is the pope teaching work for the dead

[ben_dy]

Casen:

Start with 2 Peter 1:10 but I suggest you read all of 2 Peter to get it in context.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall:

Hmm - reading the whole, in context, I neither understand Romney’s (must be the second most popular name in Utah!) nor Smith’s extrapolation of the whole.

It does sound, however, somewhat close to the opening line of much evangelical ‘witnessing’ - “Brother, do you have the assurance that, if you died right now, you would go to heaven?”

I always have to stop and think for a moment and then answer “eventually”. At least I am usually in a state where I have some assurance that I will eventually be in a state of grace so that I might attain eternal salvation - but that has not always been the case! (I feel as if I am boasting - and yet I am, more often than not, given over to scrupulosity when this subject comes up.)

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

amgids posts now leave no doubt that they contain no thought or effort just the constant braying to follow Satans word to become like Gods.

As to having one’s calling and election made sure… I have only met one person that would admit to this and he said nothing about it outside the temple and even in it wouldn’t say much. Yuo can find the ordinance online. This is a rare ordinance that is usually only performed on high up church leaders. It is to pronounce that a person’s “calling and elction” has been made sure. It is performed in two parts. The first in the temple (ususally by the prophet) and the second in the home by the person and their wife. This uses the sealing power (mormon version of whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven) to basically guatrantee a persons exaltation. This means that they now know that they get to go to the highest degree of glory in the celestial kingdom after they die. The only reason they aren’t taken up to heaven like enoch is that they are still needed here on earth to help the rest of us.

Hmm… rather like the Congregation for the Causes of Saints declaring Sainthood before any real investigation takes place… sounds dubious and short-sighted: if that person later goes on a murderous rampage only to be gunned down by a SWAT team us he/she still presumed to have a sure “calling and election”? As certain as many were that Padre Pio was a ‘living saint’ only after death could we be certain.

 

[majick275]

LDS scripture tells us that murder (as defined by the sheding of innocent blood) is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and can NOT be forgiven. It “undoes” any benefits of the sealing ordinance.

 

[ben_dy]

majick275:

LDS scripture tells us that murder (as defined by the sheding of innocent blood) is the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost and can NOT be forgiven. It “undoes” any benefits of the sealing ordinance.

That’s what I read - quoted - and Casen denied in my “Why not drop the Book of Abraham” thread - that murder was the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that would not be forgiven:

Doctrine & Covenants 132: 27: "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."

Casen failed to respond to that reply (but, to be charitable, he was away for a couple of weeks and may have missed it - or chosen to ignore it: hey, my feelings are not easily hurt!) but this one “what if” (and others could be constructed) rather blows a hole in the whole certainty and surety of “calling and election” ordinance, I would think.

How glad I am that the God I worship is both merciful and just! I will work out my salvation, for the remainder of my life, with fear and trembling! And as I missed Mass at EWTN this morning, I’ll be certain to be at my parish tomorrow morning at 8:00 sharp so that I may get some quality prayer time before Mass. How thankful I am for Christ, how thankful I am for Mary, how thankful I am for all the Saints who have served as “sure” examples of the path to eternal glory with God! Sorry - just having a bit of ‘one of those joyful moments’ at present…

 

[BJ_Colbert]

ben_dy:

That’s what I read - quoted - and Casen denied in my “Why not drop the Book of Abraham” thread - that murder was the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit that would not be forgiven:

Doctrine & Covenants 132: 27: "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord."

Casen failed to respond to that reply (but, to be charitable, he was away for a couple of weeks and may have missed it - or chosen to ignore it: hey, my feelings are not easily hurt!) but this one “what if” (and others could be constructed) rather blows a hole in the whole certainty and surety of “calling and election” ordinance, I would think.

How glad I am that the God I worship is both merciful and just! I will work out my salvation, for the remainder of my life, with fear and trembling! And as I missed Mass at EWTN this morning, I’ll be certain to be at my parish tomorrow morning at 8:00 sharp so that I may get some quality prayer time before Mass. How thankful I am for Christ, how thankful I am for Mary, how thankful I am for all the Saints who have served as “sure” examples of the path to eternal glory with God! Sorry - just having a bit of ‘one of those joyful moments’ at present…

