LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[TheosisM]

OK. What does your church have that someone would need for salvation that they cannot get in the Catholic church?

It wasn’t my question, just the topic of the thread and I’ve been following along. I guess I just haven’t noticed if anyone actually answered it.

The answer is simple: Mormons believe that because of the Great Apostasy, priesthood authority was lost (among other things). Because priesthood authority was restored to the LDS church, it alone has the authority to perform saving ordinances/sacraments.

 

[Jay53]

The answer is simple: Mormons believe that because of the Great Apostasy, priesthood authority was lost (among other things). Because priesthood authority was restored to the LDS church, it alone has the authority to perform saving ordinances/sacraments.

OK. I guess that about sums it up.

 

[Anna_Scott]

. . . . .As it happens, the FACT is, that none of them saw the transcripts of their speeches before they were published, and Brigham Young SPECIFICALLY stated that in order for something he said to become scripture, he had to a: have a chance to go over and correct the speech,

How much time did Brigham Young need to go over his speeches?

On April 9, 1852, BY declared that Adam is God (Journal of Discourses of the General Authorities of the LDS Church, Volume 1.)

On June 8, 1873, BY made the same declaration to the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City (The Desert News, Discourse, By President Brigham Young, Delivered in the new Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday Afternoon, June 8th, 1873.)

Was 21 years long enough to go over what was published?

In 1870, Brigham Young declared his sermons to be as good as Scripture.
(Emphasis is mine):

Journal of Discourses 13:95, Brigham Young, January 2, 1870
The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve.

and that he had to declare that what he said WAS scripture. Since it was BY and JS who were so very careful about the process for canonizing scripture, I think that it is safe to say that the Journal of Discourses is not that. They are valuable, but they are NOT binding upon the church. They give us wonderful insight into the thoughts of our leaders,

Brigham Young’s exact quote (Emphasis is mine):

Journal of Discourses 13:95, Brigham Young, January 2, 1870
Well, brethren and sisters, try and be Saints. I will try; I have tried many years to live according to the law which the Lord reveals unto me. I know just as well what to teach this people and just what to say to them and what to do in order to bring them into the celestial kingdom, as I know the road to my office. It is just as plain and easy.

**The Lord is in our midst. He teaches the people continually. I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call Scripture. Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve. **

The people have the oracles of God continually.** In the days of Joseph, revelation was given and written**, and the people were driven from city to city and place to place, until we were led into these mountains. Let this go to the people with “Thus saith the Lord,” and if they do not obey it, you will see the chastening hand of the Lord upon them. But if they are plead with, and led along like children, we may come to understand the will of the Lord and He may preserve us as we desire

but since those same leaders were so very careful about separating that which is a “Thus Saith the Lord” scripture binding upon us and that which is their own opinion, I think it would be…reasonable at least…for you to accept that we know what we are talking about in this matter.

Ironically, Brigham Young’s statement regarding “Thus Saith the Lord,” and “Let me have the privilege of correcting a sermon, and it is as good Scripture as they deserve,” came from the Journal of Discourses.

Remember, you stated, “The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons.” Does that mean the “Thus Saith the Lord” rule is not binding?

Why do you accept some of Brigham Young’s statements in the JD, and dismiss others?

(Emphasis is mine):

. . . . .The point is, none of the speakers were able to check those speeches for accuracy before they were printed, MOST of them were simply speeches to congregations, and NONE of them were meant to be proclamations from on high. Canonized scripture was/is handled in a very different manner.

**The Journal of Discourses is not, has never been, and will never be considered scripture, or doctrinally binding, by Mormons. **What importance YOU might want to give them is your problem, but in terms of what OUR beliefs are, the only opinion of the JD that counts is…ours.

What astounds me is the irony in this really odd idea that anti’s have, that what THEY claim we believe must trump what WE say we believe, and that we must operate under their rules. Wierd.

This has nothing to do with “trumping what you say you believe.” Quoting LDS Prophets and Apostles, from Mormon sources, does not make anyone an “anti.”

