LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[Tony888]

Did you get that response straight out of the Mormon handbook on “snappy answers to Catholics that dare to ask any questions about the temple or priests”?

If you don’t know, or can’t be bothered to provide an answer to my questions, please, don’t just throw accusations of hypocrisy at me, or post a litany of bullet points on the functions of Catholic Priests that you think refutes any reason I may have for asking them. I was asking simple questions about something that I don’t understand. That being, how LDS leaders are key in determining which Mormons can ultimately reach ‘exaltation’, the highest position attainable in Heaven, for any Mormon. That decision functions as a major factor in determining a Mormon’s eternal salvation. Catholics leave that final judgement solely up to God, not any man or even group of men.

Your response is completely irrelevant because those functions of the Catholic Priesthood are completely unrelated to the questions I asked.

I sure hope you’re not a school teacher… seriously.

No, it was just a snappy answer after being shocked at your hypocricy. In both the Catholic and LDS churches, men represent the church and make judgements on other members of the church. However, God is the real judge and not these mortal men. There is no fundamental difference between the Catholics and LDS in this area.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Thanks, BYU, but this brings up another question concerning the idea of progression. You say that “God will always be greater than us (which I think can be tied to ideas of progression, as well as God continuing to be, and always will be, our God, our Father, whom we rely on for everything)”. Is His always being greater than us akin to an engine on a train always being in front of the last car on the train, or was He always greater than us from eternity? In other words, was there anything or anyone who has ever been equal to God (including other Gods in other worlds)? Another way of putting this, was God, at some point in time, not as great as He now is (such as when He was a man who had not yet progressed to godhood)? I am not speaking of the incarnation of the Son, but rather of the Father.

Thanks.

I think that Latter-day Saint theology can entertain a belief that God the Father, when He was on an earth somewhere, was perhaps subordinate to another God, so sure. I think that Latter-day Saint theology can also validly entertain the belief that God the Father, even when He was on an earth somewhere, was Divine, just like Jesus Christ was during His incarnation. As far as in relation to our own progression, God the Father will always be our Father, and will always be over us. Belief in exaltation does not make us equal to God and mean that we no longer need Him.

 

[Stephen168]

When a priest interviews a child for confirmation, it is not to determine if the child is worthy to be confirmed. It is to ensure that the child understands his/her Catholic faith, and understands the baptismal vows that they will renew. If the child does not understand, they won’t be barred from confirmation until they are “worthy”, they will receive further instruction, so that they understand what it is they are doing.

Learning makes one knowledgeable not worthy.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

This is one part that always confuses me and seems like a complete contradiction in LDS theology. On one hand, LDS doctrine says that we only reach Heaven through the merits of the atonement of Christ, as a free gift from God, yet LDS doctrine also requires an infinite number of “conditions” (ordinances) that must be performed, or met, by any individual that wishes to “progress” on to eternal life, in order to receive that “free gift”.

There are not an "infinite number of ‘conditions’ (ordinances). Also, I find such an argument very interesting coming from a Catholic, when similar arguments have of course been made against the Catholic faith by various Evangelicals, as I’m sure you are aware.

The merits of the atonement of Jesus Christ are not separate from the saving ordinances. The saving ordinances are empowered by His atonement. They are not mere acts of man, as some churches may believe. Instead, they are sacred rituals performed by the priesthood, which also include entering into sacred covenants with God. The atonement of Jesus Christ makes these ordinances efficacious.

Again, I don’t see how this is different from the Catholic belief that a number of conditions must be met as well (though Catholics tend to make the distinction between “ordinary” and “extraordinary”, such as baptism is required for salvation, ordinarily, however there are cases, such as in baptism of blood and baptism of desire, where an unbaptized person may receive the graces of baptism in another way).

It also seems to me that those LDS “ordinances” and conditions are judged by men in power in the church (Bishops, Quorum, President, etc.) to determine which of the faithful can consider themselves to be “worthy Mormons” (such as the ‘temple recommend’).

