LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[ParkerD]

It would be helpful if you could point out what was incorrect in his post.

(And you already know how I feel about the Sacrament of Reconciliation and the fact that I believe Mormons do not have a valid priesthood and thus do not have the God-given authority to act *in persona Christi *in absolving sins - which is why they don’t. God has protected and preserved His Sacrament only in His Church. )

Hope you have a wonderful night!

Thanks, Jay53, I appreciate it–you, too.

I do understand.

I won’t go into the detail he went into, at all, but suffice to say that there is no “re-confession”, anything said is voluntary by the person, some don’t even come to the disciplinary council, there is no “wait another year” type of concept at all, and the stake president has the final decision making as to the discipline, subject to sending a report of the council to the key-holders, which are the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency, who ultimately consider the case as to the decision and the membership action, and thus do the “binding” or “loosing”.

 

[CEM5]

CEM,

The words are “so I might have taken her to me to wife”. Those words mean that he had laid the plan to marry her, not that he had married her. The plagues were to give him a warning so that he wouldn’t carry out his plan to marry her.

You might study about the Pharaoh, and learn that he wasn’t in the practice of committing adultery, nor does that passage imply that he did nor that he was in that practice in his life.

See also Genesis 20:2-7 and find the same kind of implication if the words “took Sarah” were used by someone in an implication that could be construed but is shown to not be correct by what happens in verses 3-7.

Hi Parker

The Pharaoh, from what he was told (that Sarah was not married but unwed, – the sister, not wife,of Abram) wouldn’t have been committing adultery in his mind because he was lied to by Abram.

Sarah was months in the Pharoah’s house, and historically, a “king” – a Pharaoh – had many wives/concubines, and Sarah became as a wife to him – which means he had carnal knowledge of her.

Not too difficult to realize this especially when knowing history and how Pharaoh’s were with beautiful women they desired – for desire her he did. The plagues did not occur until he knew her. God didn’t punish the pharaoh until AFTER he had “been” with Sarai.

Read the second account of when Abram went to another land and did the same thing. This time before that king would take Sarah “to wife”, God warned the king. No plagues happened (yet) because this King did not have the same amount of time with sarah and therefore did not have carnal knowledge with her.

In Gen 20, the king took sarai, but it also clearly states that before he could be with her, God came to him in a dream to warn him before “he approached Sarai”. God made sure that after the king took Sarai (from Abram - the “brother” who is the guardian of a sister when there is no father), God immediately went to the king to warn him. God left no time for the king to take Sarai “to wife”. Not so with the Pharaoh. The Pharaoh took Sarai “to wife” and suffered for it.

2 Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” And King Abimelech of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, “You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a married woman.” 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, "She is my sister’? And she herself said, “He is my brother.’ I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands.” 6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart; furthermore it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her

By the way…note that the wording used for carnal knowledge in this aspect is “approached”. Yet we know that in our vernacular usuage of this word the king approached both Abram and Sarai in order to speak with them. See, Parker, the words used to describe certain things in the Bible aren’t always as we understand them in our modern usuage. “to wife”…“approached” are words used to describe sexual union in those contexts.
blessings,
CEM

 

[ParkerD]

Hi Parker

…

Sarah was months in the Pharoah’s house, and historically, a “king” – a Pharaoh – had many wives/concubines, and Sarah became as a wife to him – which means he had carnal knowledge of her.

Not too difficult to realize this especially when knowing history and how Pharaoh’s were with beautiful women they desired – for desire her he did. The plagues did not occur until he knew her. God didn’t punish the pharaoh until AFTER he had “been” with Sarai.

Read the second account of when Abram went to another land and did the same thing. This time before that king would take Sarah “to wife”, God warned the king. No plagues happened (yet) because this King did not have the same amount of time with sarah and therefore did not have carnal knowledge with her.

In Gen 20, the king took sarai, but it also clearly states that before he could be with her, God came to him in a dream to warn him before “he approached Sarai”. God made sure that after the king took Sarai (from Abram - the “brother” who is the guardian of a sister when there is no father), God immediately went to the king to warn him. God left no time for the king to take Sarai “to wife”. Not so with the Pharaoh. The Pharaoh took Sarai “to wife” and suffered for it.