According to the LDS Church, all Christianity outside Mormonism is an “abomination,” and part of a “Great Apostasy.” I think the least you can do is answer questions about the writings of LDS leaders.

Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

Salvation is viewed slightly differently by the LDS. Maybe that is why the answer to your question has not been answered. Also, in general, we do not like to discuss what other churches are lacking, but rather promote what our church has. Personally, I will NEVER tell another person that their church is wrong, as I believe, as the LDS Church teaches, that there is some truth in all the churches

Annie

Hi Annie B,

Would you explain the requirements for salvation according to Mormon beliefs?

Thank you,
Anna

 

[Annie_B]

Hi Annie B,

Would you explain the requirements for salvation according to Mormon beliefs?

Thank you,
Anna

That question would be best asked of someone like Parker D, who is much better at explaining things clearly than I am
Annie

 

[ParkerD]

That question would be best asked of someone like Parker D, who is much better at explaining things clearly than I am
Annie

Annie,
Thanks for your kind vote of confidence, and for your gentleness that comes across so often.

Anna Scott,
Here are six steps that are “requirements for exaltation” according to Mormon beliefs. (Note that the word salvation as used in most New Testament connotations, means what the Mormons would describe as “exaltation” since it means returning to the presence of God the Father and becoming a joint heir with Jesus Christ.)

(1) Having faith in the reality of Jesus Christ and His divine mission and atoning sacrifice.

(2) Using one’s faith in Christ to repent of every sin and wrong-doing in life, and to keep doing so throughout life.

(3) Making the covenant of baptism which is a “new birth” if made with a sincere heart and knowledgeable choice, and having that baptism recorded in heaven because of having been authorized by God.

(4) Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit and then living life in such a way as to be “born of the Spirit” and be sanctified by the Spirit so that the person has a complete change of heart and an enriching of their soul as they yearn to love and serve others in a way they have never felt before, and yearn to please God and love Him without any restraint.

(5) Continue in faith, repentance, partaking the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice each Sunday that they can so that they show their baptism was sincerely done, and continue to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all relationships, including providing meaningful service to others and within extended family relationships.

(6) Seek to obey God’s commandments regarding marriage and a loving relationship within marriage, raising children who love and honor God, and having that marriage become a celestial marriage by having it sealed in heaven through keys given that “what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.”

I hope this has made sense to you and has not offended anyone. Please be at peace about these things, and certainly there are those who have their own reasons that they believe differently than what I have described, but these are “Mormon basics”.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Parker,
I appreciate your explanation of salvation. Will return to that later.

I have a question regarding one of your posts on the Thread: LDS & Catholic Comparison.

Regarding Mormon doctrine, you spoke of the need for “the unanimous voice of the prophet and the twelve apostles, except in the case of Joseph Smith who had the unique calling of being the foundation prophet for establishing the doctrines so the church could be restored and the foundational doctrines be revealed to clarify from all the wrong information of the past.”

Could you explain Joseph Smith’s unique role as the foundation prophet for establishing doctrines?

Were all of the words of Joseph Smith considered revelations from God, which became doctrines of the Mormon Church?

(Emphasis is mine):

. . . . .I follow a living prophet, not those whose message was for a different time than the very day I live in.

Yes. Just as Jesus told the Jews to listen to Him and not be so adamant about heeding Moses or having Abraham as their father (prophet), He was their living Head if they had listened. The pattern is–follow the living prophet, and He will guide in following Jesus Christ. . . . .

1–Not if it wasn’t the unanimous voice of the prophet and the twelve apostles, except in the case of Joseph Smith who had the unique calling of being the foundation prophet for establishing the doctrines so the church could be restored and the foundational doctrines be revealed to clarify from all the wrong information of the past.

2–“A prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such.” --Joseph Smith
“The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”–John
“This generation shall have my word through you.” meaning through Joseph Smith

3–A false prophet would be a teacher or leader who leads people away from following Jesus Christ and from getting the involvement of the Holy Spirit in their own personal lives so that they could change for the better. Often, they will lead by trying to have feigned spirituality and will be able to be detected by the fruits of their teachings and the fruits of the people who follow them.