Again, I see no real distinction between the practices of the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on this issue. Also, worthiness is ultimately up to the individuals relationship with God. If they are following Jesus Christ, repenting, following His commandments, etc., then they will be found worthy. It really is that simple, and up to the individual. There is no “trick” or hidden trap door here. Catholics have pre-baptismal interviews for converts just like we do. Catholics also have such a question-answer instance in the baptismal ceremony as well (i.e. asking questions such as “Do you reject Satan” if I remember correctly). What if a person answers that they do not reject Satan?

To me, that leaves the eternal fate and salvation of millions of Mormons, worldwide, in the hands of their own local ward and stake leaders, that are mere men that can be prone to error. What if they hold some kind of a personal grudge against any individual in the community that might affect their neutrality in this situation? Please, explain to us how my view of this is incorrect and how individuals can be so sure that their local bishop is correct in his judgement? Doesn’t this judgement by ‘man’, in effect, nullify or replace the judgement of God?

No, the eternal fate and salvation of man is up to man and his relationship with God. If someone is following the commandments of Jesus Christ, they will be found worthy to enter into whatever covenants they desire to enter into with God. God has appointed servants in His kingdom to be stewards (a concept that I assume you are familiar with as a Catholic), and we also examine our own consciences before such “worthiness interviews” to know whether we should approach our priesthood authorities to enter into sacred covenants. If we feel like we are not ready, we can always discuss that with our bishop, and if the bishop thinks that you are not ready, he won’t just leave it at that, but will help you find out how to get back on the path and follow the commandments of Jesus Christ.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Learning makes one knowledgeable not worthy.

Learning allows one to conform themselves to Christ, helping them to follow His commandments, becoming worthy to partake of saving ordinances. A non-Catholic (in general) is not worthy to participate in the Eucharist at a Catholic parish, yet if they prepare themselves, study the faith, and are baptized and confirmed, they will be allowed to partake.

Worthiness in the Church of Jesus Christ is tied to learning, learning the Gospel, learning whether we are following the commandments of Christ, learning if we are repenting of our sins, and learning if we are ready to enter into sacred covenants. If we are not ready, then our priesthood leaders will help us learn why, and to learn how to follow the commandments and be worthy.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

This post reminds me of the analogy of marriage that in effect would mean that the Ten Commandments and the Two Great Commandments had died with the coming of the New Covenant.

I have no doubt that we will never even come remotely close to being on the same page with respect to the idea of keeping the commandments and thus being “worthy”. The commandments aren’t hard to understand, and aren’t that hard to keep.

Being worthy means one is keeping the commandments–simple, straightforward, and not something that needs to be excused by just saying “unworthy servants” and excusing behavior. The commandments were given to be kept and be a blessing to people by keeping them.

Peace to you and all.

Thank you for making my point. Are you saying that you are free from sin (“The commandments aren’t hard to understand, and aren’t that hard to keep”)? If you are not free from sin then you are not keeping the commandments. Do you ever fail, Parker? Or do you claim to be without sin, thus making yourself “worthy”? It you are worthy, then you have no need of redemption or salvation.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

When a priest interviews a child for confirmation, it is not to determine if the child is worthy to be confirmed. It is to ensure that the child understands his/her Catholic faith, and understands the baptismal vows that they will renew. If the child does not understand, they won’t be barred from confirmation until they are “worthy”, they will receive further instruction, so that they understand what it is they are doing.

This was actually RebeccaJ’s comment, I forgot to put quote tags around it in one of my posts.

If the child does not understand what they are doing, and the priest delays confirmation until they do, then this of course is no different than how it works in the Church of Jesus Christ. Also, that is exactly what worthiness interviews are about. They are about a person examining themselves, seeing whether they understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and whether they are following Christ’s commandments.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Latter-day Saints believe this as well. We believe that the Church is a royal nation and a holy people, and that we are called to walk and live in the Light of Christ. Believe in progression, in becoming conformed to the image of Christ, becoming like Him, is not separated from that.

The Catholic Sacraments are not a 7 step process to becoming a god, and if you miss one, so sad too bad. The Mormon ordinances are this, exactly.