Murder can be forgiven in the Catholic Church, but Divorce can not. Murderers and Child molesters can take the Eucharist, but Divorcees can’t.
My wonderful sweet Catholic husband, has been told there is no hope for him except maybe after death and then only if I call a priest for the last rites, until then he can not take the Eucharist. He can pledge $5000.00 every two years, his money is accepted, but he is still not considered worthy to take the Eucharist. What were you saying about your forgiving God?
I hope that in the Synod being held by the Pope this weekend, the Catholic Church will see fit to allow divorced persons who have not had annulments, but have remarried, to take the Eucharist. My husband is so hopeful of forgiveness and acceptance back into the Catholic Church. It causes me great pain to see his suffering, through no fault of his own. His wife left him and took the children and joined the Seventh Day Adventists. How was he supposed to keep his Catholic marriage together?
One priest out of 7 told him he was forgiven and then this forum told me that he could not be forgiven and that priest was wrong. So his parish priest who told him to take the Eucharist and absolved him of sin, was wrong to do so, according to the Vatican information given here in this forum.
I am so glad that in the LDS church each sinner is judged by the circumstances surrounding the commitment of the sin, whether it be murder, or divorce, or abortion, or child molesting. Each person is judged according to his knowledge and the circumstances under which the sin was committed, and the degree of repentance.
Sorry, to be so vehement, but I get very emotional over what has been told to my husband. He is such a good man, and does not deserve to be treated this way by the RCC.
BJ

 

[ben_dy]

BJ Colbert:

Murder can be forgiven in the Catholic Church, but Divorce can not. Murderers and Child molesters can take the Eucharist, but Divorcees can’t.
My wonderful sweet Catholic husband, has been told there is no hope for him except maybe after death and then only if I call a priest for the last rites, until then he can not take the Eucharist. He can pledge $5000.00 every two years, his money is accepted, but he is still not considered worthy to take the Eucharist. What were you saying about your forgiving God?
I hope that in the Synod being held by the Pope this weekend, the Catholic Church will see fit to allow divorced persons who have not had annulments, but have remarried, to take the Eucharist. My husband is so hopeful of forgiveness and acceptance back into the Catholic Church. It causes me great pain to see his suffering, through no fault of his own. His wife left him and took the children and joined the Seventh Day Adventists. How was he supposed to keep his Catholic marriage together?
One priest out of 7 told him he was forgiven and then this forum told me that he could not be forgiven and that priest was wrong. So his parish priest who told him to take the Eucharist and absolved him of sin, was wrong to do so, according to the Vatican information given here in this forum.
I am so glad that in the LDS church each sinner is judged by the circumstances surrounding the commitment of the sin, whether it be murder, or divorce, or abortion, or child molesting. Each person is judged according to his knowledge and the circumstances under which the sin was committed, and the degree of repentance.
Sorry, to be so vehement, but I get very emotional over what has been told to my husband. He is such a good man, and does not deserve to be treated this way by the RCC.
BJ

BJ-

I understand and can sympathize with your vehemence. If the circumstance of your husband’s ex-wife is not more terribly complex than what you’ve said, I would certainly, were I he, speak to someone at your chancery about an annulment. I don’t know all the circumstances but it sounds, from your description, as if there was certainly some deception of intentions before the marriage that may make the previous ‘marriage’ no marriage at all.

 

[flameburns623]

BJ Colbert:

Murder can be forgiven in the Catholic Church, but Divorce can not. Murderers and Child molesters can take the Eucharist, but Divorcees can’t.
. . . . I hope that in the Synod being held by the Pope this weekend, the Catholic Church will see fit to allow divorced persons who have not had annulments, but have remarried, to take the Eucharist. My husband is so hopeful of forgiveness and acceptance back into the Catholic Church. It causes me great pain to see his suffering, through no fault of his own. His wife left him and took the children and joined the Seventh Day Adventists. How was he supposed to keep his Catholic marriage together?
One priest out of 7 told him he was forgiven and then this forum told me that he could not be forgiven and that priest was wrong . . . . .
BJ

I would like to express my own sense of sadness that you are having so much trouble. It rather amazes me that your husband cannot gain an annulment. One of the biggest complaints of many faithful Roman Catholics is that annulments have become too easy . Keep in mind that an ‘annulment’ is different from a ‘divorce’ in that annulments decree no sacramental marriage ever really existed due to one or more impediments. Keep in mind also that Catholics on this forum are a tad more prone to a strict interpretation of such rules than the norm.