4–God penalizes “false prophets”. Mormons leave that to God, although if there is a wolf among the sheep the wolf may be excommunicated to protect the sheep.

5–Not when they were speaking or writing as a prophet, no. But they could bring their own opinions forward, and God would not stop that by some magical or forced process, unless the result was going to be “leading the people astray,” in which case that prophet would have been taken by death before the “leading astray” could happen. God really does know all things.

6–God would take in death a modern prophet if that were ever to be a possibility, before the “leading astray” could happen. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t false teachers around who will go on leading as many people astray as they can. We certainly don’t need to “fear” or give any heed to false, self-serving teachers or religious leaders in the world.

Thank you,
Anna

 

[Tmaque]

Parker,

Please explain what “repentance” means to LDS because based on my experience it has a different meaning for Catholics than LDS.

Catholics believe that repentance is being sorry for the sin, confessing it, doing the assigned penance, intending to not commit the sin again and be willing to avoid whatever leads us to commit the sin. If we commit the same sin again we are forgiven again as long as the same conditions are met.

I was taught as an LDS child that if one truly repents they would NEVER commit the sin again. Is true repentance in Mormonism conditioned on never repeating the sin?

 

[zerinus]

Parker,

Please explain what “repentance” means to LDS because based on my experience it has a different meaning for Catholics than LDS.

Catholics believe that repentance is being sorry for the sin, confessing it, doing the assigned penance, intending to not commit the sin again and be willing to avoid whatever leads us to commit the sin. If we commit the same sin again we are forgiven again as long as the same conditions are met.

That is about the same as in Mormonism, except that if you commit the same sin the second time, it may be harder to “meet the conditions” this time round, and the penalties may be harder.

I was taught as an LDS child that if one truly repents they would NEVER commit the sin again. Is true repentance in Mormonism conditioned on never repeating the sin?

No, that is not true. See above.

 

[momor]

That is about the same as in Mormonism, except that if you commit the same sin the second time, it may be harder to “meet the conditions” this time round, and the penalties may be harder.

I hope that doesn’t imply that there is a limit on forgiveness. I don’t believe that Jesus puts this limitation on forgiveness or repentance.
Matthew 18
21 Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” 22 Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven (basically infinity to the Jews).

Jesus would never expect a human to do more than He is willing to do.

It is true that the more we sin the harder it is for US to avoid it the next time, but God never gets tired of our repentance.

 

[KathleenGee]

Today’s basic tenants of Mormonism are like basic Christianity…

but without the Sacraments and liturgy in regards to Catholics and Orthodox…

and the disagreement regarding the procreating marriage state on into heaven…

Christ centered relationships on earth continue in the next life…according to the saints such as St. Catherine of Siena and others.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
I appreciate your explanation of salvation. Will return to that later.

I have a question regarding one of your posts on the Thread: LDS & Catholic Comparison.

Regarding Mormon doctrine, you spoke of the need for “the unanimous voice of the prophet and the twelve apostles, except in the case of Joseph Smith who had the unique calling of being the foundation prophet for establishing the doctrines so the church could be restored and the foundational doctrines be revealed to clarify from all the wrong information of the past.”

Could you explain Joseph Smith’s unique role as the foundation prophet for establishing doctrines?

Were all of the words of Joseph Smith considered revelations from God, which became doctrines of the Mormon Church?

(Emphasis is mine):

Thank you,
Anna

Hi, Anna,
I had typed a pretty thorough answer to your questions, but was doing it at a city library and got logged off so now I have to be brief.

Since Joseph Smith did not have twelve living apostles who had been called by revelation until after the revelation came to do so, but yet God needed to reveal how the church should be organized in its restored organizational and doctrinal purity to establish His will in a way that would be written and easily understood, the idea of “unanimous voice” was in abeyance during the revelatory days of 1820-1836. After the twelve apostles were called, they became a voting body to vote on those items that should be included in the scriptures and were thus “standard works” or in other words, the standards and revelations that should be sent forth to the world and also be studied, taught, and lived by the members of the church.