2 Abraham said of his wife Sarah, “She is my sister.” And King Abimelech of Gerar sent and took Sarah. 3 But God came to Abimelech in a dream by night, and said to him, “You are about to die because of the woman whom you have taken; for she is a married woman.” 4 Now Abimelech had not approached her; so he said, "Lord, will you destroy an innocent people? 5 Did he not himself say to me, "She is my sister’? And she herself said, “He is my brother.’ I did this in the integrity of my heart and the innocence of my hands.” 6 Then God said to him in the dream, "Yes, I know that you did this in the integrity of your heart; furthermore it was I who kept you from sinning against me. Therefore I did not let you touch her

By the way…note that the wording used for carnal knowledge in this aspect is “approached”. Yet we know that in our vernacular usuage of this word the king approached both Abram and Sarai in order to speak with them. See, Parker, the words used to describe certain things in the Bible aren’t always as we understand them in our modern usuage. “to wife”…“approached” are words used to describe sexual union in those contexts.
blessings,
CEM

CEM,

At least someone in the world besides me “gets it”:

conservapedia.com/Abraham#Visit_to_Egypt

It appears you may not have considered Genesis 20:9 and 17-20, which show that the dream Abimelech had was not the very next day nor the very next week after Abimelech had sent for Sarah, but months later–long enough that the women could know that their wombs had been “closed up.”

But it seems to be a pretty pointless discussion, since there are sources that are favorable to your point of view and I certainly can’t remove them from the world.

 

[Peter_John]

Thanks, Jay53, I appreciate it–you, too.

I do understand.

I won’t go into the detail he went into, at all, but suffice to say that there is no “re-confession”, anything said is voluntary by the person, some don’t even come to the disciplinary council, there is no “wait another year” type of concept at all, and the stake president has the final decision making as to the discipline, subject to sending a report of the council to the key-holders, which are the Council of the Twelve and the First Presidency, who ultimately consider the case as to the decision and the membership action, and thus do the “binding” or “loosing”.

Perhaps your affirmation that there is no “re-confession” relates to the LDS doctrine that an equivalent court in one place is the same court in another place or another time – it is all the same court, regardless of who sits on it or where.

You are right that there is no “wait another year” standard .The standard is wait at least another year. It could be more. With the exception of people excommunicated more than twice an individual’s status outside the Church is not considered irrevocably permanent, so they can keep going back and asking as long as they accept having their noses rubbed in their sins.

Most times I know of when people do not attend the courts are when they got caught doing something, not when they have stepped forth to confess themselves. Those few when it has happened from people confessing and truly seeking reconciliation with the church have been when the courts are scheduled at times they cannot make it. But yes, it is true that some will confess seeking forgiveness, but get condemned to disfellowshipment or excommunication in absentia.

The LDS doctrine is that the judgments of these courts are the judgments of God, and that one cannot enter the Celestial kingdom without the express approval of the Church authorities – unless that has changed in the last five years as well. In Mormonism the validity of baptism depends on the stamp of the priesthood. If an appropriate priesthood leader or bodies declares a baptism invalid, it is invalid. This has been overridden on appeal by higher authorities. The case of a Helmuth Hubener in Germany during World War II is an interesting study. He was excommunicated for local political reasons, executed by the Nazis, and then had his membership restored by higher LDS authorities posthumously.

There is “re-confession”. If someone goes to their Bishop to confess, he hears it and says, “Well, you’re an elder, that falls under the Stake President’s jurisdiction.” He then puts them in touch with the Stake President, who has to hear it, and then decide – as a judge in Israel, if he can grant the Church’s forgiveness himself then, apply some probationary status, or call a court. That would be a High Council Court. That is for an elder, at least three times he has to confess. How is that not re-confession?

When an excommunicated member seeks readmission an equivalent court must be reconvened, and they must again discuss what led to their excommunication so that the court can evaluate the sincerity of their repentance.

 

[Peter_John]

By the way, Peter John stated several incorrect things in his description. (I would be put off by such a description also, so I would share the )

Also, church disciplinary councils happen for perhaps 2 per thousand members at the stake level, per year, and perhaps 0-1 per 300 members at the ward level per year, as a safe guess average. So that makes about .004, or in other words 0.4% of members experiencing such a mode of having a disciplinary council necessary (purely an estimate from experience of serving on a stake high council and as a bishop, years ago.)

