LDS and Catholic Differences

[Prague]

HI Jerry - My great grandparents came from Prague when it was still called Bohemia, and in our family the Infant has always been a great influence. I hope to one of these days go there. It is a beautiful city. Great dog story!

Also, love your name. It is my sister’s name.

God’s Blessings.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Prague,

**You wrote: ** My great grandparents came from Prague when it was still called Bohemia, and in our family the Infant has always been a great influence. I hope to one of these days go there. It is a beautiful city. Great dog story!​

Yeah, dogs do the darndest things (like chewing up and devouring an Infant of Prague statue and all the fancy duds).

Two friends here returned from Prague last year, having taken lots of photos and moving images. I always did know that Prague was gorgeous, but I know that even more since seeing those tourist pix. Warsaw and Crakow are magnificent, too, but Prague tops them all! It is nice, too, that there are so few L.D.S. Mormons there!

There was a film of the “alternative” film-maker, John Waters, in which the infamous transvestite actor, Divine, has a Catholic experience of conversion and is seen walking about Baltimore’s sidewalks with (a little boy posing as) the Infant of Prague. Strange and incongruous, even if less funny that the story about the dog!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Robert in SD,
I can. The LDS version of Celestial heaven (though the name is not there and is really just a descriptive term anyway, the description is) is the version described by John in the book of Revelation for “joint heirs” with the Only Begotten Son of God, whose throne becomes a joint throne through His power and grace.

That does not describe three levels of heaven. Nor does it provide clear support for the LDS doctrine of eternal progression. “Joint heirs” does not imply that our nature chages from human to divine.

Peace,
Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

Prague,

**You wrote: ** My great grandparents came from Prague when it was still called Bohemia, and in our family the Infant has always been a great influence. I hope to one of these days go there. It is a beautiful city. Great dog story!​

Yeah, dogs do the darndest things (like chewing up and devouring an Infant of Prague statue and all the fancy duds).

Two friends here returned from Prague last year, having taken lots of photos and moving images. I always did know that Prague was gorgeous, but I know that even more since seeing those tourist pix. Warsaw and Crakow are magnificent, too, but Prague tops them all! It is nice, too, that there are so few L.D.S. Mormons there!

There was a film of the “alternative” film-maker, John Waters, in which the infamous transvestite actor, Divine, has a Catholic experience of conversion and is seen walking about Baltimore’s sidewalks with (a little boy posing as) the Infant of Prague. Strange and incongruous, even if less funny that the story about the dog!

Pax, Jerry Parker

Do you even have a clue about the meaning of that film? Gosh!

And if you knew anything about Divine, you would not mention dogs in the same breath, pardon the pun.

 

[mfbukowski]

That does not describe three levels of heaven. Nor does it provide clear support for the LDS doctrine of eternal progression. “Joint heirs” does not imply that our nature chages from human to divine.

Peace,
Robert

It doesn’t have to.

It is evidence.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

M.F. Bukowski,

**You wrote: ** *Do you even have a clue about the meaning of that film? Gosh!

And if you knew anything about Divine, you would not mention dogs in the same breath, pardon the pun. *

---

Yes, sadly, Divine (pseud.) led a sorry life in bondage to his demons. The biography by Bernard Jay reveals the tawdry lot of it. Divine interests me only from two related interests: (1) anything to do with Baltimore, a truly fascinating (and very, very Catholic) city, and (2) his involvement in “alternative” cinema (John Water’s, especially), which I like very much. As for the meaning of it all, I am one of those lucky folks who am able just to “take it all in” without being unduly worried about meaning (where it is not exactly of earth-shaking importance, anyway!).

Divine’s name in most folks’ mind (if they are aware of him at all) is, indeed, closely linked to a dog (and the scene would have affected his “breath” quite atrociously!), i.e. that scene at the end of John Waters’ film, Pink Flamingos. I do not care to describe it in the C.A. Forum, as I think that you would understand! Fortunately, in alternative cinema, the Kuchar Brothers were as daffy as Waters without resorting to quite such grossness.