As you probably know, the RCC takes an absolute stand that a validly-contracted sacramental marriage is indissoluble and that only one marriage can ever be sacramentally contracted. Hence, your husband’s divorce did not erase his marriage, and thus his remarriage to you was null and void and every day he and you live together as spouse he is in a state of mortal sin. Sin that your husband cannot repent of because he refuses to abandon it and desist from sinning any further. He must either renege on the marital promises he made to you and live a very lonely life of perpetual celibacy; OR he must live in a perpetual state of mortal sin. Or he could join an Eastern Orthodox or Angican communion which would freely absolve him of whatever sin he might have incurred and receive him as a fully participating member of it’s body.

Protestants, from the opening of the Reformation, as well as the Eastern Orthodox, have taken a somewhat more lenient view than the RCC but until the early 20th century, very few Protestants recognized many grounds for divorce either. Essentially, most Protestants have always recognized that Scripture permits divorce (we are assuming throughout this post that this means ‘divorce with permission to remarry’) for the innocent partner(s) in the case of adultery; and in the case of abandonment of a believing spouse by an unbelieving spouse.

Where Protestants differed most with the RCC is on the contracting of new marriages–Protestants generally would recognize that new marriages CAN be contracted, and that the new marriage imposes new obligations upon both parties to the marriage. Since a civil divorce suggests that the divorced parties no longer intend to fulfil their marital vows to a previous person–a divorcee MIGHT sin by contracting a new marriage unscripturally, but such a sin is not perpetuated throughout the life of the marriage.

In other words Protestants traditionally said that you SHOULD NOT enter into a new contract of marriage if you were not scripturally divorced from a prior marriage, and that to do so is a sin; but that, once contracted, a new marriage brings with it a new and valid contract and new obligations to the new spouse. Roman Catholic teaching is that new obligations cannot be contracted unless and until it is determined that old obligations were never validly contracted. Which is the best I can do in describing the way the RCC sees things.

I would not expect any changes in this from the current Pope. If anything the talk has been that Benedict will tighten the rules for granting annulments.

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

I still haven’t figured out exactly how to quote quotes which have been quoted - - but am I learning to use the smiley faces! Anyway, I don’t have a lot to comment on…

You can “nest” HTML tags inside each other as many times as you like, following a simple rule. There are plenty of good resources on the Internet to show you how to use HTML tags.

I have the impression that McConkie was, indeed, a very good man - but I think that the number of errors in his book are perhaps indicative of the confusion that even the most well-taught (or, perhaps, particularly the well taught) LDS members have concerning the doctrine of the church.

Elder McConkie’s errors in doctrine were caused not so much by his “confusion” about true LDS doctrine, but by following in the tradition of an earlier age who had a propensity to speculation rather than sticking close to the teaching of the standard works. He was reproved by the leadership of the Church, not because he erred in doctrine, but because he had the presumption of thinking that he knew it all. Merely erring in doctrine is not grounds for reproving anybody.

As I’ve said before, I believe that a book - a catechism as the early LDS published for missionaries - would be a very good thing for the LDS church. Surely there exists, somewhere in the hierarchy of the church a body which teaches with authority? They - and not a single GA - should commission such a work so that there would be a greater understanding of the doctrines found within the standard works… - that there were so many, I think, is a cry for such a publication as free from error as possible, published under the direction and imprimatur of the first presidency, perhaps. … I realize that the Catholic Church is much larger than the LDS church, but I don’t think there would be a problem drumming up the same number of scholars to write and edit such a publication. NO ONE thought that the Catechism of the Catholic Church would turn out to be the ‘best seller’ that it is - I would bet that if the LDS church would issue such a work, it would find that would be the case as well (heck, I know that I would buy a copy!

I am sure that if such a book was published, it would become very popular with LDS! But there is a good reason why the GAs don’t want to publish one. There are two reasons basically. The first is that no such book written by man will ever be perfect. You would always be able to find flaws in it; whereas the word of God is perfect. The doctrine of the LDS Church is ultimately that which is revealed in LDS scripture. Such a book could not “add” anything to what the Lord has already revealed in scripture; neither could it “express” it any more correctly and accurately. It would always be something less perfect than the word of God itself, and you would always be able to pick holes in it. Secondly, it is the will of the GAs, and indeed of the Lord’s, that LDS should familiarise themselves with the revelations of God, and develop the ability to extract correct doctrine directly from them, rather than relying on secondary, imperfect, man-made sources.