So as a conservative estimate roughly 15,000 LDS members are subject to Church courts each year. Based on the rates of teen pregnancay in Utah, pevalence of other matters of public record that indicate behavior inconsistent with LDS lifestyle, it sounds like there are a lot of LDS members who behave in ways that could get them excommunicated but hide it real well.

Since your Doctrine and Covenants says that authority is invalid as soon as someone undertakes to cover their sins, it sounds like you have a lot of members exercising their callings without authority.

It may have something to do with why a woman I know from a strong LDS family in a ward where I lived committed suicide the second time she got pregnant out of wedlock, rather than deal with another disciplinary council, or as Spencer W. Kimball called them, “Courts of Love.”

I know how she felt. The only reason I did not commit suicide when I had to face my second disciplinary council was that I decided I was too young for my life to be wasted, whether I made it to the Celestial Kingdom or not. The experience is excruciating – and I never got caught doing anything. I admitted my failures from the age of 18 on. Hiding them just takes too much effort.

The number doesn’t matter. My point is the complexity of the process. Sure it does not go to the extent I described often, but that isbecause people lose stomach for the whole process. Not everyone can handle carrying an “I’m not OK, You’re OK” attitude for that long. My point is also the lack of genuine confidentiality or any true assurance of forgiveness.

My point is – all official affirmations to the contrary – the process of reconciling serious sins in Mormonism is not about helping the person repent and getting forgiveness. That takes tolerance which the system lacks. It is instead a policing system, intended to limit the influence of acknowledged sinners on the rest of the congregation, and enforce compliance through extrinsic means.

Even on a spiritual level: The Gift of the Holy Ghost is supposed to help members keep the commandments. If one having received the Holy Ghost has had problems keeping commandments, how is denying it to them suppoosed to help? It makes no sense.

Yes, Bishops and Stake Presidents forgive a lot of people outright, but sometimes their hands are tied. Regarding re-confession, should someone backslide they have to go over everything they have ever confessed before related to that same sin, because the LDS doctrine, as specifically expressed in manuals and in the Miracle of Forgiveness is that when someone commits the same sin again all forgiveness for any prior sins of the same is revoked. It is the interpretation that for a repeat sinner “shall the former sins return.”

What I know is there were a few things I confessed to literally dozens of LDS leaders over the years. Some involved illegal acts which I also confessed to proper civil authorities, and accepted snentence for. Counting some public revelations of my past I later made as a public figure (retaining support following this, by the way) I confessed to an entiure community.

I never felt forgiven. Having confessed to about two dozen LDS leaders over the years seeking reconciliation with the Church and literally with God as i perceived it, having said so to civil authorities, having said so to literally thousands of members of my community regarding the worst things – I never felt forgiven.

AND-- I still ended up believing that the LDS Church was true, and I was condemned within it to have my progress limited to the Telestial Kingdom.

My first confession to a Catholic priest, before I was actually Catholic or even legitimately baptized, I felt forgiven immediately.

That is my point.

Jesus does not abandon the hard cases. He seeks them out.

 

[ParkerD]

…
The LDS doctrine is that the judgments of these courts are the judgments of God, and that one cannot enter the Celestial kingdom without the express approval of the Church authorities

That was never the case, unless you mean the statement about Joseph Smith, which could just as well be said about Peter since Joseph Smith acts under the direction of Peter and since it all ties to the valid priesthood authority and keys for ordinances such as valid baptisms or sealings, and to the Lord’s statement that the twelve apostles would be “judges” of the house of Israel.

There is “re-confession”. If someone goes to their Bishop to confess, he hears it and says, “Well, you’re an elder, that falls under the Stake President’s jurisdiction.”

The Stake President considers what the Bishop tells him, confidentially, and the Stake President may ask for clarification from the “Elder” but does not need to hear a “re-confession”, nor does a High Council. The bishop presents the matter, in enough specifics so that guidelines concerning such cases can be followed. If the person wants to explain, they can, or don’t have to do so.

How is that not re-confession?

Because the bishop is explaining the case, not the member.

When an excommunicated member seeks readmission an equivalent court must be reconvened, and they must again discuss what led to their excommunication so that the court can evaluate the sincerity of their repentance.

