LDS and Catholic Differences

[RebeccaJ]

The JoD is widely used in official LDS manuals and magazines to teach LDS doctrine.

Let me google that for you.

Lax16…the deal with the JoD is that it is quite alright for LDS to quote it to support their doctrine, but if anyone does so who is not mormon, LDS call them anti-mormon.

 

[dianaiad]

This is rather disingenuous. Prior to the internet, there was no access to what went on inside a mormon temple. The internet sites you refer to are non-LDS, and most LDS would consider them anti-mormon…so…where on the are internet sites that explain from a LDS POV the LDS temple ceremony?

It is after all one of things you say often. “go to LDS sites”…now you are telling people to go to non-LDS sites to get the information about the thing you consider most sacred? Have you read them yourself? Are you sure they are correct?

there was plenty of access Rebecca. Most of my life was pre-internet, y’know, and trust me, the information was out there and very easily accessable.

…and it is not my fault that there are people who are so disrespectful of the faith of others that they will blaspheme it in order to mock and deride it. It seems rather strange to me that people who would never, EVER make fun of aboriginal beliefs, or who would think it rude beyond imagining to make fun of beliefs not their own—have no problems whatsoever with desecrating ours.

and no, I have not checked them out. You know I would not, and you know why I would not. These things are sacred to ME. that means I will not discuss them outside Temple walls; the prohibition is mine, not yours. So, of course I will not go there.

It is enough, isn’t it, to know that the church makes no attempt at all to prevent such sites and publications? We HAVE sued for copyright infringement, but not for that.

If we figured that it was supposed to be ‘secret’ rather than sacred, we would be doing what the Scientologists do about THEIR secret stuff. Since we don’t, the inference should be obvious even to the most blind.

 

[RebeccaJ]

there was plenty of access Rebecca. Most of my life was pre-internet, y’know, and trust me, the information was out there and very easily accessable.

…and it is not my fault that there are people who are so disrespectful of the faith of others that they will blaspheme it in order to mock and deride it. It seems rather strange to me that people who would never, EVER make fun of aboriginal beliefs, or who would think it rude beyond imagining to make fun of beliefs not their own—have no problems whatsoever with desecrating ours.

and no, I have not checked them out. You know I would not, and you know why I would not. These things are sacred to ME. that means I will not discuss them outside Temple walls; the prohibition is mine, not yours. So, of course I will not go there.

It is enough, isn’t it, to know that the church makes no attempt at all to prevent such sites and publications? We HAVE sued for copyright infringement, but not for that.

If we figured that it was supposed to be ‘secret’ rather than sacred, we would be doing what the Scientologists do about THEIR secret stuff. Since we don’t, the inference should be obvious even to the most blind.

So, you’re still going to send non-LDS to non-LDS websites to get info about your most sacred ceremony.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Curious. I know that one of the 17 points that supposedly prove that the LDS church is true (convert daughter kept the list posted in her home) is that Jesus is the same, today and tomorrow. But then the LDS state that what a present Mormon says today now “counts” more than what was considered “as from the mouth of God” (and something past LDS had to believe on either pain of excommunication or death). How can that be, since Jesus (truth) is unchanging?

 

[lax16]

The JoD is widely used in official LDS manuals and magazines to teach LDS doctrine.

Let me google that for you.

Lax16…the deal with the JoD is that it is quite alright for LDS to quote it to support their doctrine, but if anyone does so who is not mormon, LDS call them anti-mormon.

Rebecca -

Is that why I feel like I’m chasing a greased pig around the barnyard?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca -

Is that why I feel like I’m chasing a greased pig around the barnyard?

Yes, that, and LDS doctrine changes with the wind. What Brigham Young said in the JoD was preached at a pulpit to LDS, who considered Young to be a prophet who was speaking for God. LDS today, who don’t like what he said, call it “opinion”. So, what is opinion today that is being spoken by LDS “prophets” as divine guidance?

You can go around and around on this forever. You’ll never get a straight answer, because there isn’t one.

 

[lax16]

…and the man actually has the chutzpah to quote “The Journal of Discourses?”

Great googly moogly.

Dianaiad - You were the one who referenced “The Journal of Discourses” in your post.

Prior to that, I had never even heard of it.

Talk about an ambush.

1. I NEVER claimed, and keep claiming, AS YOU SAY I DID, that they (JoD) are scriptures that define LDS doctrine.
2. I HAVE NEVER, AS YOU SAY I DID, quoted what you claim is my “favorite” JoD scripture EXCEPT AS IT WRITTEN on the page referenced by your church. That quote
   was included with others AS IT APPEARED ON THE PAGE OF “THE JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES” which comes from a church source.
3. You are calling me an “anti” based on this post.
4. You accused me of PROVIDING JoD quotes in response to someone who asked for a “doctrinal” source, and I did not.
5. You called me an anti-Mormon with an agenda who isn’t a bit interested in understanding or decent discourse.

