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

[ApostateRLDS]

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?

Sure do. He was referring to the Gentiles.

 

[TemplarKnight]

It is amazing to me the blatant fallacies that run rampant through this thread.

 

[J_C]

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:

thank you z; in truth it is you who keep referring to limbo. recently you did so as an example of how the catholic chruch has changed its “codtrine” and i have observed you using this same example quite a few times. I ;understand the point you are trying to make, but you keep hammering away on limbo even though it has been explained many times.

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.

and i suggested to accept your position for the sake of argument. therefore there must be many more instances of changed doctrines over the course of 20,00 years. If limbo wwas the only one changed then your case for changing doctrines would be weak. you have said that the catholic church changes it’s doctrines but can only come up with a single disputed case which only you interpret in this way. that is a weak case.

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

i understand completely, as it would be quite a futile search i believe. also, i canc ompare it to my own searching for problems in mormon teachings. there is quite a bit of material to sift and reading is very difficult for me, at teims when my eyes are tired it is impossible pl;us I have to go to work most days, so time for study is a luxury for me, therefore I try to spend it wisely on things that uplift rather than tear down. still, since you cant’ raise any other examples of changing catholic doctrine we must put to rest your chagre for the time being. thank you.

 

[Nordar]

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?

Do I have a better explanation? Well UH! no I was asking the question. I think it sounds absurd so how could I have a better explanation?

 

[J_C]

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

thanks z that is good advice and i will take it. I appreciate your post in reply to this question of mine. although i have known a few mormons in my life until recently i have not known many personally and have known only those things about mormon religion that are commonly hooted about, like Brigham Young with 50 wives and no coffee or tead and like that. I had always assumed that mormon religion is no different from other protestant religion except with a few unique rules of lifestyle. Now i am finding out that there are quite a few very different teachings, between mormons and catholics while also quite a few similar teachings.

these young people are recently married couple, the daughter of a catholic family and the son of a mormon family, formerly cultural catholics who mostly do not practice the rmormon religion anymore. at one point the boy was dumping the girl and suddenly she got the hots for mormon religion so his interest resumed. It is the opinion of many of us, for reasons i won’t go into here, that her conversion is a device rather than a heartfelt conversion. about a year has passed since she started this conversion program. In that year we have observed some lifestyle changes which are very very positive, and no one is criticising anything on that score.

the observations i am making with regard to a heart conversion and a relationship with Jesus whether through the church or not, is based on my life experience with many conversions including my own in which the new relationship is one very much like any new love. Taht person falls in love with the person Jesus, and for a long time the honeymoon is characterised by talk of that lover. I do not see or hear any signs of this love relationship in either of these two.

I realize that this is possible a perception problem on my part, as I don’t live with these kids but only see them two or thee times a week. however in reading around lately about mormon religion i have understood that the mormon religion does not emphasize Jesus and in fact that mormons do not pray to Jesus but see Jesus as a lesser being than God, something like that. So I am trying to clarifymy knowledge of this matter so that when the time comes for converstation with these kids on this issue I will know what they may know. I do not mean to offend or demean any religious belief. I respect mormons and want to be repsected by them. their conversion process was very hasty compared to that of the catholic religion. in only a few days of expressing interest she was baptised and the next day confirmed, yet she aparently knows almost nothing about the mormon religion except the tithing rule, which is the only thing I have ever heard her talk about so far.

 

[FCEGM]

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?

Well, of course, there were no inhabitants of the Roman Empire - including the Jews of the diaspora - beyond Palestine so the Lord could surely not have had them in mind.

 

[PaulDupre]

why me:

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?

Well, of course

, there were no inhabitants of the Roman Empire - including the Jews of the diaspora - beyond Palestine so the Lord could surely not have had them in mind.

I believe Jesus meant those “spirits in prison” to whom he went and preached during his three days in the tomb (1 Peter 3:19). That is, in fact, a better explanation because the entire Christian world is in agreement that it happened.

Paul

 

[FCEGM]

I believe Jesus meant those “spirits in prison” to whom he went and preached during his three days in the tomb (1 Peter 3:19).

Paul

Yes, very possibly, those, too, Paul - all to be called to the Communion of the Saints; but not the Jews in Mexico.