The original case is briefly stated, and yes the sincerity of the repentance is considered, including the impact on others during the time of probationary status.

 

[Peter_John]

That was never the case, unless you mean the statement about Joseph Smith, which could just as well be said about Peter since Joseph Smith acts under the direction of Peter and since it all ties to the valid priesthood authority and keys for ordinances such as valid baptisms or sealings, and to the Lord’s statement that the twelve apostles would be “judges” of the house of Israel.

The Stake President considers what the Bishop tells him, confidentially, and the Stake President may ask for clarification from the “Elder” but does not need to hear a “re-confession”, nor does a High Council. The bishop presents the matter, in enough specifics so that guidelines concerning such cases can be followed. If the person wants to explain, they can, or don’t have to do so.

Because the bishop is explaining the case, not the member.

The original case is briefly stated, and yes the sincerity of the repentance is considered, including the impact on others during the time of probationary status.

Don’t you ever read the manuals and what it says about LDS leaders being judges in Israel, the presiding authority of the Prophet over the Priesthood, and that being God’s irrevocable authority on Earth? They did start soft-pedalling it in the 1980s, but it never got eliminated, and it doesn’t change the fact that it is what the LDS Church taught an entire generation, including in seminary classes. They also affirm this in the courts when applying condemnation, at least they did in mine.

Just because you think it is figurative does not change what it says.

 

[Peter_John]

That was never the case, unless you mean the statement about Joseph Smith, which could just as well be said about Peter since Joseph Smith acts under the direction of Peter and since it all ties to the valid priesthood authority and keys for ordinances such as valid baptisms or sealings, and to the Lord’s statement that the twelve apostles would be “judges” of the house of Israel.

The Stake President considers what the Bishop tells him, confidentially, and the Stake President may ask for clarification from the “Elder” but does not need to hear a “re-confession”, nor does a High Council. The bishop presents the matter, in enough specifics so that guidelines concerning such cases can be followed. If the person wants to explain, they can, or don’t have to do so.

Because the bishop is explaining the case, not the member.

The original case is briefly stated, and yes the sincerity of the repentance is considered, including the impact on others during the time of probationary status.

Actually since the Bishop does not have authority over the Elder as far as forgiving those sins as a violation of the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood a confession has not been properly made until the Stake President has heard it.

In even my first excommunication, when I was only a Priest in the Aaronic Priesthood, depite numerous meetings with my Stake President (I was in a branch) and detailed extraction of information about all sorts of details in my life, all of which resulted in copious notes, it was not enough. When I sought readmission to the Church I was required to write a letter to the President of the Church admitting what I had already told to my church authorities. I could not just say, “See my Stake President’s notes,” or, “See the records of my Church court.” I had to spell it all out, all over again in the letter.

In subsequent years when the issue came up I was invariably asked what I had been excommunicated for. Because of this I reached a point where i stopped believing I had been forgiven at all by the Church, so had to doubt God’s forgiveness as well. Of course, my second excommunication when i was an elder involved a deeper process, and put me in an even more difficult position.

In addition, if I moved to a new ward or a new stake I had to go over it with my new leaders. When the Stake President changed I had to go over it with the new one. The issue was not resolved while I was still under the judgment of Church courts.

This meant that – and I was committed to this course until surprised by my first Catholic mass – I would have to submit to as many High Council courts as it took, for as many years as it took before they would recommend me to an interview with a general authority, who would decide if I could talk to the First Presidency, who alone had the authority to readmit me to the Church (rebaptize me, hence be forgiven). It now amazes me that I ever beleived that I was such a great sinner that only three men on Earth had authority to speak for God regarding whether I was forgiven or not.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Catholic-RCIA,

I’ve been to the monastery in Huntsville (family wanted to stop by as a learning experience), I’ve seen those who have committed themselves to that order, and I differ as to what I see reflected in their eyes versus what you evidently see reflected in their eyes.

Parker, Here is another Mormon who visited the same place.

I recently visit Utah’s very own monastery, but I found a few things I never would have expected.