So for example, the King Follett Discourse is not classified or considered a “revelation from God”, although it can be studied for gleaning understanding such as about the idea that we will gain more knowledge even after our resurrection, for a “very long time”.

D & C 137 contains the words of Joseph Smith, but was not added as scripture until the 1970’s and was added after the united voice of the First Presidency, the Twelve Apostles, and a vote in General Conference where the members also accepted that it was scripture that should now be included in the D & C, to the mutual benefit of all the members for its insight into what goes on in the spirit world.

So the answer to your last question above, is “no”. But as another example, D & C 121 is taken from a letter written by Joseph Smith while he was in the Liberty Jail, and is scripture with very powerful teachings to the members of the church. That letter had more in it than what is contained in D & C 121, so what was placed in the D & C was decided upon by inspiration and was taken from his letter as certain paragraphs from the letter.

 

[paul_c]

Paul, I am truly sorry, but that is simply not true of the members and the clergy…and if you use the same standard of "official’ for your own church as you do for ours, it’s not true officially, either.

As to comparing LDS and Catholics in this area, I suggest that you go look at the statistics for your priesthood. According to the United States Conference of Black Catholic Bishops, while African Americans make up 3% of the Catholic population of the United States, and that there are about 350 African American members of the clergy here (that’s rounding UP from the combination of the number of Bishops, active and inactive, plus active priests and men in seminaries preparing for the priesthood.) According to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, There are 46886 priests, counting seminary students. (Lots of rounding here, all in favor of having MORE African American priests, not less, by the way).

If the church did not discriminate against people by race, would you care to explain why, if African Americans make up 3% of the Catholic population, why African Americans make up only .7% of the priesthood? Pay attention to the dot…that’s not seven percent. That’s POINT 7%. Less than one percent of the priesthood, even after you add in retired bishops and seminary students AND round UP. It’s actually less than .7%.

When your percentage of African American and other minorities in the priesthood come remotely close to matching the percentage of membership in the general population, THEN come and tell me that the church does not discriminate against people because of race.

One poster, in that earlier exchange, actually said that the reason there weren’t more black priests is because blacks don’t feel the ‘call’ as much as white people do. I don’t think you will go that road–but letting you know that one of your fellow Catholics DID go down that road should make you think a bit.

It is true; it doesn’t matter who tells you that your hands are dirty…if they are dirty, they are dirty no matter how filthy the accuser is. However, when the accuser stands there, covered in muck and mud, and tells you that your dirty hands prove that your beliefs are false, it raises quite an interesting question about what the far more long lasting, and stickier, mud on the accuser says about HIS beliefs–if, that is, double standards don’t apply.

Especially when the one with the dirty hands has washed them, and the accuser is still muddy.

While you are right that blacks are under represented in the US priesthood, your analysis is incomplete and misses the point. Remembers, the Catholic Church is universal. there are many, many black priests in Africa, so many in fact that we actually “import” them to the US to help with the US priest shortage. I don’t know the total numbers, but I know we had one of them in our parish in NY. But the point is, it was never, ever a doctrinal position that blacks or any other race were not eligible for the priesthood.

 

[paul_c]

Here are six steps that are “requirements for exaltation” according to Mormon beliefs. (Note that the word salvation as used in most New Testament connotations, means what the Mormons would describe as “exaltation” since it means returning to the presence of God the Father and becoming a joint heir with Jesus Christ.)

Parker, thanks so much for laying this out so succinctly. For all the talk of a general Apostasy, this list is strikingly similar to what the Catholic Church teaches has been teaching about salvation for 2000 years. lets take a look:

1. Having faith in the reality of Jesus Christ and His divine mission and atoning sacrifice.

We would agree wholeheartedly that the first step in salvation is belief in Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice. We would further state that this is faith is acheived by grace.