All of this because of the JoD? This is truly ridiculous.

By the way, what are the scriptures that define LDS doctrine and how can one find them?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Is it really worth going on about the “Journal of Discourses”? That source is interesting and there’s no doubt that in the 19th century, under heavy-handed leaders like Brigham Young and his circle, it blasted forth all kinds of “doctrine” for the L.D.S. faithful to accept (or else, siritually, eternally, whatever). However, the J. of D. line of attack does not phase many L.D.S. Mormons; the J. of D., whether from embarassment over its excesses or whatever, simply is a “dead letter” among today’s L.D.S. members.

I would say to a would-be Catholic apologist, just refer to the J. of D. by way of referencing the history of Mormon doctrine, but keep close to the Mormons’ “standard works”, which offer plenty of ammunition (i.e. all that “wild and wooly stuff” which they believe, but Christians don’t and cannot accept) to counter Mormons with the implications of their teachings. The “standard works” have a meaning and centrality for them that the J. of D. simply do not hold anymore. L.D.S. Mormons, after all, are not (at least anymore) like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for whom their periodicals really are rather still the central oracle for their teachings.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[dianaiad]

So, you’re still going to send non-LDS to non-LDS websites to get info about your most sacred ceremony.

They made no promises.

I figure that what they see there will, when they compare it to what they DO see on the official sites and from the rest of us regarding the things we will talk about, will make them understand the depth of boorishness and anti-feeling they find on those sites.

As to what Temples are FOR—that’s easy and you can find that all over lds.org.

When I ‘send them elsewhere’ it is to prove to them…and to you, not that you care…that obviously this assinine idea that they are ‘secret’ is just that; assinine. If we made any attempt to STOP those sites from publishing Temple scripts, you might have a point.

…but we don’t. Ergo, NOT secret.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad - You were the one who referenced “The Journal of Discourses” in your post.

Yes. I was responding to 'vileservant." He used it as the ‘doctrinal source’ requested.

Prior to that, I had never even heard of it.

Talk about an ambush.

1. I NEVER claimed, and keep claiming, AS YOU SAY I DID, that they (JoD) are scriptures that define LDS doctrine.
2. I HAVE NEVER, AS YOU SAY I DID, quoted what you claim is my “favorite” JoD scripture EXCEPT AS IT WRITTEN on the page referenced by your church. That quote
   was included with others AS IT APPEARED ON THE PAGE OF “THE JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES” which comes from a church source.
3. You are calling me an “anti” based on this post.
4. You accused me of PROVIDING JoD quotes in response to someone who asked for a “doctrinal” source, and I did not.
5. You called me an anti-Mormon with an agenda who isn’t a bit interested in understanding or decent discourse.

All of this because of the JoD? This is truly ridiculous.

By the way, what are the scriptures that define LDS doctrine and how can one find them?

You are quite right. I had you confused with ‘vileservant.’ For that I very much owe you an apology.

As to your question: the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants are where you can find the scriptures that define LDS doctrine. A very good first start would be the Twelve Articles of Faith, which you can find at the very end of the “Pearl of Great Price,” You can find them here, among other places.

The link I just gave you takes you to LDS.org, the scripture section. If you really want to know about us, just start exploring the site.

 

[mfbukowski]

The Journal of Discourses is not scriptural for Mormons.

This is correct.

No Journal of Discourse is even considered “doctrinal”.

This is an official statement which describes what doctrine is and is not:

newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

 

[RebeccaJ]

They made no promises.

It’s not about promises. It is about you telling people if they want information about mormonism go to mormon sources. Yet, for this particular topic, one that is to mormonism the pinnacle of being a mormon…you can’t.

Yes, it is assinine. If it isn’t secret, it isn’t secret. So not discussing is assinine.

But I understand, if you actually discussed it amongst yourselves you might actually start to notice there is no coherent understanding, other than, it’s speshul.

 

[RebeccaJ]

This is correct.

No Journal of Discourse is even considered “doctrinal”.

This is an official statement which describes what doctrine is and is not:

newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/commentary/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Yet, this statement is not doctrinal.

