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

[paul_c]

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.

This is what you say, but it is inconsistent with What Jesus Said in Matthew 16: 17-19
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

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.

Again, this is your interpretation, which has no true scriptural support.
Review verse 18 above. Jesus said he would build his church on St. Peter and the netherwold would not prevail against it. Yet you try to claim that the Church lost its way when Peter died. Wouldn’t that be the netherworld prevailing against it?

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.

There was no loss of understanding about Celestial marriage. It can not be found in any legitimate scripture. In fact it is clearly discredited by Scripture. Like Luke 20: 34-35:

34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

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.

Surely you are a sophisticated enough apologist that you understand the weakness of this argument. Adam and Eve’s role was to start the human race, so of course they needed to procreate. That was specific to them. Nowhere, however does scripture state that men had to marry or procreate as a requirement to enter heaven. That is strictly a Joseph Smith innovation. To make this pronouncement, Joseph Smtih contradicted Jesus who says in Matthew 19: 12:

12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Isn’t " People renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven" in direct contradiction to Joseph Smiths rule that you can’t get to heaven UNLESS you marry?

continued in next post…

 

[paul_c]

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.

So now you are arguing that despite the fact that Paul said he was celibate, he was not really. And you are saying that if he was celibate, it was an unwise choice? It would do you good to read the entire chapter in 1 Corinthians 7 to understand Paul’s real view of marriage: here are a couple of snippets to convey the message:

7 Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, 5 one of one kind and one of another.
8 Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,
9 but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

25 Now in regard to virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord, 11 but I give my opinion as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy.
26 So this is what I think best because of the present distress: that it is a good thing for a person to remain as he is.
27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek a separation. Are you free of a wife? Then do not look for a wife.
28 If you marry, however, you do not sin, nor does an unmarried woman sin if she marries; but such people will experience affliction in their earthly life, and I would like to spare you that.

32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and he is divided

38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

Do you now realize who foolish your statement is that Paul was married? And you are in direct disagreement with Paul about whether marriage is required for heaven.

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.

This is complete foolishness. If there was an Absolute requirement of getting to heaven (being exalted) , then surely Jesus would have been married to demonstrate that. He after all was baptized to show the importance of that sacrament, even though he didn’t need to repent of any sins.

Parker, you may be on to something. Perhaps, the Apostasy was driven by the Celestial Marriage doctrine. Afterall, it is the one area where Mormons differ so greatly from what came before. And look how Joseph Smith used this particular doctrine: he used it to justify having sex with the daughters and wives of his followers. Does that really sound like a doctrine that comes from God? Particularly, when you see all the scriptural evidence against it in this apologetic. It seems higly plausible that this doctrine WAS the driver of the Apostasy, the apostasy of the Mormons.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

We have a very strange dichotomy going here.

On one hand, we have the Catholic who claims that eternal truths never change, and that God would not allow His church to go astray, or that “the gates of hell would not prevail.”

At the same time, all the actions of Popes throughout history who have literally sent armies to war and to enslave nations, those whose proclamations and actions literally began and supported the slave trade for centuries and who were responsible for making skin color the marker for those most appropriate to enslave, are dismissed as irrelevant because in spite of what the highest leaders of the church proclaimed as true (and God would not allow them to go astray, remember?) the ‘eternal truth’ remained.

…and in spite of the fact that nobody paid attention to it, and even the highest leaders went directly counter to it and did so for centuries…that eternal truth is what counts.

There is a word for this. Two, actually.

So. We have Catholics, who claim that what their leaders actually say and do don’t count, because they don’t claim to be prophets (even though the claim is ALSO there that God would never allow the church to go astray, and there is this thing about Papal infallibility about matters concerning faith and morals…).

At the same time, critics such as you, FROM this mindset, declare that Mormonism is false. Why? Because some of our leaders say and do things that you don’t like, or that seem to run counter to what the Mormon facing you claims church doctrine actually is. Why do you do this? Because of course a double standard applies. While YOUR leaders can be dismissed whenever they go off the rails, (even when they take the entire church with them…)because they are simply sinful men, WE are not allowed to claim the same; YOU are the ones who get to determine when OUR leaders are speaking as prophets, or as men with their own opinions which may or may not be correct.

How fair is that? The thing is, Paul, we have a very formal process by which it is determined when our leaders are speaking as prophets. If that process is not complete. then what they say may very well be the word of the Lord–but then it might not be. It’s generally a good idea, we believe, to follow the counsel of our leaders in matters of faith…(hmn. that sounds familiar…) but we are quite aware that they are not prophets ALL the time.