(2) Using one’s faith in Christ to repent of every sin and wrong-doing in life, and to keep doing so throughout life.

(3) Making the covenant of baptism which is a “new birth” if made with a sincere heart and knowledgeable choice, and having that baptism recorded in heaven because of having been authorized by God.

(4) Receiving the gift of the Holy Spirit and then living life in such a way as to be “born of the Spirit” and be sanctified by the Spirit so that the person has a complete change of heart and an enriching of their soul as they yearn to love and serve others in a way they have never felt before, and yearn to please God and love Him without any restraint.

We would agree with all these steps, albiet in a different order. We would say that those that have faith will be baptized in the name of the father, the son and the Holy Spirit. This baptism is indeed a new birth, freeing us from all previous sins, giving us the necessary grace to be saved and making us part of the Church. If baptized before the age of reason, the choice will be confirmed around age 14, when we recieve the gifts of the holy spirit. For adults, baptism and confirmation are done together. Once Baptized, we must stay in the state of grace by doing the will of God, loving him and our neighbors and avoiding sin. If we do fall from grace through sin, we can be reconciled to God by confessing our sins to a priest, repenting and doing penance in the sacrament of reconciliation. I would say this is very close to what you describe in steps 2-4.

(5) Continue in faith, repentance, partaking the remembrance of Christ’s sacrifice each Sunday that they can so that they show their baptism was sincerely done, and continue to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in all relationships, including providing meaningful service to others and within extended family relationships.

As you know, we partake of the Christ’s sacrifice not only on Sundays but everyday.

(6) Seek to obey God’s commandments regarding marriage and a loving relationship within marriage, raising children who love and honor God, and having that marriage become a celestial marriage by having it sealed in heaven through keys given that “what is bound on earth is bound in heaven.”

For those called to marriage, we expect the same. A loving marriage and the raising of Children how love and honor God. But we do not require that all are married and of course our priest and religious are celibate. And of course, the celestial marriage doctrine directly conflicts with What Jesus said to the Saduccees. (there is no marriage in heaven)

I hope this has made sense to you and has not offended anyone. Please be at peace about these things, and certainly there are those who have their own reasons that they believe differently than what I have described, but these are “Mormon basics”.

So Parker, given the great commonality between what you say Mormon’s require for exaltation with what Catholics have always taught is required to enter heaven, what exactly was the great apostasy? Surely you aren’t going to say its all about celestial marriages? or are you?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, thanks so much for laying this out so succinctly. For all the talk of a general Apostasy, this list is strikingly similar to what the Catholic Church teaches has been teaching about salvation for 2000 years. lets take a look:

We would agree wholeheartedly that the first step in salvation is belief in Jesus Christ and his atoning sacrifice. We would further state that this is faith is acheived by grace.

We would agree with all these steps, albiet in a different order. We would say that those that have faith will be baptized in the name of the father, the son and the Holy Spirit. This baptism is indeed a new birth, freeing us from all previous sins, giving us the necessary grace to be saved and making us part of the Church. If baptized before the age of reason, the choice will be confirmed around age 14, when we recieve the gifts of the holy spirit. For adults, baptism and confirmation are done together. Once Baptized, we must stay in the state of grace by doing the will of God, loving him and our neighbors and avoiding sin. If we do fall from grace through sin, we can be reconciled to God by confessing our sins to a priest, repenting and doing penance in the sacrament of reconciliation. I would say this is very close to what you describe in steps 2-4.

As you know, we partake of the Christ’s sacrifice not only on Sundays but everyday.

For those called to marriage, we expect the same. A loving marriage and the raising of Children how love and honor God. But we do not require that all are married and of course our priest and religious are celibate. And of course, the celestial marriage doctrine directly conflicts with What Jesus said to the Saduccees. (there is no marriage in heaven)

So Parker, given the great commonality between what you say Mormon’s require for exaltation with what Catholics have always taught is required to enter heaven, what exactly was the great apostasy? Surely you aren’t going to say its all about celestial marriages? or are you?