We don’t become like Christ by following rules.

Is santification a one time event, something that you already have achieved now, or is it something that you continue to grow in, that you are continuously sanctified, through participating in the sacraments?

We grow in holiness by the grace of God. The Sacraments are gifts, to help us live a holy life. But we hold no belief that those who are not Catholic cannot be with God in heaven because they never learned of Jesus Christ, or the Sacraments instituted by Him. We believe fully, that Jesus Christ has justified all of mankind, by His suffering and death.

Mormon teaching lacks this acknowledgement of Christ’s Universal Salvation…justification being made real by ordinances rather than by the Reality of Jesus Christ.

If the priest determines that the person is not truly repentant, will he absolve them? There are threads on this very forum about such an issue, and the priest may not offer absolution in certain cases. This is of course a worthiness issue.

Again, it goes to intention, not worthiness. Mormon bishops ask very pointed questions towards “worthiness”. Catholics already know, we are not worthy of the Sacrifice of the Son of Man, and never can be. We receive with profound gratitude what we know we are not worthy of receiving. Jesus Christ being the Father’s Charity made manifest in the world.

If a priest does not absolve the sin of a person it is not because the person lacks worthiness for forgiveness, it is because the person does not have the intention of living a Christian life. They either need instructions on the Sacrament itself, and/or, need to spend time in prayer, and come to understand what it means to seek forgiveness from God. But it is never about worthiness.

A priest will never seek to determine a person’s worthiness. This Mormon concept does not exist in Catholicism. One’s relationship with God is between the person and God, the priest doesn’t intercede in this relationship, or judge that a person is worthy to be in this relationship.

 

[SteveVH]

I think that Latter-day Saint theology can entertain a belief that God the Father, when He was on an earth somewhere, was perhaps subordinate to another God, so sure. I think that Latter-day Saint theology can also validly entertain the belief that God the Father, even when He was on an earth somewhere, was Divine, just like Jesus Christ was during His incarnation. As far as in relation to our own progression, God the Father will always be our Father, and will always be over us. Belief in exaltation does not make us equal to God and mean that we no longer need Him.

Entertaining a belief does equate to believing. What is it that you actually believe? It seems as if are you confused as to which of the above scenarios you do believe.

In any event, you are sidestepping the question. It comes back to the foundational belief concerning the nature of God. Is He eternal, unchanging, without beginning or end? If He progressed from a lower state (human) than He now enjoys (divine) then He is not unchanging and is no greater than us other than His own level of progression.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

Thank you for making my point. Are you saying that you are free from sin (“The commandments aren’t hard to understand, and aren’t that hard to keep”)? If you are not free from sin then you are not keeping the commandments. Do you ever fail, Parker? Or do you claim to be without sin, thus making yourself “worthy”? It you are worthy, then you have no need of redemption or salvation.

No, this is not true. Again, I cite 1 Corinthians 11:27-“Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.”. This verse is tied to the Catholic belief in examining one’s conscience before partaking of the Eucharist, and not partaking if they are in a state of mortal sin, which makes them unworthy to partake. Partaking of the Eucharist worthily does not mean that one is not in need of redemption or salvation.

If you state-" If you are not free from sin then you are not keeping the commandments.", then naturally the converse is true, if you are free from sin, then you are keeping the commandments. And we can invert that as well to say that if you are keeping the commandments, you are free from sin. One of the commandments for Latter-day Saints is to always repent, which signifies that we do not believe that keeping the commandments means that one is always free from sin. We know that we fail at some point, and that through the atonement, repentance is possible, following the command of Christ to repent of our sins. Again, Latter-day Saints believe that we are commanded to 'endure to the end", which naturally involves continuous repentance. I am worthy to enter into the temple, however I do not believe that I am sinless, but that I am following Christ’s command to always repent of my sins. There is no contradiction or dichotomy here. Latter-day Saints do not believe that being worthy means that one does not need redemption or salvation. It is the complete opposite for us.