Finally, there is this very odd matter of the claim that Catholicism is true and has never gone astray, or apostatized–even when history is stuffed full of examples when every single Catholic who obeyed the Pope was doing things exactly the opposite to this eternal truth you are claiming. When the church comes back from the brink, and begins to repair the damage, you don’t see that as changing an eternal truth…

But when another organization has a problem, and gets yanked back into the fold, you call THAT a 'changing of eternal truth."

Personally, I would call that a sharp reminder of it, not a change. Did Mormonism go off the rails in this manner? Perhaps…but if we did it was for little more than a century and we got pulled back very sharply, and we, by golly, paid attention.

Now about the 2000 year thing. Uhmn…Paul? I’m a Mormon. We believe in this thing called a ‘great apostasy.’ That means that we believe that the early Christian church was just fine, and remained fine for about a generation, and then the priesthood was lost and the main body of the church gradually shifted away from some of those eternal truths. In fact, it splintered. The winning faction (and if you know your history, you are quite aware of all those movements that you call heresies early on…the winner DOES get to decide what the losers are called.) didn’t get going strong until about 300 AD, give or take a generation.

For you to insist that I agree with you that the Catholic church is 2000 years old is begging a rather big question, don’t you think? I will certainly agree that YOU believe it is 2000 years old, though.

After all that, I’m sorry for the rant. You did hit one of my buttons. I’ve had to swallow the "Mormons are racist’ attacks for years, and after finding out what I have about the history of slavery and Catholic involvement in it, I find that I am absolutely unable to accept criticism in this matter from a Catholic.

You have made HUGE strides in this matter. You should be commended and celebrated for those strides. Catholicism has become a great force in the world against discrimination, and you should be very proud of that. The problem is that you had to take so many strides to get where you are today. Since that is so, it would behoove you to refrain from criticizing other faiths that not only didn’t have to walk as far, but who did it ten times faster and passed you up on the way.

 

[paul_c]

Look, Diana,
I never called you or the Mormon’s racists. I merely used the Black priesthood point as the latest significant change in doctrine.

But I am now going to call you on the carpet for making unsupported accusations about the Catholic Church. Let’s look at what you said:

At the same time, all the actions of Popes throughout history who have literally sent armies to war and to enslave nations, those whose proclamations and actions literally began and supported the slave trade for centuries and who were responsible for making skin color the marker for those most appropriate to enslave, are dismissed as irrelevant because in spite of what the highest leaders of the church proclaimed as true (and God would not allow them to go astray, remember?) the ‘eternal truth’ remained.

I’ll grant you that Popes began the Crusades to free the Holy Land from the Muslims, who were limiting access to Christian pilgrims. But that wasn’t a doctrinal position and it was lamentable. Remember, Popes are infallible only when teaching on issues of Faith and Morals.

Now where is your documentation that shows that Papal proclamations supported the slave trade? Or that were responsible for making skin color the marker for enslavement? Those are pretty strong accusations to level without support.

:Finally, there is this very odd matter of the claim that Catholicism is true and has never gone astray, or apostatized–even when history is stuffed full of examples when every single Catholic who obeyed the Pope was doing things exactly the opposite to this eternal truth you are claiming.

What are you talking about here? Its very poor apologetics to make sweeping generalizations without a single example. Give even one example of the Pope leading Catholics in a direction opposing Catholic teaching. Again, these are very strong accusations to make without a single line of supporting data.

.
Now about the 2000 year thing. Uhmn…Paul? I’m a Mormon. We believe in this thing called a ‘great apostasy.’ That means that we believe that the early Christian church was just fine, and remained fine for about a generation, and then the priesthood was lost and the main body of the church gradually shifted away from some of those eternal truths. In fact, it splintered. The winning faction (and if you know your history, you are quite aware of all those movements that you call heresies early on…the winner DOES get to decide what the losers are called.) didn’t get going strong until about 300 AD, give or take a generation.

For you to insist that I agree with you that the Catholic church is 2000 years old is begging a rather big question, don’t you think? I will certainly agree that YOU believe it is 2000 years old, though.