Paul C,
As I’ve posted before, “drifting” is I think a better word to describe what happened than “great apostasy”, and within that drifting there was both a loss of the doctrine of celestial marriage and a loss of the keys to do such an ordinance, so as far as a number one kind of loss, that would seem to be a very big one since it impacts everything that happens in eternity as well as on earth for people who choose not to marry.

I am going to refrain from having another conversation about the Savior’s specific comment to the Sadducees about their hypothetical case question, but if you sincerely diagram the paragraph like an English student would do, especially using a background in a foreign language where there is an understood subject for a verb because the subject is already known, then it is clear that the subject was the hypothetical dead Sadducees brothers and the woman they married, and all these hypothetical people were unbelievers so they had no celestial marriage nor even a belief in the resurrection. Christ answered the question He was asked, referring directly to the subject of the question.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
As I’ve posted before, “drifting” is I think a better word to describe what happened than “great apostasy”, and within that drifting there was both a loss of the doctrine of celestial marriage and a loss of the keys to do such an ordinance, so as far as a number one kind of loss, that would seem to be a very big one since it impacts everything that happens in eternity as well as on earth for people who choose not to marry.

I am going to refrain from having another conversation about the Savior’s specific comment to the Sadducees about their hypothetical case question, but if you sincerely diagram the paragraph like an English student would do, especially using a background in a foreign language where there is an understood subject for a verb because the subject is already known, then it is clear that the subject was the hypothetical dead Sadducees brothers and the woman they married, and all these hypothetical people were unbelievers so they had no celestial marriage nor even a belief in the resurrection. Christ answered the question He was asked, referring directly to the subject of the question.

So your position is that the drift was due to the lack of celestial marriage and that caused the Catholic Church to lose the keys to heaven given to St. Peter? Wow!. And then you claim that Catholics misunderstood Jesus explanation to the Sadducees that there was no marriage in heaven because we didn’t diagram the paragraph right? Wow! So the entire reason that the 1.2B catholics aren’t going to be exalted is because of misunderstood grammar? And that’s why our sacraments are no longer valid? And the fact that Paul was celibate and endorsed celibacy in his epistles for those that could do so for the glory of God was just a mistake? And the fact that Jesus was also unmarried (despite what it said in the DiVinci Code) was also a mistake? and the fact that this entire Celestial marriage doctrine highly benefitted Joseph Smith personally because it allowed him to justify his 33 marriages was just a coincidence. This is really hard to believe.

 

[zaffiroborant]

No, it’s comparing “you can’t come in here” to “you can’t come in here.” You DO realize that I cannot take communion or participate in any Catholic sacraments, right? That would make those a bit on the exclusive side, seems to me.

…a**nd your point about ‘private areas in the personal sense’ only works in so far as their personal sleeping areas and altars are concerned (and they do have those.) NOT the chapel that the monks in general use, but which is off limits to visitors or anybody but visiting Catholic priests. **

The rest? That’s moving the goal posts. What difference does it make if a sacrament is available outside the walls of a monestary, if they are restricted only to those who are worthy to participate in them? That’s the only restriction Temple ordinances have, y’know; they are restricted to those who are worthy to participate. If we choose to keep them private as well, that is, frankly, none of your concern. As I have stated before, it’s not as if anything we do in the Temple is secret…it is incredibly easy for you to find the script for it, and to know precisely what we do there. Nobody is going to send black helicopters after you if you go looking, either.

Sheesh…we don’t sue people, or threaten them…you want to publish the Temple script? Fine. Go knock yourself out. Just do not expect Mormons to talk to you about it. WE consider what goes in there to be sacred.

Actually the point about being private applies to the entire monastery or convent. These are not the property of the Church, they are owned and operated by the order. So if you can’t go into part or all of a monastery you are not being kept out of part of the Catholic Church you are being kept out of the private property of the order.