We all, Catholics or whoever, have our cultural glitches! (And Waters and the Kuchars both were Catholic, even, in Waters’ case, very obviously so, though not in the desirable of ways.)

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[Robert_in_SD]

It doesn’t have to.

It is evidence.

It is insubstantial and irrelevant evidence.

Peace,
Robert

 

[rdscheirer]

For Jerry Parker- no difference between Mohammed and Smith- books parallel very well- read “The Truth about Mohammed” by a scholar who is in hiding because of the book.Whenever M would have friction with his followers about his teaching for them he would recieve a “revelation” from his Allah that exempted him from it. # of wives, age of wife at cosummation etc.He is seen by the Mohammadans as the ultimate human.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

R.D.S. Schreier,

**You wrote: ** [There is] * no difference between Mohammed and Smith – [their] books parallel very well – read “The Truth about Mohammed” by a scholar who is in hiding because of the book. Whenever M[uhammad] would have friction with his followers about his teaching for them he would recieve a “revelation” from his Allah that exempted him from it, e.g. number of wives, age of wife at cosummation etc. He is seen by the Mohammadans * as the ultimate human. *​

I do not truly regard the Qur’an as revealed, of course, but to be fair to Muhammad, his book attains moments of great sublimity that the tawdry and ugly Book of Mormon never even remotely approaches. I do not doubt, either, that Muhammad made his “revelations” rather opportunistically, the more so as he aged, to justify his behaviour, e.g. in the marital and sexual matters to which you refer. However, Muhammad just was not so utterly crass as Joseph Smith was! See some of the really touching depictions of Muhammad in the Sunna (Hadith), where his humility can be seen. (It is too bad that the Hadith is so undiscerning about what to include, trash mixed among the jewels, so to speak.) So, the comparisons between Muhammad and Joseph Smith Junior only “go just so far”. I am nore willing to give Muhammad the “benefit of the doubt” in many matters, but Joseph Smith hardly deserves such consideration!

Smith was an out-and-out modern rogue, Muhammad a more remote figure and one closer to true originality, spiritual yearning, and higher religious calibre; Muhammad’s attitude of humility (and I realise that he was not always so) is admirable, as opposed to Smith’s boisterously self-assertive ways (although Smith did have some good qualities that managed to assert themselves at times). Muhammad was an heroic figure, Joseph Smith Jr. merely a mock-heroic one! Smith’s followers were nobler, that’s for sure, than their profiteering leader. The fact that a religious group so appealing, creedally sound, and sweetly progressive as the R.L.D.S. Church (now called the Community of Christ) could grow out of Smith’s movement shows that there was some good in the foundations, with which the L.D.S. pagan sect’s hideousness in its basics contrasts badly.

Pax, Jerry Parker*

 

[mfbukowski]

It is insubstantial and irrelevant evidence.

Peace,
Robert

Ah yes.

Those words are often used in court- you would know-- because they are subject to interpretation, aren’t they? One mans insubstantial and irrelevant is another man’s substantial and relevant.

That’s not going to get us very far at all.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Ah yes.

Those words are often used in court- you would know-- because they are subject to interpretation, aren’t they? One mans insubstantial and irrelevant is another man’s substantial and relevant.

No. They’re used in court when the “evidence” that is offered does not prove the fact that has been asserted. This is not a matter of interpretation. Nor is it even a matter of determining what is reasonable. It’s looking at what you’re relying on in the cold and impersonal light of logic and seeing that it simply is not substantial support for the LDS position.

Peace,
Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

No. They’re used in court when the “evidence” that is offered does not prove the fact that has been asserted. This is not a matter of interpretation. Nor is it even a matter of determining what is reasonable. It’s looking at what you’re relying on in the cold and impersonal light of logic and seeing that it simply is not substantial support for the LDS position.

Peace,
Robert

Wouldn’t it be nice if life were really so simple?

I think you are intelligent enough to know it isn’t.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Wouldn’t it be nice if life were really so simple?

I think you are intelligent enough to know it isn’t.