Your position is inconsistent with Jesus’ assurance that he would be with his church always and is also inconsistent with history. Do yourself a favor, read Eusebius’ history of the Church, written prior to the Edict of Milan and the Council of Nicea. It will be eye opening to you. You don’t even need to buy it. Its online here: newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

I understand that as a Mormon, it will be difficult for you to accept that you have been mislead. Nonetheless, I feeled compelled to point out the truth to you. Its up to you whether you accept it.

 

[AMDGtoo]

For you to insist that I agree with you that the Catholic church is 2000 years old is begging a rather big question, don’t you think?

I know I don’t think it is “begging the big question” to insist that historical documents should be considered when it comes to the question of the founding of the Catholic Church. In fact, if any of us read Jurgens book on the Early Church Father
s, (or Lightfoot’s The Apostolic Fathers, or Staniforth’s Early Christian Writings, or even Migne’s masterpiece, Patrologia), he would see that the word “Catholic” first appears in a letter of St. Ignatious of Antioch (around 107 A.D.) to distinguish it from some heretical groups at the time. St. Ignatious letter indicates that by that time, the original Christian Church was already well known as the “Catholic Church”. Furthermore, I have only heard the claim that the Catholic Church was started around 300 A.D. from Protestant debates (of course, I would expect that Mormons would also have that mistaken idea since their founder was from Protestant roots.)

 

[ParkerD]

This is what you say, but it is inconsistent with What Jesus Said in Matthew 16: 17-19
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven

Again, this is your interpretation, which has no true scriptural support.
Review verse 18 above. Jesus said he would build his church on St. Peter and the netherwold would not prevail against it. Yet you try to claim that the Church lost its way when Peter died. Wouldn’t that be the netherworld prevailing against it?

There was no loss of understanding about Celestial marriage. It can not be found in any legitimate scripture. In fact it is clearly discredited by Scripture. Like Luke 20: 34-35:

34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

Surely you are a sophisticated enough apologist that you understand the weakness of this argument. Adam and Eve’s role was to start the human race, so of course they needed to procreate. That was specific to them. Nowhere, however does scripture state that men had to marry or procreate as a requirement to enter heaven. That is strictly a Joseph Smith innovation. To make this pronouncement, Joseph Smtih contradicted Jesus who says in Matthew 19: 12:

12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Isn’t " People renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of Heaven" in direct contradiction to Joseph Smiths rule that you can’t get to heaven UNLESS you marry?

continued in next post…

Paul C,
I have responded about Matthew 16:18 on another thread this morning, so you can find that and read it if you wish.

In Luke 20:34 we see that Christ talks about the “children of this world” which is logical since the subject of the passage was the hypothetical Sadducees brothers who were “children of this world” rather than “sons of God” because they had rejected Christ and rejected the resurrection. So if you want to be one of the “children of this world” and want your friends and associates and loved ones to be so designated, then that would be a choice you and they can make but it is a different choice than I make. I choose to be a “son of God” following God’s commandments and knowing that Christ makes possible a resurrection with a celestial marriage. A choice leading to be “equal unto the angels” is not a choice I want to make for myself, but you will certainly receive that if that is what you desire and live for.

Matthew 19:12 was a response to the disciples’ expressed worry that “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” This was after Christ had said marriage was given by God–“God hath joined together”. God did the joining, not man. Man does the “putting asunder”, as it seems your train of thought does also. (Sorry to say).

Christ was telling the disciples that some refrain from marriage or a second marriage because they realize they can’t commit to a marriage where divorce is not an option. That is why they “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” They realize they can’t live the law of marriage given by God, because of their own weakness. The idea of “able to receive it” refers back to verse 11, which is talking about that “all men cannot receive this saying” which is the saying “let not man put asunder”.

From the beginning “it was not so” that divorce was permitted by God’s laws. It was a lesser allowance in the Mosaic law and code. God’s laws were that God joins a marriage together, and what God does He does with eternity in mind.

But again, you have what you want in that you evidently want to be as the angels, which is just fine. I choose to be a “joint heir”, a “son of God”, not an “angel” or “like an angel.” We are making different choices, which is what the gospel of Jesus Christ allows us to do, you and I.

 

[ParkerD]

Paul C,
As a follow-up to my last post and in answer to the question about Matthew 16:18, since the thread I had posted an answer to has moved off of the first page, here is the response so that you don’t have to wonder where it is, plus I’ll add a bit to the opening for clarity:

In Matthew 16:18, Christ tells Peter three sub-sentences that are joined by conjunctions. The first sub-sentence is “thou art Peter.” The second and third sub-sentences need to be looked at carefully in a grammatical way for understanding their meaning:

Using English grammar, one needs to deal with the prepositions before one deals with figuring out the subject and the objects of prepositions. One does this be identifying the prepositions, which are “upon” and “of” and “against”.