 

[dianaiad]

While you are right that blacks are under represented in the US priesthood, your analysis is incomplete and misses the point. Remembers, the Catholic Church is universal. there are many, many black priests in Africa, so many in fact that we actually “import” them to the US to help with the US priest shortage. I don’t know the total numbers, but I know we had one of them in our parish in NY. But the point is, it was never, ever a doctrinal position that blacks or any other race were not eligible for the priesthood.

Moving the goalposts there, Paul.

I guess I will have to point out that until the twentieth century it was not possible for an African American to attend a seminary here in the USA, unless he could ‘pass…’

In fact, the first African American Priest had to work his way to Rome to attend a seminary THERE, because Americans wouldn’t allow him to attend one here.

As well, (and this is why I mention double standards here…) It was the direct result of instructions by a Pope that the international slave trade got going, and that people of black descent were singled out for slavery over other people. Slavery, in fact, was not only accepted, but promoted, by the church, Popes and all. Your priests…and at least a couple of Popes, OWNED slaves.

…and even though there was a proclamation that slavery was a sin that was supposed to keep one from communion, Catholics never once denied a southern slaveowner communion–and indeed several Priestly orders owned slaves right up until the North won the war. Even after that, American Catholic Bishops were unhappy about the change.

…and Catholic parishes were segregated until well past WWII.

The point is, Paul, that Mormons were very much anti-slavery. Even Brigham Young, that noted racist (and yes, he was…) turned slavery into ‘indentured servitude…’ that recognized these servants as people bound in service, not property. Even though Utah was a ‘slave state…’ owning slaves was very much looked down upon.

Then, less than 150 years after the founding of the CoJCoLDS, on one sunny June morning, a simple announcement was made—and greeted with a great deal of joy–that said that ALL worthy men could have the priesthood. From that day, no man is discriminated against because of color, heritage or anything else. We turned it around in pretty much the time it took to read a statement.

Catholics…you’ve been around HOW long? You say 2000 years, the rest of us talk about 1500 years…and you STILL have problems with getting blacks into the priesthood. The very fact that you are bragging about importing black priests from Africa to help HERE should scream at you.

WE did not begin slavery. WE did not make announcements from our leaders that literally moved armies against entire peoples for the express purpose of enslaving them. Catholic popes, however, did precisely that.

WE fixed our problem in less than a tenth of the time it has taken you.

Given these facts (which anyone here is VERY aware that I can support…and will at the drop of a suggestion…) I think perhaps that you should consider the words in Matt. 7:1-5.

 

[ParkerD]

So your position is that the drift was due to the lack of celestial marriage and that caused the Catholic Church to lose the keys to heaven given to St. Peter? Wow!. And then you claim that Catholics misunderstood Jesus explanation to the Sadducees that there was no marriage in heaven because we didn’t diagram the paragraph right? Wow! So the entire reason that the 1.2B catholics aren’t going to be exalted is because of misunderstood grammar? And that’s why our sacraments are no longer valid? And the fact that Paul was celibate and endorsed celibacy in his epistles for those that could do so for the glory of God was just a mistake? And the fact that Jesus was also unmarried (despite what it said in the DiVinci Code) was also a mistake? and the fact that this entire Celestial marriage doctrine highly benefitted Joseph Smith personally because it allowed him to justify his 33 marriages was just a coincidence. This is really hard to believe.

Paul C,
First, Christ holds the keys to heaven, not Peter. Peter held keys as did the other apostles to “bind on earth” those ordinances that would be “bound in heaven”, and they will be judges of the house of Israel, but Christ holds the keys to heaven, as well as the keys to death and hell.

The loss of the keys of authority would be because those keys meant that doctrine would be kept pure by the holders of the keys, and if supposed “successors” (who weren’t the rightful successors anyway as far as the leadership given specifically by the apostles as directed by Christ) lost the pure doctrine, then they no longer held keys of God’s authority on earth.

Understanding scripture, especially by church leaders, should be done by the method discussed in 1 Corinthians 2 which is by revelation to get the wisdom of the meaning directly from the Holy Spirit. The loss of understanding about celestial marriage is a symptom, not a single stand-by-itself lost doctrine.