Dear mfb;

I never said that life was simple. I certainly did not set out to make such a statement. My only point is that John’s description of Christ’s throne and the term “joint heirs” with Christ does not support, in any way, the LDS doctrine of three levels of heaven. It neither tends to prove nor disprove the LDS position. Therefore, it is not evidence.

It is fine if you want to claim that the doctrine is true, based on the later teachings of Joseph Smith and other latter-day Prophets. But I think that this very specific teaching about the nature of heaven cannot be supported by the passages referenced in ParkerD’s earlier post. And I know of no passage that does support it. It’s not a matter of interpretation. It’s a question of whether or not the average reasonable person can support the LDS position from the passages described.

Peace,
Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

Dear mfb;

It is fine if you want to claim that the doctrine is true, based on the later teachings of Joseph Smith and other latter-day Prophets. But I think that this very specific teaching about the nature of heaven cannot be supported by the passages referenced in ParkerD’s earlier post. And I know of no passage that does support it. It’s not a matter of interpretation. It’s a question of whether or not the average reasonable person can support the LDS position from the passages described.

Peace,
Robert

Well actually, my testimony is not based on teachings of anyone but the spirit, but it is useful to note that such things were apparently also taught by the ECF’s including Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Pretty clever of Joseph to be such a good scholar with virtually no education and all.

fairlds.org/Anti-Mormons/Tanners_on_the_Hereafter.html

The Tanners object to the Latter-day Saint use of 1 Corinthians 15:40 to support our doctrine of degrees of glory because there is no evidence that the word telestial was originally used and because celestial simply means “heavenly” and terrestrial means “earthly.” “A careful examination of the context, verses 35-54, reveals that Paul was comparing our earthly body with the body we shall receive in the resurrection; he was not speaking of three kingdoms in heaven” (p. 199). However, reading further, verses 41 and 42 clarify:

There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead. (1 Corinthians 15:40-42)

Although Joseph Smith’s interpretation of this passage is not obvious, it exactly coincides with the interpretation of the early Christian Church as reported by the theologian Origen:

Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars."35

Therefore, whether or not the word telestial is a restoration of lost text, Joseph Smith’s emended text certainly restores lost context to the passage that was obvious to the early Christians but that is missed by most modern readers.

Of course, the Tanners also passed over Paul’s report of a vision wherein he was “caught up to the third heaven” (2 Corinthians 12:2). Jean Daniélou writes that in ancient Jewish and Jewish Christian thought, “This hidden world includes first of all the heavens. Of these, traditional Judaism knew only three: the heaven of meteors, the heaven of stars and the heaven of God, and this is the scheme employed in the older Jewish apocalyptic. It is this system to which Paul alludes.” Some Jewish Christians elaborated the three-heaven system into one of seven or more heavens, but in all cases, beings of various degrees of glory were thought to inhabit them.36

And what about Jesus’s allusion to three degrees of glory? “But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty” (Matthew 13:23). Clement of Alexandria not only interpreted this verse in terms of the three degrees of glory but echoed Joseph Smith’s statement that those who inhabit the celestial kingdom will be “gods, even the sons of God” (D&C 76:58).

Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed… These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel–the thirty, the sixty, the hundred. And the perfect inheritance belongs to those who attain to “a perfect man,” according to the image of the Lord… To the likeness of God, then, he that is introduced into adoption and the friendship of God, to the just inheritance of the lords and gods is brought; if he be perfected, according to the Gospel, as the Lord Himself taught. [Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.14 (ANF 2:506)]

And another:

Finally, while the earliest Christians primarily taught “one single salvation, offered to all and sundry,” they recognized that some would not fully reach that goal. This understanding manifested itself in the belief in multiple heavens, usually three (see 2 Corinthians 12:1—4) or seven.50 An integral part of climbing the rungs of Jacob’s Ladder was gaining spiritual knowledge, and this necessarily occurred by degrees. For instance, commenting on the comparison of the heavenly bodies with resurrected bodies in 1 Corinthians 15:40—42, Origen wrote:

Our understanding of the passage indeed is, that the Apostle, wishing to describe the great difference among those who rise again in glory, i.e., of the saints, borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, "One is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars."51

Clement of Alexandria gave this interpretation of one of Jesus’ statements: "Conformably, therefore, there are various abodes, according to the worth of those who have believed. . . . These chosen abodes, which are three, are indicated by the numbers in the Gospel—the thirty, the sixty, the hundred."52

maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/review/?vol=12&num=1&id=332

These are of course Mormon apologetic sites; I hope you don’t get hives or anything by going to them.