 

[Peter_John]

And unfortunately I think that your understanding of Latter-day Saint theology on progression is missing the mark as well. We don’t believe that we reach Heaven “through some process of progression based upon our own efforts.”. Latter-day Saints believe that it is only through the atoning sacrifice of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, that we can receive eternal life. We cannot save ourselves, nor can works alone save. It is only through the greatest work, Christ’s atonement, that we can be saved.

But your interpretation of this is that no divine allowance (grace) kicks in until after having done everything you can do. Is that not correct?

When you nthink back on your life, can you think of anything you could have done to advance your eternal progression and overtly chose not to? By this interpretation doesn’t that mean you get no grace?

 

[Peter_John]

Learning allows one to conform themselves to Christ, helping them to follow His commandments, becoming worthy to partake of saving ordinances. A non-Catholic (in general) is not worthy to participate in the Eucharist at a Catholic parish, yet if they prepare themselves, study the faith, and are baptized and confirmed, they will be allowed to partake.

Worthiness in the Church of Jesus Christ is tied to learning, learning the Gospel, learning whether we are following the commandments of Christ, learning if we are repenting of our sins, and learning if we are ready to enter into sacred covenants. If we are not ready, then our priesthood leaders will help us learn why, and to learn how to follow the commandments and be worthy.

I must affirm this as my own perception, but I believe it consistent with dogma: I never consider myself worthy to partake of the Eucharist, even when I’ve been to reconciliation right before mass. Being able to partake of it is a total grace. We may be deemed “worthy” in the sense that we meet the church’s expectations in our conduct and participation in other sacraments. The test of commitment to membership is to make sure we understand what it means and what we are doing. That is why it has remained virtually unchanged for 2,000 years.

 

[BYUChemAlum]

The Catholic Sacraments are not a 7 step process to becoming a god, and if you miss one, so sad too bad. The Mormon ordinances are this, exactly.

Latter-day Saints believe that ordinances include entering into real sacred covenants with God, and that we do what God has told us to do. We believe that when it states that baptism saves and that we must be born of water and the Spirit, that the Bible really means that. Again, Catholics make a distinction between what is ordinarily normative (i.e. baptism is necessary for salvation), and extraordinary situations (i.e. baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, etc). Latter-day Saints do not believe that, and instead believe that God has provided the means through which what is normative for some can be normative for everyone.

We don’t become like Christ by following rules.

If you want to call Christ’s commandments “rules”, then I disagree. We are called to follow Christ and His commandments.

We grow in holiness by the grace of God. The Sacraments are gifts, to help us live a holy life. But we hold no belief that those who are not Catholic cannot be with God in heaven because they never learned of Jesus Christ, or the Sacraments instituted by Him. We believe fully, that Jesus Christ has justified all of mankind, by His suffering and death.

Then what is the point of converting people to His Church? Why did He go through the trouble of establishing His Church if it isn’t necessary to be a member of it? Will the Hindu continue to believe that Vishnu is the supreme Lord? Or will they change their beliefs and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? I do understand the latest understandings of EENS though.

Mormon teaching lacks this acknowledgement of Christ’s Universal Salvation…justification being made real by ordinances rather than by the Reality of Jesus Christ.

No, we fully accept Christ’s Universal Salvation. Latter-day Saint teaching, as you are aware, does not state that those who did not hear of Christ and His Gospel in this life are lost. Instead, we believe that His atonement makes it possible for all those billions of people to hear the Gospel and accept it, whether in this life, or the next. Ordinances include covenant relationships with God, and Jesus Christ empowers them through His atonement.

Again, it goes to intention, not worthiness. Mormon bishops ask very pointed questions towards “worthiness”. Catholics already know, we are not worthy of the Sacrifice of the Son of Man, and never can be. We receive with profound gratitude what we know we are not worthy of receiving. Jesus Christ being the Father’s Charity made manifest in the world.

And yet Catholics make a distinction between being unworthy by being in a state of mortal sin (and hence not being allowed to partake of the Eucharist), and this sense you are talking about. Indeed, various Catholics, including on this forum, were in an uproar over bishops and priests allowing certain Catholic politicians to partake of the Eucharist when they support various un-Catholic views…interesting in light of this conversation of worthiness.