Every person who lives to adulthood on earth will be judged on the basis of what they did given what they knew and understood as the commandments they were to follow, and the sincerity of their continuing repentance during their lives. But surely no Catholic will say they did not know Adam and Eve were given to each other in marriage for their mutual benefit, and were given a commandment to multiply and replenish the earth–and would be familiar that Christ never rescinded that commandment nor diminished its importance but emphasized the importance of marriage.

I disagree that Paul was celibate given all of the circumstances of his life and teachings. His teachings suggesting for some to not receive a second marriage to serve in the church certainly have confused many people, but those same people surely have read Genesis 1-3 and Christ’s teachings about marriage, so it is an excuse that means they gave more credence to one chapter by Paul than to the words of God to Adam or the words of Christ to the Jews. I think that is an unwise choice.

Jesus knew He would be killed during a short ministry on earth, so it makes sense that He would not marry and since He was perfect, He didn’t need the stabilizing and selflessness influence that is involved in marriage and raising children. He had a singular role on earth, which no one else has had or will ever have.

Peace to you and all.

 

[paul_c]

Moving the goalposts there, Paul.

I guess I will have to point out that until the twentieth century it was not possible for an African American to attend a seminary here in the USA, unless he could ‘pass…’

In fact, the first African American Priest had to work his way to Rome to attend a seminary THERE, because Americans wouldn’t allow him to attend one here.

As well, (and this is why I mention double standards here…) It was the direct result of instructions by a Pope that the international slave trade got going, and that people of black descent were singled out for slavery over other people. Slavery, in fact, was not only accepted, but promoted, by the church, Popes and all. Your priests…and at least a couple of Popes, OWNED slaves.

…and even though there was a proclamation that slavery was a sin that was supposed to keep one from communion, Catholics never once denied a southern slaveowner communion–and indeed several Priestly orders owned slaves right up until the North won the war. Even after that, American Catholic Bishops were unhappy about the change.

…and Catholic parishes were segregated until well past WWII.

The point is, Paul, that Mormons were very much anti-slavery. Even Brigham Young, that noted racist (and yes, he was…) turned slavery into ‘indentured servitude…’ that recognized these servants as people bound in service, not property. Even though Utah was a ‘slave state…’ owning slaves was very much looked down upon.

Then, less than 150 years after the founding of the CoJCoLDS, on one sunny June morning, a simple announcement was made—and greeted with a great deal of joy–that said that ALL worthy men could have the priesthood. From that day, no man is discriminated against because of color, heritage or anything else. We turned it around in pretty much the time it took to read a statement.

Catholics…you’ve been around HOW long? You say 2000 years, the rest of us talk about 1500 years…and you STILL have problems with getting blacks into the priesthood. The very fact that you are bragging about importing black priests from Africa to help HERE should scream at you.

WE did not begin slavery. WE did not make announcements from our leaders that literally moved armies against entire peoples for the express purpose of enslaving them. Catholic popes, however, did precisely that.

WE fixed our problem in less than a tenth of the time it has taken you.

Given these facts (which anyone here is VERY aware that I can support…and will at the drop of a suggestion…) I think perhaps that you should consider the words in Matt. 7:1-5.

Diana,
You in fact moved the goal posts. My point was that eternal truths don’t change and that Catholic doctrine reflects that while Mormons believe that truths change. I merely brought up the point of the Mormon black priesthood as the most recent change. You turned that into an indictment of the US Catholic Church, claiming that Catholics also descriminated against Blacks because Blacks are under-represented in the priesthood and then accused me of being a hypocrite. The fact remains that the Catholic Church has always been a universal faith and never had doctrinal discrimination.

Oh, and by the way, How do you make the statement that the Catholic Church is only 1500 years old. That is a completely unsupportable position. It is clearly 2000 years old with clear leadership and doctrinal continuity to the Apostles. To deny this is to deny history that even secular sources will support.