 

[mfbukowski]

While reading Clement of Alexandria, I was also interested to notice this, his knowledge that the gospel was preached to the dead by Jesus and the apostles to the Jews gentiles and heathens as well

Personally, this is my interpretation of the phrase “the gates of hell shall not prevail” against the church: ie, that Christ would shatter the gates of hell and his triumphant church would preach there.

But that is for another discussion I suppose, which I did already with a lot of you folks before:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=282000&highlight=gates+of+hell+mfbukowski

But here is the quote from my buddy Clement of Alexandria, Mormon that he was:

Chapter 6. The Gospel Was Preached to Jews and Gentiles in Hades.

But as the proclamation [of the Gospel] has come now at the fit time, so also at the fit time were the Law and the Prophets given to the Barbarians, and Philosophy to the Greeks, to fit their ears for the Gospel. “Therefore,” says the Lord who delivered Israel, “in an acceptable time have I heard you, and in a day of salvation have I helped you. And I have given you for a Covenant to the nations; that you might inhabit the earth, and receive the inheritance of the wilderness; saying to those that are in bonds, Come forth; and to those that are in darkness, Show yourselves.” For if the “prisoners” are the Jews, of whom the Lord said, “Come forth, you that will, from your bonds,”— meaning the voluntary bound, and who have taken on them " the burdens grievous to be borne" Matthew 23:4; Luke 11:46 by human injunction— it is plain that “those in darkness” are they who have the ruling faculty of the soul buried in idolatry.

For to those who were righteous according to the law, faith was wanting. Wherefore also the Lord, in healing them, said, “Your faith has saved you.” But to those that were righteous according to philosophy, not only faith in the Lord, but also the abandonment of idolatry, were necessary. Straightway, on the revelation of the truth, they also repented of their previous conduct.

Wherefore the Lord preached the Gospel to those in Hades. Accordingly the Scripture says, “Hades says to Destruction, We have not seen His form, but we have heard His voice.” It is not plainly the place, which, the words above say, heard the voice, but those who have been put in Hades, and have abandoned themselves to destruction, as persons who have thrown themselves voluntarily from a ship into the sea. They, then, are those that hear the divine power and voice. For who in his senses can suppose the souls of the righteous and those of sinners in the same condemnation, charging Providence with injustice?

But how? Do not [the Scriptures] show that the Lord preached the Gospel to those that perished in the flood, or rather had been chained, and to those kept “in ward and guard”? 1 Peter 3:19-20 And it has been shown also, in the second book of the Stromata, that the apostles, following the Lord, preached the Gospel to those in Hades. For it was requisite, in my opinion, that as here, so also there, the best of the disciples should be imitators of the Master; so that He should bring to repentance those belonging to the Hebrews, and they the Gentiles; that is, those who had lived in righteousness according to the Law and Philosophy, who had ended life not perfectly, but sinfully. For it was suitable to the divine administration, that those possessed of greater worth in righteousness, and whose life had been pre-eminent, onrepenting of their transgressions, though found in another place, yet being confessedly of the number of the people of God Almighty, should be saved, each one according to his individual knowledge.

And, as I think, the Saviour also exerts His might because it is His work to save; which accordingly He also did by drawing to salvation those who became willing, by the preaching [of the Gospel], to believe in Him, wherever they were. If, then, the Lord descended to Hades for no other end but to preach the Gospel, as He did descend; it was either to preach the Gospel to all or to the Hebrews only. If, accordingly, to all, then all who believe shall be saved, although they may be of the Gentiles, on making their profession there; since God’s punishments are saving and disciplinary, leading to conversion, and choosing rather the repentance them the death of a sinner; and especially since souls, although darkened by passions, when released from their bodies, are able to perceive more clearly, because of their being no longer obstructed by the paltry flesh.