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

What I don’t know - and you may and might be able to point me in the direction of the information - is how McConkie’s Mormon Doctrines came to be reprinted (presumably NOT in the same 1958-59 text!) …

The history of the publication of Mormon Doctrine is not a subject of much interest to me, and not one that I have given much thought to. I don’t know the answer to your questions on that. My guess is that the reason why it has been continued to be published is that there is popular demand for it.

Now I would, from what I have read, take great issue with those first couple of statements - it has, as I understand it, long been known that some documents have been repressed …

You could be right; but my understanding is that the Church prevents certain documents from being published in order to preserve the confidentiality of the individuals concerned, or those of their descendents, such as certain diaries of individuals which have been given to the Church

Again, I am comparing it to the Vatican website - www.vatican.va - there is really no comparison in the sheer wealth of information available there (and in many different languages… some including Latin!).

Two reasons for that. Firstly, the Catholic Church has been around for a lot longer than LDS. Secondly, LDS.ORG has a limited purpose. Its aim is to assist LDS members to quickly find information on what they need to answer personal questions in their daily lives, find out what the leadership of the Church has taught on various subjects of interest to LDS in discharging duties in the Church and in their callings, and generally be useful and informative to ordinary LDS members and investigators. It is not intended as a resource for professional scholars and academics. Those will have to look elsewhere for additional materials useful to them.

One thing for which I have some sympathy for ‘you guys’, however, is that there are far more ‘pro-Catholic’ websites that act as deposits for true Catholic doctrine and history - I would be willing to bet that there are FAR more ‘anti-Mormon’ websites in the vast World Wide Web than there are ‘pro-Mormon’ sites.

You bet there are!

This is not to say that there are not a good number of anti-Catholic websites but - per capita - there must be far more anti-Mormon sites. Why this is the case, I admit ignorance - it would be interesting if Google, for example, had an information gathering subsidiary that could look into the ‘why’ of this phenomena.

The reasons for that are not difficult to find. Look back to the history of the early Christianity to find the answer. Interestingly, 99% of those anti-Mormon websites (and publications in bookstores) originate from the so called “evangelical Christians”. They are the same group of people who go to Salt Lake City during conference times, with their posters and placards, and call Mormons every name under the sun! If there were no LDS, they would direct their fire at the Catholics! The reason why they train all their guns on us is because they perceive us to be the greatest threat to their evil craft–and that is true! We are a threat to them! This is what the Lord has said about them in modern scripture:

(Continued in the next post…)

amgid

 

[amgid]

(Continued from the previous post…)

1 Nephi 22:

22 And the righteous need not fear, for they are those who shall not be confounded. But it is the kingdom of the devil, which shall be built up among the children of men, which kingdom is established among them which are in the flesh–

23 For the time speedily shall come that all churches which are built up to get gain, and all those who are built up to get power over the flesh, and those who are built up to become popular in the eyes of the world, and those who seek the lusts of the flesh and the things of the world, and to do all manner of iniquity; yea, in fine, all those who belong to the kingdom of the devil are they who need fear, and tremble, and quake; they are those who must be brought low in the dust; they are those who must be consumed as stubble; and this is according to the words of the prophet.

24 And the time cometh speedily that the righteous must be led up as calves of the stall, and the Holy One of Israel must reign in dominion, and might, and power, and great glory.

25 And he gathereth his children from the four quarters of the earth; and he numbereth his sheep, and they know him; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd; and he shall feed his sheep, and in him they shall find pasture.

D&C 10:

53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.

54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;

55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.

56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil–yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.

57 Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God. I came unto mine own, and mine own received me not.
That is why they hate us, because they know that the LDS Church has been destined by divine design to destroy their craft and spell their doom. It is a fate from which they know they cannot escape. Therefore because they are of the devil, they do the worst that they can to us while they have the chance, before their time is up.

I am glad that the discourse in this message, and it others, has seemed to finally find a civil tone.

I am glad too!

That said, I am sure that you know that I would you come into the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church (I would not only be happy to have you in my catechism classes, but would even stand as your sponsor! Just say the word!)

I would love to come to your catechism classes, and learn more about the Catholic Church. But I probably wouldn’t find the time to. Even posting messages on this board is proving a strain.

just as certain as I am that you would have me (and my fellow Catholics) come into the LDS church.