 

[aspirant]

So I would assume from these questions, that you think that Ruth, for example, knew about all of the ceremonies that went on in the Holy of Holies before she became a Jew through her marriage, and that those ceremonies were taught to her openly before she had demonstrated the sincerity of her covenant making and the sincerity of her faith, and that all the “covenant people” (the descendants of the house of Israel at any time in Old Testament history) knew exactly and completely all the ceremonies that went on in the tabernacle of Moses or in the temple of Solomon and the rebuilt temple thereafter?

What the High Priest did in the Holy of Holies was not secret, but known to the people.

 

[dianaiad]

It’s not about promises. It is about you telling people if they want information about mormonism go to mormon sources. Yet, for this particular topic, one that is to mormonism the pinnacle of being a mormon…you can’t.

Yes, it is assinine. If it isn’t secret, it isn’t secret. So not discussing is assinine.

I see.

OK, Please tell us, right here and right now, exactly what sort of sex you had with your husband last night. What did he do? How did it begin? Did you even HAVE sex? If not, why not? What’s the matter with you? Was it your period? What did you do? Precisely? Not 'what did you do it for,…for closeness, or for procreation, or because you love each other or to give each other pleasure," but EXACTLY WHAT DID YOU DO? Who touched whom where, how and for how long? What did you say to each other? Did you wear anything for him? Did he wear anything for you? Were there toys involved?

Did you fall instantly asleep afterward or was there ‘pillow talk?’ Did he have problems performing? Did you have a headache? What happened?

Oh, wait. You don’t want to do this? What happens between you and your husband is sacred to your relationship and it’s none of my business? It’s enough to know that if you DO have sex, and whether you do or not is also none of my business, that you do it because it DOES make you closer as a couple, because it IS about God’s plan for man to multiply and replenish the earth, and it is a bond that married couples should hold quiet and sacred to themselves, because sharing it with people who don’t understand the nature of it simply cheapens and degrades it?

Well, since I AM LDS and understand the difference between ‘secret’ and ‘sacred’ I would accept that quite willingly, Rebecca. However, if I have your inability to see the difference, I would say “If it isn’t secret, it isn’t secret. Not discussing it is assinine.”

IN which case, of course, I expect you to tell me all about it. I hope you won’t, mind you, because if you really DON’T get the analogy, I still do and I don’t want you to for the same reasons you shouldn’t want to.

But I understand, if you actually discussed it amongst yourselves you might actually start to notice there is no coherent understanding, other than, it’s speshul.

We do discuss it amongst ourselves. We discuss it frequently and in great detail–within Temple walls. I will even discuss every aspect of it with you–as soon as you meet me in a Temple somewhere so that we can.

Until then, Rebecca,
You will simply have to learn to live with disappointment, and get over it.

 

[dianaiad]

What the High Priest did in the Holy of Holies was not secret, but known to the people.

Here’s something for you, just to think about.

This section is the Lord speaking to Moses, telling him and Aaron what to do. While we know NOW what was done by Moses and Aaron then, I don’t see anywhere where God said 'oh, and tell everybody that this is what you are doing, eh?" These things weren’t written down to be 'known for the people" for quite awhile. In fact, it is generally accepted by Christian scholars as being a sort of ‘handbook’ of priestly rituals and rules,and while Moses (by tradition) wrote it, it actually dates from the return of the Israelites from Babylonian captivity at about 537 BC. THAT is when what was written by Moses became ‘known to the people,’ but not, evidently, before. If this is true, and the evidence certainly seems to be pointing that way, then the only people who knew what went on in the Holy of Holies at the time God was instructing Moses and Aaron were… Moses and Aaron.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I see.

OK, Please tell us, right here and right now, exactly what sort of sex you had with your husband last night. What did he do? How did it begin? Did you even HAVE sex? If not, why not? What’s the matter with you? Was it your period? What did you do? Precisely? Not 'what did you do it for,…for closeness, or for procreation, or because you love each other or to give each other pleasure," but EXACTLY WHAT DID YOU DO? Who touched whom where, how and for how long? What did you say to each other? Did you wear anything for him? Did he wear anything for you? Were there toys involved?

Did you fall instantly asleep afterward or was there ‘pillow talk?’ Did he have problems performing? Did you have a headache? What happened?

I can send you a pm if you like…and really, you’re comparing the mormon temple to sex. I think I’ll use that some time, see what happens.

Oh, wait. You don’t want to do this? What happens between you and your husband is sacred to your relationship and it’s none of my business?

Diana, guess what, I don’t consider sex as sacred. Certainly it is private, but I’ve never been bashful about talking about sex. Just, I’m sure the mods here would ban me. My girlfriends and I discuss “stuff” amongst ourselves…give each other intimate “stuff” for use later.