If, then, He preached only to the Jews, who wanted the knowledge and faith of the Saviour, it is plain that, since God is no respecter of persons, the apostles also, as here, so there preached the Gospel to those of the heathen who were ready for conversion. And it is well said by the Shepherd, “They went down with them therefore into the water, and again ascended. But these descended alive, and again ascended alive. But those who had fallen asleep, descended dead, but ascended alive.” Further the Gospel Matthew 27:52 says, “that many bodies of those that slept arose,”— plainly as having been translated to a better state. There took place, then, a universal movement and translation through the economy of the Saviour.

newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm

The last two sentences imply to me also that Clement is here speaking of baptism for the dead- why else would he bring up baptism in a discussion of preaching to the dead?

But you will all disagree, and we will get into some silly argument.

I just want you to realize that Joseph did not make this stuff up. There is plenty of evidence for many Mormon beliefs in the ECF’s.

I am very busy now, and am not sure when I will be able to post again

 

[AMDGtoo]

I just want you to realize that Joseph did not make this stuff up. There is plenty of evidence for many Mormon beliefs in the ECF’s.

I realize that it is simply your interpretation. Nothing more. And there is no real evidence of Mormons beliefs in the Early Church Fathers–only things you imagine are there (but really aren’t) because of your interpretation. (Of course you must have realized that we would want to at least counter your claim against our family–and that’s what the Early Church Fathers are: our family.)

I am very busy now, and am not sure when I will be able to post again

Take care.

 

[mfbukowski]

I realize that it is simply your interpretation. Nothing more. And there is no real evidence of Mormons beliefs in the Early Church Fathers–only things you imagine are there (but really aren’t) because of your interpretation. (Of course you must have realized that we would want to at least counter your claim against our family–and that’s what the Early Church Fathers are: our family.)

Take care.

No it’s YOUR interpretation, and OUR family

I told you there would be stupid arguments.

 

[Marie5890]

There is no sense in Mormonism that Jesus was Jewish. One cant really sense any Hebrew roots in its culture.

In Catholicism, it is evident that He was as Hebrew roots are very present in our faith.

I find that a significant difference

 

[Marie5890]

I realize that it is simply your interpretation. Nothing more. And there is no real evidence of Mormons beliefs in the Early Church Fathers–only things you imagine are there (but really aren’t) because of your interpretation. (Of course you must have realized that we would want to at least counter your claim against our family–and that’s what the Early Church Fathers are: our family.)

Take care.

Believe in the ECF’s? As a whole Mormons reject the ECF’s, we all know that. They dont study the ECF.

They see the ECF’s as being Catholic (surprise, surprise) so they are ignored.
You dont hear any talk or even general conference address by a GA where an ECF is used.

 

[ParkerD]

There is no sense in Mormonism that Jesus was Jewish. One cant really sense any Hebrew roots in its culture.

In Catholicism, it is evident that He was as Hebrew roots are very present in our faith.

I find that a significant difference

Marie5890,

I’m trying to remember at what age I understood Jesus was Jewish. Perhaps at about age eight. Perhaps earlier. Perhaps this fact is not emphasized in some way that you were expecting, but it is included in hymns (“rejected by His own”), and certainly included when anyone studies the life of Jesus the Christ. Whenever children dress up to depict the “first Christmas”, they are usually told that they are to dress up in a way that represents the Jewish culture of the time of Christ. How could Christ be a direct descendant of David, and not be Jewish? He was the rightful king of the kingdom of Judah, and this is taught to children at a young age.

What you have demonstrated is that your situation within Mormonism was not a deep involvement, nor a deep study, to have such a view. I have found through reading on these threads that as people emphasize Catholics “owning” the Bible and disregarding that the Jews were the primary source of the Bible, that quite the opposite from what you have expressed seems to be prevalent.

Have a good day. You might read Jesus the Christ, by James E Talmage, at some point, if you want to understand the LDS perspective about Jesus being a Jew.