Reading the Book of Mormon and other LDS scriptures is a very good beginning. If you attend the LDS Church with your LDS friends a few time you will gain added insight into what we believe and how the LDS Church works.

amgid

 

[Tmaque]

amgid:

That is why they hate us, because they know that the LDS Church has been destined by divine design to destroy their craft and spell their doom. It is a fate from which they know they cannot escape. Therefore because they are of the devil, they do the worst that they can to us while they have the chance, before their time is up.
amgid

Do you really believe that anti-LDS evangelical Christians are in league with satan? Isn’t that what “of the devil” means? Do you really believe that “they know that the LDS Church has been destined by divine design to destroy their craft and spell their doom”? Isn’t it just possible that they believe your is church wrong, and that God wants them to fight against the LDS Church with all their might?

If you really believe these things it tells me that instead of trying to understand those who oppose your beliefs, you would rather demonize them. They MUST be evil if they openly oppose the LDS Church, right? Isn’t it possible that they have good intentions, like saving people’s souls?

It’s always easier to demonize other people than it is to understand them. If you demonize them, and convince yourself they are evil, then you don’t have to pay any sort of attention to anything they are saying.

 

[majick275]

I would point out that these evangelical “anti” groups do in fact attack the Catholic church as well. They don’t train all of their guns on the LDS but attack quite a number of churches at the same time. If we were to believe that are led by Satan to attack that which is destined by divine design then are a number of churches that would have to be “Gods church”.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Flamesburn and Ben_dy, thank you for your answers to me. My husband have gone round and round about this problem and I do hope the Synod that is happening this week will answer the problem once and for all. The local Tribunal told my husband that no annulment was necessary, since it had been over 25 years since the divorce and she has been remarried for over 20 years to her 3rd husband. His priest told him it was OK to take the Eucharist and go to confession, we were happy with that, until I got into this forum and was told that the Tribunal and the Priest were wrong, and that there was never any forgiveness for divorce. We paid the Tribunal $150.00 to tell us that he did not need an annulment, and that decision was overturned by this forum.

My husband chose to believe the forum members. There really will never be a solution to this, unless the Church relaxes the rules and allows repentance and forgiveness for sins that are beyond the control of the so-called sinner, and until they all agree on the rules. One of the posters here, posted the rules from the Vatican, and it would seem that the Vatican would overule the decision of a Tribunal and a parish priest.
Anyway, my husband is now eagerly awaiting the results of the Synod on this topic, and filled with hope again.
Thanks for your response.
BJ

 

[ben_dy]

BJ Colbert:

Flamesburn and Ben_dy, thank you for your answers to me. My husband have gone round and round about this problem and I do hope the Synod that is happening this week will answer the problem once and for all. The local Tribunal told my husband that no annulment was necessary, since it had been over 25 years since the divorce and she has been remarried for over 20 years to her 3rd husband. His priest told him it was OK to take the Eucharist and go to confession, we were happy with that, until I got into this forum and was told that the Tribunal and the Priest were wrong, and that there was never any forgiveness for divorce. We paid the Tribunal $150.00 to tell us that he did not need an annulment, and that decision was overturned by this forum.

My husband chose to believe the forum members. There really will never be a solution to this, unless the Church relaxes the rules and allows repentance and forgiveness for sins that are beyond the control of the so-called sinner, and until they all agree on the rules. One of the posters here, posted the rules from the Vatican, and it would seem that the Vatican would overule the decision of a Tribunal and a parish priest.
Anyway, my husband is now eagerly awaiting the results of the Synod on this topic, and filled with hope again.
Thanks for your response.
BJ

BJ-

If you have a decision from a diocesan tribunal that there is no need for an annulment then I have to assume that by simple documentary process a decision was made - if that’s the case don’t let anyone on this forum convince you or your husband that the tribunal was incorrect or that the absolution of your priest is not sufficient.

I sincerely hope that your husband is not being overly scrupulous about this issue and hope, to that he is NOT depending on THIS forum for a definitive answer!

I wouldn’t place any hope in the Synod coming out with any change of Church doctrine - I WOULD urge you to take the advice of the tribunal and NOT the advice of those here who likely know the full circumstances as would have been outlined in the documents you submitted to the tribunal (and I doubt that there are many JCL or JDL canonists hanging around in the LDS forum).

 

[axolotl]

ben_dy:

BJ-

(and I doubt that there are many JCL or JDL canonists hanging around in the LDS forum).

There is a JCL who frequents the Catholic Answers Forums. Don’t know if he stops by LDS very often. He uses the handle “cameron_lansing” and is on his dioceses marriage tribunal. He may respond to a PM.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I would point out that these evangelical “anti” groups do in fact attack the Catholic church as well. They don’t train all of their guns on the LDS but attack quite a number of churches at the same time.