My wife, my sister and I made a weekend trip to the Abbey of Our Lady of the Holy Trinity, located outside Huntsville. My wife had a humanities assignment to do, and I saw a chance for an interesting Daily Universe story (see today’s front page).
On this trip I expected to see stained glass windows and crosses, hear monks’ prayers of devotion and smell the fresh Utah mountain air. But I had no idea I would feel kindness, inspiration and even friendship.

After sitting in on the monks’ 12:15 p.m. prayers, browsing the gift shop and buying ourselves a souvenir bottle of the monks’ homegrown honey, we asked the man behind the gift shop register if he had a few minutes to answer our questions.
He introduced himself as Father Mary (after the Blessed Mother) Patrick, O.C.S.O. (Order of Cistercians of the Strict Observance). Father Patrick has lived at the monastery almost from its very beginning in 1947, and we soon discovered he was a great source for anything we wanted to know about monks, Cistercians and the Utah monastery.

But more than simply providing information, Father Patrick offered stories, valuable life lessons and genuine interest in our own lives.

Father Patrick received his vocation (a spiritual revelation calling him to the Catholic priesthood) when he was 11 years old. He went on to study theology for years, and then he had another defining moment.

“I was praying one night and I thought, ‘If I’m going to do the will of God, I’m going to go all the way,’ ” Father Patrick said.

So in 1950, Father Patrick trekked to Utah to join the monastery and has stayed since then.

When asked if he ever missed life outside the monastery, he dismissed the notion with a laugh.

“When you settle for the cause, you don’t worry about the effects,” Father Patrick said.

Father Patrick said 60 years of complete dedication to God’s will is anything but boring.
“I enjoy every minute of it,” he said. “He’s really running things. So you surrender to that and just enjoy the ride.”

Father Patrick has made a few other observations during his decades at the monastery.

continued…

 

[catholic-rcia]

“One thing about the monks, though, they really become authentically human,” Father Patrick observed. “We don’t waste our time with a whole lot of superficiality. We keep the distraction at a minimum and keep the essential at a maximum.”

Instead of dwelling in the past, Father Patrick follows the words he read many years ago from an author who preached “the sacrament of the now moment.”
“He said to leave yesterday to God’s mercy,” Father Patrick said. “He said just do God’s will at the moment.”

Because of his lifelong vow of chastity, Father Patrick will never know firsthand the experience of being a husband or a father. But that doesn’t mean he is unaware of the significance of the family.

He told my wife, who is in her third trimester with our first baby, he knows motherhood has a heavenly purpose.

“It’s a vocation, a call from God,” Father Patrick said.
Father Patrick is this personal with everyone he talks to. We watched him as he took occasional breaks from our questions to run the gift shop register for the monastery’s tourists. And he offered to them much more than their change.

He may live a holy life, but Father Patrick shows a clear reverence for other people. Meeting people and learning about their backgrounds is obviously a pure delight for him. From listening to his conversations you would guess he already has a close and intimate relationship with each visitor to the monastery, even if they had never seen him before.

“You know, everybody’s interesting to me,” Father Patrick told us.
He learned during his seminary days we are all connected to Christ and we all have divine worth.

“Christ is in people,” Father Patrick said. “H
e isn’t just up in heaven.”

Because of that truth, Father Patrick talked to us as if we had already met.
“I’m glad you’ve finally shown up,” Father Patrick told us.
As our time together came to an end, we left with one last, reassuring insight.
“God’s got a place for all of us,” Father Patrick told us. “He’s got a place for you.”
We also promised him we would return to the monastery some day, this time with our baby girl. And you know what? I have a feeling he will remember who

 

[CEM5]

CEM,

At least someone in the world besides me “gets it”:

conservapedia.com/Abraham#Visit_to_Egypt

It appears you may not have considered Genesis 20:9 and 17-20, which show that the dream Abimelech had was not the very next day nor the very next week after Abimelech had sent for Sarah, but months later–long enough that the women could know that their wombs had been “closed up.”

But it seems to be a pretty pointless discussion, since there are sources that are favorable to your point of view and I certainly can’t remove them from the world.

Thanks for providing the link - I did read it.

Parker, just a suggestion: be careful where you get information. This link’s information has many incorrect information.