If a priest does not absolve the sin of a person it is not because the person lacks worthiness for forgiveness, it is because the person does not have the intention of living a Christian life. They either need instructions on the Sacrament itself, and/or, need to spend time in prayer, and come to understand what it means to seek forgiveness from God. But it is never about worthiness.

See, this is exactly what worthiness in Latter-day Saint belief is about. It is about living a Christian life, following Jesus Christ, and belief in His Gospel. You may not call it worthiness, however we believe that if one is not allowed to enter the temple, for example, they will be instructed on temple ordinances, and will be guided in how to be prepared, and in their understanding of the Gospel, so that they can enter into sacred covenants.

A priest will never seek to determine a person’s worthiness. This Mormon concept does not exist in Catholicism. One’s relationship with God is between the person and God, the priest doesn’t intercede in this relationship, or judge that a person is worthy to be in this relationship.

This is very interesting since of course Evangelicals make similar arguments (re: priests interceding in the relationship of a person with God) against Catholics. I think we have already seen that there are similar concepts in Catholicism, which invalidates this argument. Also, Latter-day Saints know, as I have already explained in another post, that worthiness is tied to that person’s relationship with God. If that person is following the commandments, believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, etc., they will be found worthy to enter into covenants with God. It is ultimately up to that person’s relationship with God and belief in the Gospel(which is what the questions are about anyway), and that is what it comes down to.

 

[Peter_John]

Learning allows one to conform themselves to Christ, helping them to follow His commandments, becoming worthy to partake of saving ordinances. A non-Catholic (in general) is not worthy to participate in the Eucharist at a Catholic parish, yet if they prepare themselves, study the faith, and are baptized and confirmed, they will be allowed to partake.

Worthiness in the Church of Jesus Christ is tied to learning, learning the Gospel, learning whether we are following the commandments of Christ, learning if we are repenting of our sins, and learning if we are ready to enter into sacred covenants. If we are not ready, then our priesthood leaders will help us learn why, and to learn how to follow the commandments and be worthy.

This is not exactly correct. It is why in the mid-1960s the LDS Church changed the words of the children’s hymn “I am a Child of God” from “Teach me all that I must know” to “Teach me all that I must do.” LDS worthiness is based on conduct, not knowledge alone. Knowledge without conduct is considered “open rebellion against God.”

 

[BYUChemAlum]

I’ll be back tonight, have to get ready to go to my laboratory (darned chemistry experiments taking me away from CAF! ). Have a good day all!

 

[BYUChemAlum]

This is not exactly correct. It is why in the mid-1960s the LDS Church changed the words of the children’s hymn “I am a Child of God” from “Teach me all that I must know” to “Teach me all that I must do.” LDS worthiness is based on conduct, not knowledge alone. Knowledge without conduct is considered “open rebellion against God.”

Ok last post before I leave since I saw it above my last one

I can agree with that. Knowledge motivates one to do. Faith works (Faith motivates one to act).

 

[RebeccaJ]

This was actually RebeccaJ’s comment, I forgot to put quote tags around it in one of my posts.

If the child does not understand what they are doing, and the priest delays confirmation until they do, then this of course is no different than how it works in the Church of Jesus Christ. Also, that is exactly what worthiness interviews are about. They are about a person examining themselves, seeing whether they understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and whether they are following Christ’s commandments.

This is the part you are not getting. A Catholic child, and/or adult convert, are taught what it means to be a disciple of Christ. So, we know when we have removed ourselves from the Will of God, we don’t need a priest telling us what we already know ourselves. When we go to confession it is of our own will, a priest doesn’t call a person into confession. There isn’t any such thing in Catholicism as a worthiness interview.

Catholics are taught the examination of conscience, and to seek out the Sacrament of Reconciliation. Our intention is to align ourselves to the Will of God.