I know they do! But the overwhelming weight of their fire is directed against the LDS Church.

If we were to believe that are led by Satan to attack that which is destined by divine design then are a number of churches that would have to be “Gods church”.

That is not how my reasoning went. You are turning my reasoning on its head.

amgid

 

[majick275]

I know that you recognize only the “standard works” as doctrinally binding so I would claim that this “scripture” would seem to invite these “attacks”.

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)

This would appear to assert that anyone who is not LDS is a member of Satans church.

 

[amgid]

majick275:

I know that you recognize only the “standard works” as doctrinally binding so I would claim that this “scripture” would seem to invite these “attacks”.

“Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the Church of the Lamb of God and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore whoso belongeth not to the church of the lamb of God belongeth to that great church; which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.” (The Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10)

I am sure it does. It is not the only thing that does. I could quote you lots more passages in LDS scripture that “invites their attacks”. This one makes them even more mad!

JS-H 1:

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
There is a reason for it though. The reason is partly explained in these verses:

1 Nephi 16:

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

3 And now my brethren, if ye were righteous and were willing to hearken to the truth, and give heed unto it, that ye might walk uprightly before God, then ye would not murmur because of the truth, and say: Thou speakest hard things against us.
And partly in these:

1Nephi 14:

7 For the time cometh, saith the Lamb of God, that I will work a great and a marvelous work among the children of men; a work which shall be everlasting, either on the one hand or on the other–either to the convincing of them unto peace and life eternal, or unto the deliverance of them to the hardness of their hearts and the blindness of their minds unto their being brought down into captivity, and also into destruction, both temporally and spiritually, according to the captivity of the devil, of which I have spoken.

D&C 121:

12 And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness;

13 Also because their hearts are corrupted, and the things which they are willing to bring upon others, and love to have others suffer, may come upon themselves to the very uttermost;

14 That they may be disappointed also, and their hopes may be cut off;

This would appear to assert that anyone who is not LDS is a member of Satans church.

Actually that is not what it means. I am not going to explain it any further though. It wouldn’t be worth the effort for me; and it wouldn’t make much difference to you.

amgid

 

[flameburns623]

BJ Colbert:

Flamesburn and Ben_dy, thank you for your answers to me. My husband have gone round and round about this problem and I do hope the Synod that is happening this week will answer the problem once and for all. The local Tribunal told my husband that no annulment was necessary, since it had been over 25 years since the divorce and she has been remarried for over 20 years to her 3rd husband. His priest told him it was OK to take the Eucharist and go to confession, we were happy with that, until I got into this forum and was told that the Tribunal and the Priest were wrong, and that there was never any forgiveness for divorce. We paid the Tribunal $150.00 to tell us that he did not need an annulment, and that decision was overturned by this forum.

My husband chose to believe the forum members. There really will never be a solution to this, unless the Church relaxes the rules and allows repentance and forgiveness for sins that are beyond the control of the so-called sinner, and until they all agree on the rules. One of the posters here, posted the rules from the Vatican, and it would seem that the Vatican would overule the decision of a Tribunal and a parish priest.
Anyway, my husband is now eagerly awaiting the results of the Synod on this topic, and filled with hope again.
Thanks for your response.
BJ

BJ:

There are forums out there which argue on ‘strict constitutionalist’ grounds that it is illegal for the federal government to collect income taxes–arguing that the orignal constitution did not allow for such a measure, and that the 16th Amendment was not validly enacted. Some argue it is unconsitutional for for any governing agency to collect annual ‘property taxes’. I am very sympathetic to such views. I believe that the Constitution strictly limits the powers of government, and should be read in a very limited fashion according to the orignal intent of the framers. I would like to see such views treated as the normative understanding of how constitutional law is read. However, I would NOT refuse to pay income taxes or property taxes because of a view of the Constitution which I ‘prefer’, when such is not the way the Constitution is being read.

By the same token, many Catholics on this forum prefer a much more strict understanding of the conditions under which an annulment should be granted. The fact is that such is NOT how annulments are currently being granted. It sounds as if your husband was either granted an annulment or in some way excused from the need to receive such an annulment. I would NOT take the private views of individuals on this or any other Internet forum as trumping the understanding of your husband’s status vis’a’vis the Catholic sacraments.