For example, from this excerpt from the link you provided:
Early in Abraham’s journey, famine struck the land of Canaan. Abraham went to Egypt to escape its effects. There, Abraham instructed Sarah to say that she was his sister—which was not quite true, because Sarah was Abraham’s niece. The then-reigning Pharaoh took Sarah, who was quite attractive despite her advanced age, into the palace. God, however, directly warned Pharaoh against being intimate with Sarah, who was another man’s wife. Pharaoh returned Sarah to Abraham and politely asked Abraham to leave Egypt, which he did. However, Abraham left Egypt with many gifts and presents. Among these was a handmaid named Hagar.[4]

Now, Sarah was not Abraham’s niece. The Scriptures clearly state that Sarah was the daughter of Abraham’s father, but not the daughter of his mother. This means they have the same father but differing mothers, making Sarah his 1/2 sister.

Gen 20
11 Abraham said, "I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12 Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Secondly, Pharaoh was not warned by God, and Pharaoh was intimate with Sarah. This site has mistakenly made Pharaoh and the King of another land (king Abimelech) into one person. The bible is clear they are two separate men, living in two different lands. God warned King Abimelech and prevented this king from “approaching” Sarah, but did not prevent Pharaoh from taking Sarah “to wife” and being intimate with her.

Parker, you can choose to have the same view as the site (link) you provided, because apparently they “get it” the same way you do, mistakes and all.

I choose to get my information from the Bible and from learning of customes of eras past.

God bless you, and have a good night.

We will have to just agree to disagree.

CEM

 

[Peter_John]

Thanks for providing the link - I did read it.

Parker, just a suggestion: be careful where you get information. This link’s information has many incorrect information.

For example, from this excerpt from the link you provided:
Early in Abraham’s journey, famine struck the land of Canaan. Abraham went to Egypt to escape its effects. There, Abraham instructed Sarah to say that she was his sister—which was not quite true, because Sarah was Abraham’s niece. The then-reigning Pharaoh took Sarah, who was quite attractive despite her advanced age, into the palace. God, however, directly warned Pharaoh against being intimate with Sarah, who was another man’s wife. Pharaoh returned Sarah to Abraham and politely asked Abraham to leave Egypt, which he did. However, Abraham left Egypt with many gifts and presents. Among these was a handmaid named Hagar.[4]
Now, Sarah was not Abraham’s niece. The Scriptures clearly state that Sarah was the daughter of Abraham’s father, but not the daughter of his mother. This means they have the same father but differing mothers, making Sarah his 1/2 sister.

Gen 20

11 Abraham said, "I did it because I thought, There is no fear of God at all in this place, and they will kill me because of my wife. 12 Besides, she is indeed my sister, the daughter of my father but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife.

Secondly, Pharaoh was not warned by God, and Pharaoh was intimate with Sarah. This site has mistakenly made Pharaoh and the King of another land (king Abimelech) into one person. The bible is clear they are two separate men, living in two different lands. God warned King Abimelech and prevented this king from “approaching” Sarah, but did not prevent Pharaoh from taking Sarah “to wife” and being intimate with her.

Parker, you can choose to have the same view as the site (link) you provided, because apparently they “get it” the same way you do, mistakes and all.

I choose to get my information from the Bible and from learning of customes of eras past.

God bless you, and have a good night.

We will have to just agree to disagree.

CEM

This is something without resolution because the truth is the Bible draws on dual accounts of this as I recall (I may be confusing it with something else, but I think this is one of those bifurcated traditions). It is a historiological relic from pre-writing culture when varied cultural factions consolidated.

This is for example how we have two accounts of the Creation in Genesis.They each reflect a different valid cultural perspective on the same most sacred stories in their traditions, carried over from before they had writing to after. The fact that they difffer some to begin with merely validates the antiquity of their origins and The Bibles truthfulness to the way the stories were told. Even if they seem to contradict it tells them the way they were told anyway.

For LDS, this is consistent with the Book of Mormon teaching that when two nations come together their testimonies of the Lord will come together as well. In this case, they disagree in areas that do not involve the important dogma.

One can determine that both accounts being valid, then matters uncommon to both in a contradictory manner must not be significant to the actual dogmas the Lord intends to convey witht he story. Instead, the contradiction of itself becomes somewhat dogmatic in the standard it sets for the later inspired writers: You tell the story as it is, even if it doesn’t make sense. You will notbe able to reconcile every detail, and that is the proof of their truth.

