, what they know about Jesus, and how committed they are to Him; than if you asked them: “Why don’t you ever talk about Jesus;” to which they may well reply, “What do you want us to say about Him?” End of the conversation! If you approach them correctly, you may be surprised to find that they have greater commitment to Jesus than those Christian activists do who like to wear their faith on their sleeves.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

another thing which is bothering me about mormans that I am detecting among four young mormans that i personally know, is that they never talk about Jesus. I mean never, as in never. Not just sometimes, but never. they sometimes mention Joseph Smith, sometimes talk about having a “witness of the church”, but the Name Above All Names doesn’t come out of their mouths or appear in their emails.

could one of our morman friends plase explain why this might be?

Please see the current issue of the Ensign, the lds magazine:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=a6246a008952b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0

Table of contents for the issue:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ccb1d48fa58db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=33acd9ab50758110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&locale=0

 

[why_me]

Well it sure confuses me Jesus preached the Gospel in the Americas? I mean were do they get this from, I am not being nasty here but some of their teachings make me laugh, As in they are just too unbelievably funny!

You can read this verse: John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

For mormons this is referring to the book of mormon inhabitants. Do you have a better explanation?

 

[PattyPryor]

Please see the current issue of the Ensign, the lds magazine:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=a6246a008952b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0

Table of contents for the issue:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=ccb1d48fa58db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=33acd9ab50758110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&locale=0

so you read the Ensign? What religious faith are you why me? I thought you wanted to be Catholic? Do you hold the priesthood yet in your church - able to go to the Temple? Cuz I know you proclaim the 1st reading at mass once… please answer me thank you

 

[PattyPryor]

You can read this verse: John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

For mormons this is referring to the book of mormon inhabitants. Do you have a better explanation?

That verse is reference to the “dispersed children” of John 11:52 destined to be gathered into one or “apostolic christans” at odds with the community of the beloved disciple

Why me are you still using your LDS scriptures? do you proclaim those is your 1st reading?

You should not be talking at a Catholic Mass you are a MORMON!

 

[zerinus]

Why me are you still using your LDS scriptures? do you proclaim those is your 1st reading?

Now that would be a great idea, preaching from the Book of Mormon at the Catholic Mass!

zerinus

 

[iamrefreshed]

So have we learned anything from each other yet?

Yes. Mormons such as Zerinus seem to disagree with ex-mormons on Mormon beliefs. I would like to see him post verifiable relplies, with links, refuting their claims. If he can.