 

[zerinus]

thank you z; in truth it is you who keep referring to limbo. recently you did so as an example of how the catholic chruch has changed its “codtrine” and i have observed you using this same example quite a few times. I ;understand the point you are trying to make, but you keep hammering away on limbo even though it has been explained many times.

and i suggested to accept your position for the sake of argument. therefore there must be many more instances of changed doctrines over the course of 20,00 years. If limbo wwas the only one changed then your case for changing doctrines would be weak. you have said that the catholic church changes it’s doctrines but can only come up with a single disputed case which only you interpret in this way. that is a weak case.

i understand completely, as it would be quite a futile search i believe. also, i canc ompare it to my own searching for problems in mormon teachings. there is quite a bit of material to sift and reading is very difficult for me, at teims when my eyes are tired it is impossible pl;us I have to go to work most days, so time for study is a luxury for me, therefore I try to spend it wisely on things that uplift rather than tear down. still, since you cant’ raise any other examples of changing catholic doctrine we must put to rest your chagre for the time being. thank you.

You seem to like asking questions, but don’t like the answers given. I have talked about Limbo before, but what I am talking to you about right now is not Limbo, it is about something else. If you cannot see that, then I don’t think we have much else to talk about.

zerinus

 

[Nordar]

You seem to like asking questions, but don’t like the answers given. I have talked about Limbo before, but what I am talking to you about right now is not Limbo, it is about something else. If you cannot see that, then I don’t think we have much else to talk about.

zerinus

What answers have you given?
What exactly is it that you are talking about?
When you decide not to talk about Limbo it being a doctrine, because others are challenging you on that position? So now it is not to be discussed?
I asked you to show me where in any printed document it says that Limbo was a Catholic Doctrine.
JC asked you to show him what other doctrines have been changed in 2,000 yrs. You have not answered.
So now no one is talking about what you are talking about? so I ask you again Just exactly what is that?

 

[TOmNossor]

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??

If Brother Dorsey is precisely what he claimed to be and came here for the reasons he claimed to be here, do you not believe that he would leave?
I personally expect that he was absolutely honest in his first and subsequent posts. He discovered that this was no place for dialogue absent contention or where people could optimally learn from each other. Thus, he left.
I have no idea if he will be back or not; but if he returns, I expect he will be here for somewhat different reasons than those he had when he originally came.
What do you think?
Charity, TOm

 

[TemplarKnight]

As an observer it appears to me that with the absence of Brother Dorsey and the incessant prolixity of one zerinus, we were set up from the start for exactly this type of diatribe from zerinus. The coincidental agenda is completely transparent.

 

[MrS]

.
What do you think?
Charity, TOm

I guess I would have to agree, … he may have just been here to set up zernius.

And zernius, you have not produced one piece of evidence to back your claim that the Church - at ANY time - proclaimed a doctrine of unbaptised children going to hell.

 

[TOmNossor]

What answers have you given?
What exactly is it that you are talking about?
When you decide not to talk about Limbo it being a doctrine, because others are challenging you on that position? So now it is not to be discussed?
I asked you to show me where in any printed document it says that Limbo was a Catholic Doctrine.
JC asked you to show him what other doctrines have been changed in 2,000 yrs. You have not answered.
So now no one is talking about what you are talking about? so I ask you again Just exactly what is that?

There is nothing irreformable that stated that unbaptized babies went to hell/limbo.
There are in fact statement of canonized Saints that embrace this position. I am quite sure (though not positive) that St. Augustine would be one (before the Pelagian heresy he was basically a limbo guy and at some point he changed so that ultimately he asserted that unbaptized infants are tormented in hell with other sinners).
The fate of the unbaptized has been a position in flux within the Catholic Church for many years.

Baptism of Blood was one of the earlier ideas that postulated that unbaptized martyrs would be in heaven.
Later, Baptism of Desire was an idea that was applied to unbaptized Catechumens. If I recall from long ago traveling priests would not always be available to perform Baptism (which does not absolutely require a priest today -it may have in the past Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian never agreed on a issue very similar if not identical to this), but is generally preformed by one. The idea was that surely the faithful Catechumen would not go to hell because of lack of baptism.

Baptism of Desire and another idea “Invincible Ignorance” are applied today (inappropriately IMO) by very liberal priests to suggest that becoming Catholic is one of many paths.

If Z would like to he could look into some of the writings of SSPX folks. They are far better at documenting supposed changes in Catholic doctrine than Protestants (and even LDS). There is much to be examined and SSPX folks (and even Sedavacantists) are not without there good arguments.

I also wonder about your request for “I asked you to show me where in any printed document it says that Limbo was a Catholic Doctrine.”
The Council of Carthage in Africa (not an EC) rejected Limbo in favor of unbaptized infants burning in hell. Over time Limbo became prevalent. Finally, limbo has been somewhat dismissed in favor of less harsh ideas.

Z suggesting that the teaching of Limbo has changed IMO is quite correct. Do you disagree or are you just talking about infalliable truths?
Charity, TOm

 

[zerinus]

I guess I would have to agree, … he may have just been here to set up zernius.