 

[Peter_John]

Do local leaders have access to the records of the proceedings?

Not to my knowledge under general circumstances. I do not know what access may happen if they go through a second church courts, though they certainly have some kind of summary, but I do not know if they have the fully detailed record (with things like written statemetns).

 

[Peter_John]

LOL, you mean like the dictionary definition of Christian?
I love watching how so many Christian denomnination create their custom definition that excludes all they don’t like. Were you aware that a signficant number of Protestants don’t believe members of the RCC are Christian?

You mean like the definition that the creeds of all religions claiming to be Christian in 1820 are abominations in the eyes of Christ?

Actually what you describe is the fragmentation inherent to Protestantism. The Catholic Church has nothing to prove in this matter, since we were already here and did not create the fragmentation. The Lord has shown us over the Centuries that all Christianity still falls under our umbrella. That is why all properly performed baptism performed with a clear understanding of it is still valid.It encompasses all that it possibly can, being inclusive not exclusive. Our tradition has become one of looking for reasons to count people in.

 

[Peter_John]

Peter, getting a temple recommend relies on the integrity of the person - I review my condition and respond to the questions.

In a similar fashion, aren’t ther certain conditions where a Catholic should not partake of communion until they are again worthy?

When participation is restricted it is between the individual and the priest. There are cases when it becomes a more public matter, and these ususally involve public figures. We do not have to show an ID card to take communion, either.

 

[Peter_John]

The annual interview doesn’t ask if you’re perfect, of course. The word “worthy” in the context of those questions does not mean “perfect” nor does it mean the person will not be repenting each day of their life. It means that they will be repenting, changing, growing, making mistakes but really sincerely trying and improving in terms of following the Two Great Commandments. Those questions set a standard for actions that show a person’s sincerity of heart and sincerity of covenant keeping. They don’t set a standard that says the person no longer needs repentance, of course.

But we might as well drop the conversation, it would seem to me from the tone of most of your comments. (This one was more sincere, but still the tone was there.)
I just thought others might learn since your questions here were indeed some that others might also be thinking about, given the misunderstanding about the word “worthy”.

A wish of peace to you.

Temple recommends have also changed over the years. My grandmother used to hate them because of the questions she found quite distasteful. Back then, a few decades ago, even married couples were asked specific questions about their intimate relations. Within a faithful marriage they could still be denied a temple recommend if they engaged in “perverted” practices.

However, during the 1970s and 1980s some concern arose. A young member might end up in a church court for adultery. It often turned out, particularly among those who grew up in sheltered LDS communities, that the first thoughts that led to their sins were from the questions in the temple interview. They had never heard of some of these things before and became curious about them.

Eventually, I am not sure when, they changed the questions, so now they only ask married couples if they are faithful to their vows and observe the Law of Chastity.

It seems that the most important form of revelation for modern LDS is no different from the tradition of learning from our mistakes which Catholicism has always had.

 

[KathleenGee]

Rich…every time I read one of your posts explaining your Catholic life down there…I want to make a spiritual pilgrimage there…

May be I should, and then we can pray for the Catholics and the Mormons.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Thanks Kathleen!
It is a very good place

 

[catholic-rcia]

Parker
You mentioned going to the Huntsville Monastery so your family could have a learning experience. Is this in the same tone when the LDS say “I have studied all other religions and have found our church to be true?”

I would be curious as to your conversation after you left.

I have stayed at the Monastery once a year for the last 6 years. I have been to confession to 3 of the Fathers. I have many stories that I could tell your family about my experiences. Father Patrick gave me a wonderful story to tell 2 years ago. It would be a story about my experience with Him during my confession at that time. If I wrote this down would you read it to your family? This way they could add to the experience they already have when it comes to the Monastery in Huntsville. I would love to write about it as it has stayed fresh in my mind.

This is father Patrick
http://www.holytrinityabbey.org/store.html

I would take notice of his eyes. I remember clearly looking into them after my confession when He said “I think your going to make it to heaven” with a heavenly smile on his face. What I saw in his eyes was Christ, what I heard in his voice was Christ.

In Christ

 

[Prague]

Hm Hm. Their creamed honey sounds divine. Too bad we can’t order some. (Just had to say this, and now back to our regular program.)