If a priest discerns a person is seeking this Sacrament without this intention, then he knows the person is in need of something. ie, the person isn’t “getting it”. A person shouldn’t receive a Sacrament in ignorance, or in defiance of God’s Will. this has nothing to do with “worthiness”.

None of us are “worthy”.

 

[Peter_John]

The reference was from someone’s notes of a talk given in 1844. Joseph Smith selected those teachings during his life that he felt were “doctrinally binding” enough to be placed in scripture, and we have those doctrinal teachings in the Doctrine and Covenants. So the notes from a talk, from only one source, are just not binding nor do they reflect “blasphemy”. The statement could be misquoted, or the statement could be true, or it could be untrue. It is not important for anyone to know about the Holy Ghost’s role beyond what is included in the scriptures.

Rethinking this, I have to point out that by this standard you can disregard almost all the discourses attributed to Joseph Smith because he usually spoke extemporaneously and (Wilford Woodruff?) wrote down most of his discourses shortly after he spoke them Woodruff (or whomerver it was if I attribute that incorrectly) claimed a near perfect memory of his talks. I believe that was inmthe adult Sunday School manual “My Kingdom Shall Roll Forth” in the early 1970s, but that was a long time ago, so I may have learned it in Institute manuals.

 

[Peter_John]

Can I comment on a few scriptures that have been bantered about? Maybe another perspective, huh?

How about this one:

First off, I don’t see any problems with this as stated. There is obviously some sort of progression after we die. That much is clear. The “advantage” would certainly be in the amount of progress one has made in attaining eternal life. If you have applied the grace of Christ more frequently and more fully in your mortal life, then you would be closer to attaining eternal life when you die. Isn’t that the goal?

It appears we also will keep principles of intelligence when we are resurrected. I don’t think anyone should have a problem with that either. Is the question whether “the resurrection” and “the world to come” are the same? Wouldn’t the world to come refer to the Spirit World? I personally don’t know of any scripture or LDS teaching that explains how or when progression occurs “in the world to come.” We just know that it does.

I give it as my opinion that any progress must be made before one is resurrected. One of the scriptural reasons I believe that is because of the other disputed scripture that says:

While the scripture is sufficiently clear to an LDS scholar, others may want to remember the question Paul was trying to answer:

Coupling these two passages, it is a stretch to argue that Paul has suddenly digressed into some random discussion about astronomy. He is clearly saying that resurrected bodies come in varying “degrees” of glory. Only celestial and terrestrial degrees are mentioned in this rendering, but then he adds a third type of glory when he compares these bodies to the sun, moon, and stars.

For discussion’s sake, let’s say these names are unimportant. Perhaps you don’t like the idea of named “glories”. Okay. You cannot argue, though, that Paul was not trying to identify different body types that are resurrected. In the resurrection, you cannot trade in your body for a different model. There are no upgrades. If you are raised up with a celestial body, that is your state forever. You likewise cannot fall once you are resurrected. There are no downgrades, either. Paul says that resurrected bodies are incorruptible:

The resurrection is sort of the judgment before the judgment. If we know that our star-like body pales in comparison to the glory of the sun, then how humiliated and embarrassed will we be to stand before the glory of God? We will shrink before his brightness and cower before his light. Would we feel comfortable in the presence of celestial beings if we had an unchangeable and permanent reminder of our unworthiness to be there?

There must needs be a place prepared for those who cannot dwell in the presence of God. Is it too much of a stretch to believe that there might be places with the glory of the moon, places with the glory of the stars, and perhaps a dark place for Satan and his angels to reside for eternity?

You expend many words to try to make the passage seem to say something other than it actually does, and something other than it has been taught to mean in your church for 180 years or so.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholics make a distinction between what is ordinarily normative (i.e. baptism is necessary for salvation), and extraordinary situations (i.e. baptism of desire, invincible ignorance, etc). Latter-day Saints do not believe that, and instead believe that God has provided the means through which what is normative for some can be normative for everyone.

What is “normative for everyone” is not a what, but a Who: Jesus Christ.

If you want to call Christ’s commandments “rules”, then I disagree. We are called to follow Christ and His commandments.