And zernius, you have not produced one piece of evidence to back your claim that the Church - at ANY time - proclaimed a doctrine of unbaptised children going to hell.

I thought I did. The links are found in Post #41.

zerinus

 

[TOmNossor]

I guess I would have to agree, … he may have just been here to set up zernius.

And zernius, you have not produced one piece of evidence to back your claim that the Church - at ANY time - proclaimed a doctrine of unbaptised children going to hell.

I would like to believe (and actually do) that Zernius and Brother D do not know each other. I know I do not know either of them.

I hope that I did. I checked my recollection of St. Augustine’s thought with the Catholic Encyclopedia. The online one was written in 1911 so it is a great source for pre-Vatican II thought.
Here is the article on Limbo:
newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

Charity, TOm

 

[zerinus]

I guess I would have to agree, … he may have just been here to set up zernius.

And zernius, you have not produced one piece of evidence to back your claim that the Church - at ANY time - proclaimed a doctrine of unbaptised children going to hell.

I thought I did. You will find the links in post #85 of this thread.

zerinus

 

[Nordar]

There is nothing irreformable that stated that unbaptized babies went to hell/limbo.
There are in fact statement of canonized Saints that embrace this position. I am quite sure (though not positive) that St. Augustine would be one (before the Pelagian heresy he was basically a limbo guy and at some point he changed so that ultimately he asserted that unbaptized infants are tormented in hell with other sinners).
The fate of the unbaptized has been a position in flux within the Catholic Church for many years.

Baptism of Blood was one of the earlier ideas that postulated that unbaptized martyrs would be in heaven.
Later, Baptism of Desire was an idea that was applied to unbaptized Catechumens. If I recall from long ago traveling priests would not always be available to perform Baptism (which does not absolutely require a priest today -it may have in the past Pope St. Stephen and St. Cyprian never agreed on a issue very similar if not identical to this), but is generally preformed by one. The idea was that surely the faithful Catechumen would not go to hell because of lack of baptism.

Baptism of Desire and another idea “Invincible Ignorance” are applied today (inappropriately IMO) by very liberal priests to suggest that becoming Catholic is one of many paths.

If Z would like to he could look into some of the writings of SSPX folks. They are far better at documenting supposed changes in Catholic doctrine than Protestants (and even LDS). There is much to be examined and SSPX folks (and even Sedavacantists) are not without there good arguments.

I also wonder about your request for “I asked you to show me where in any printed document it says that Limbo was a Catholic Doctrine.”
The Council of Carthage in Africa (not an EC) rejected Limbo in favor of unbaptized infants burning in hell. Over time Limbo became prevalent. Finally, limbo has been somewhat dismissed in favor of less harsh ideas.

Z suggesting that the teaching of Limbo has changed IMO is quite correct. Do you disagree or are you just talking about infalliable truths?
Charity, TOm

Boy you guys really love to go on tangents that do not answer the question, Where is the doctrine on Limbo?
That long answer you just gave means nothing, the fact that some believed in Limbo is irrelevant. It is not a doctrine never was and is not now. It was not something that The Catholic Church changed, and no matter how many times you say that they did, it will not change that fact.

 

[TOmNossor]

Boy you guys really love to go on tangents that do not answer the question, Where is the doctrine on Limbo?

That long answer you just gave means nothing, the fact that some believed in Limbo is irrelevant. It is not a doctrine never was and is not now. It was not something that The Catholic Church changed, and no matter how many times you say that they did, it will not change that fact.
I think I started by saying that there was nothing irreformable that has declared that Limbo was true. I would also suggest that there is nothing irreformable that has declared that Limbo is false.
If it were to become the central issue of Vatican III, I think there is room to believe that unbaptized children go to hell and are eternally tormented OR unbaptized children go to hell/limbo and are eternally denied the beautific vision OR unbaptized children may be in heaven because God is not constrained by His sacraments. I would however suggest that the last of these three has the LEAST amount of early evidence. Would you disagree.

BTW, I like tangents.
If I was Catholic I would believe that Jesus Christ was homoousian (consubstantial) with me and that it is possible for me to become homoousian with God. What do you think of that. True, false, doctrine, non-doctrine?

Charity, TOm

 

[PaulDupre]

Remember that although Limbo was never doctrine, the presence of the OT faithful (who were never baptized) in heaven has always been doctrine. They are refered to as Saint Abraham, Saint Noah, etc. and Catholics have always been free to choose OT persons as patron saints and for confirmation names. Therefore, the Church has always recognized that somehow non-baptized persons can be saved.

Paul