It’s enough to know that if you DO have sex, and whether you do or not is also none of my business, that you do it because it DOES make you closer as a couple, because it IS about God’s plan for man to multiply and replenish the earth, and it is a bond that married couples should hold quiet and sacred to themselves, because sharing it with people who don’t understand the nature of it simply cheapens and degrades it?

It’s sex Diana. There isn’t anything secret about it, unless you’re 10 years old and nobody has taught you anything yet.

Well, since I AM LDS and understand the difference between ‘secret’ and ‘sacred’ I would accept that quite willingly, Rebecca. However, if I have your inability to see the difference, I would say “If it isn’t secret, it isn’t secret. Not discussing it is assinine.”

IN which case, of course, I expect you to tell me all about it. I hope you won’t, mind you, because if you really DON’T get the analogy, I still do and I don’t want you to for the same reasons you shouldn’t want to.

Seriously, you are cracking me up. I’m an adult. Talking about sex doesn’t in the least bother me. But I can tell it sure bothers you.

We do discuss it amongst ourselves. We discuss it frequently and in great detail–within Temple walls. I will even discuss every aspect of it with you–as soon as you meet me in a Temple somewhere so that we can.

Until then, Rebecca,
You will simply have to learn to live with disappointment, and get over it.

lol. I don’t think you’d want me in your temple walls Diana…when I don’t believe something, I tend to not hide it very well. Y’all would kick me out PDQ.

 

[mfbukowski]

So one kingdom you are with God and the other two you are not. Heaven without God?

What you quoted did not indicate that. Catholic doctrine indicates, if I am not mistaken, that heaven will include the “beatific vision” which is not excluded from what is described here.

I know many people become Catholic after reading the ECFs, so It always draws my interest when a Mormon claims the ECFs teach Mormon beliefs. Except Clement of Rome, Mormons believe the Catholic Church was apostate by the time any of the Fathers lived.

I bolded the parts which the Mormon website had removed from Chapter 14.

You make it sound like some nefarious purpose was intended by the edits. In fact, the portions edited were not germane to the point being made, and in fact, you ignored the point being made which was about the symbolism of the three degrees of glory.

Because Clement was “apostate” from our point of view in relation to the nature of God does not invalidate the fact that certain truths about the degrees of glory still remained in his understanding- those truths had not yet been stamped out altogether, where others had been.

If you would like other quotes from other ECF’s indicating their belief in a personal God, I can produce those, but the discussion was about the degrees of glory.

In Chapter 13 Clement tells us “there is one unchangeable gift of salvation given by one God, through one Lord, benefiting in many ways” to the Jews and the Greeks. He tells us about the three levels of the Church, Deacon, Priest, Bishop which imitate the three levels of glory in heaven. In Chapter 14, Clement tells us there are **various abodes; one is the Church and the three highest abodes **reflect the Parable of the Sower(Mathew 13:1-23). As we know the 30, 60, and 100 are all good Christians just like Bishop, Priest and Deacon are all in the Church. Clement is not saying there are three heavens. In fact abodes, does not seem to have anything to do with heaven specifically. Reading Wisdom 3:14 (can Mormons do that?), there is the (one) temple of the Lord; therefore one Church, one God, and one Heaven.

All I have to do with this quote of yours is underline the relevant points you admit, which I have already done. The point is he believed there WERE three degrees of glory which you apparently admit. And what else would “abodes” be referring to? “In my Father’s house there are many mansions”-- what does THAT mean?

“One temple” refers to all three things- one God, one Church, and one Heaven sounds like three things to me- why would you think that the word “temple” refers to God? God IS a temple?

Clement did say there is only one God and the highest level in the Church is the Bishop. I think he also said God is not human. I don’t think these are Mormon beliefs, which might be why they were left out.

As far as “one God”, we both know that this is very ambiguous. Ask a Muslim or a Jew if he thinks Catholics believe in “one God”. This three persons in one God is very problematic for all Christians and you know it. We also believe in three persons in one God, according to the Book of Mormon.

And the reason things were “left out” of the quote is because they were not relevant to the points being discussed.

And yes, I did notice that you also did not answer the points being discussed which were the three degrees of glory, and your accusation of the Mormon site being disingenuous was totally uncalled for when in fact it was you who was intentionally dodging the issue being discussed and putting up a smoke screen.

 

[mfbukowski]

What the High Priest did in the Holy of Holies was not secret, but known to the people.

Just as what we do is not secret but known to our people.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Just as what we do is not secret but known to our people.

“Our people” for the Israelites were all the Israelites, young and old, married and not married.

“Our people” for mormons does not even include all your baptized members.