Reducing faith to following a set of rules is not how one lives as a disciple of Christ. This is an error of understanding, that exists among Catholics as well as Mormons.

Pope John Paul II once said (paraphrasing), the Church has nothing to say to a person until they understand the Love of God. When we love a person we do not act out of “rule following”.

The ten commandments are fulfilled in the greatest commandment of all, to love your neighbor as yourself. In this, adhering to God’s Will is taken out of “rule following” and put into its proper context.

Then what is the point of converting people to His Church? Why did He go through the trouble of establishing His Church if it isn’t necessary to be a member of it?

Mormons have a limited understanding of “Church”.

Will the Hindu continue to believe that Vishnu is the supreme Lord? Or will they change their beliefs and believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior? I do understand the latest understandings of EENS though.

As we are now, our knowledge of God is indirect. Once we are dead, any knowledge we have of God is direct. It is the difference between being told about snow without having seen it, and standing in snow, touching it, feeling it, having the immediate knowledge of what it is rather than indirect knowledge that one had before. The souls of the dead, who have been judged to be with God, will stand, or are standing, in the snow. Their knowledge of God is immediate.

It is one of the glaring flaws of the Mormon “spirit world”…somehow the dead are not aware they dead?

No, we fully accept Christ’s Universal Salvation. Latter-day Saint teaching, as you are aware, does not state that those who did not hear of Christ and His Gospel in this life are lost. Instead, we believe that His atonement makes it possible for all those billions of people to hear the Gospel and accept it, whether in this life, or the next. Ordinances include covenant relationships with God, and Jesus Christ empowers them through His atonement.

The Death and Suffering of Jesus Christ wasn’t so people could hear your churches error in teaching. JESUS CHRIST IS THE GOSPEL, He is our New and Everlasting Covenant with the Father, He is our mediator, not your church.

Indeed, various Catholics, including on this forum, were in an uproar over bishops and priests allowing certain Catholic politicians to partake of the Eucharist when they support various un-Catholic views…interesting in light of this conversation of worthiness.

shrug You should read more than here. I don’t agree with the people you are referring to. They don’t know another person’s intentions or understanding. Can a Catholic be confused? Does confusion bar a person from communion? No, it doesn’t. If it did, there would be no one receiving…the “un-Catholic view” is the one you have going.

See, this is exactly what worthiness in Latter-day Saint belief is about. It is about living a Christian life, following Jesus Christ, and belief in His Gospel. You may not call it worthiness, however we believe that if one is not allowed to enter the temple, for example, they will be instructed on temple ordinances, and will be guided in how to be prepared, and in their understanding of the Gospel, so that they can enter into sacred covenants.

We don’t call it “worthiness” because that is not what it is! No one is worthy…I don’t know why it is Mormons can’t accept or understand that.

This is very interesting since of course Evangelicals make similar arguments (re: priests interceding in the relationship of a person with God) against Catholics.

Evangelicals not understanding Catholics, the same as you are not understanding Catholics, has nothing to do with anything. Red herring?

I think we have already seen that there are similar concepts in Catholicism, which invalidates this argument.

Not so fast buddy.

Also, Latter-day Saints know, as I have already explained in another post, that worthiness is tied to that person’s relationship with God. If that person is following the commandments, believes in the Gospel of Jesus Christ, etc., they will be found worthy to enter into covenants with God. It is ultimately up to that person’s relationship with God and belief in the Gospel(which is what the questions are about anyway), and that is what it comes down to.

A person’s relationship with God is between themselves and God. A priest doesn’t intercede in this, putting a halt to this relationship, ever. A Catholic will not go up for communion, and the priest may or may no know why, but will not ask. When the person is ready they will go to confession. No one at Mass should be wondering what another person did so they aren’t worthy, as everyone sitting at Mass knows they, themselves, are not worthy. Ever.

This is made so abundantly clear at Mass I don’t know how anyone could be confused on the point. “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the Word and I shall be healed.”

It isn’t about worthiness, so, you should really stop telling us what Catholics believe. It is about intention, and where one has ordered their own will.