Christ could have said, “I will build my church upon this rock” and that clarifies the subject without getting mixed up by the object of the preposition.

What is the subject of this second sub-sentence? The subject is “I”. Where is Christ going to “build [His] church”? We look at the prepositional phrase, and learn where He is going to build–“upon this rock”. What is Peter seeing in his mind’s eye at this point? He is seeing a rock that forms the foundation of Christ’s church on earth.

What does Peter later write about the foundation of Christ’s church on earth? Why, we find the answer to this in 1 Peter 2:6. The “chief corner stone” is Christ, “and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” He does not say, “Christ made me the foundation of the church and he that believeth on me shall not be confounded.” He didn’t do that at all, nor ever implied that at all. He knew by revelation who was the foundation, and knew exactly what that meant.

“The gates of hell will not prevail against it” is a separate sub-sentence that is added to the other sub-sentence by a conjunction. The word “it” can be used because the hearer has formed a picture in their mind’s eye such that they can see (in their mind) a picture to which the word “it” refers. The picture is of a rock, with a congregation of believers built up “upon the rock”. The reason the congregation of believers are able to withstand the “gates of hell” is because they are built upon the rock, the foundation, who is Jesus Christ. If they were built on any other foundation, they would not have the same promise. The “gates of hell” will not prevail against anyone who builds their own foundation on the rock, Jesus Christ; and the rock itself will indeed prevail against the gates of hell because Jesus is the holder of the keys to the gates of hell–He and only He. (See Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 1:17-18 and Revelation 3:7). No man is the holder of the keys to the gates of hell. Peter is not the holder of those particular keys.

Peter had a rock-solid testimony of Christ because the Father had revealed knowledge to Peter about Whom Christ is. I have no problem with Peter being a “rock”, but he was not “the Rock”, and he knew it. His name was not “changed” to Peter, it was an added designation, thusly: “Simon Peter”.

 

[AMDGtoo]

His name was not “changed” to Peter, it was an added designation, thusly: “Simon Peter”.

You are right that his name was not changed to Peter. It was changed to Kephas (my King James has Cephas). Of course, it means “rock”.

The later Greek translation used “Peter” which also refers to a rock.

 

[dianaiad]

Look, Diana,
I never called you or the Mormon’s racists. I merely used the Black priesthood point as the latest significant change in doctrine.

Actually, Paul, the following quote: “The Catholic church never descriminated by race so to say the world was not ready for Black priests prior to 1978 is self serving.” is pretty clear.

But I am now going to call you on the carpet for making unsupported accusations about the Catholic Church. Let’s look at what you said:

I’ll grant you that Popes began the Crusades to free the Holy Land from the Muslims, who were limiting access to Christian pilgrims. But that wasn’t a doctrinal position and it was lamentable. Remember, Popes are infallible only when teaching on issues of Faith and Morals.

And thus you do precisely what I said you would do: dismiss the actions of the very highest leaders of your church (the Popes…and by the way, this wasn’t about the Crusades.) by claiming that they were just men and not fallible. It DOES beg the question about what ‘faith and morals’ covers if it doesn’t cover stuff like slavery, though.

Now where is your documentation that shows that Papal proclamations supported the slave trade? Or that were responsible for making skin color the marker for enslavement? Those are pretty strong accusations to level without support.

Oh, dear. OK…Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas, 1452 (June 18)
Same pope, “Romanus Pontifex” 1455 (January 8th)
Pope Calixtus “Inter Caetera” 1455…
Pope Paul III, “Sublimus Dei” (1537 which forbade the enslavement of indigenous peoples of the Americas…but which did not specifically forbid slavery in other cases. This bull has been quoted as being anti-slavery in general, but Paul sactioned slavery in Rome and the enslavement of Muslims and Africans who were NOT Muslim. since this is so, the lack of language specifically prohibiting enslaving anybody BUT indigenous Americans is pretty telling. In fact, this Paul repealed the ancient practice of allowing slaves to claim their freedom under the Emperor’s statue on Capital Hill if they were able to reach it, affirmed the right of the inhabitants of Rome to buy, sell and own slaves, and authorized the purchase and possession of Muslim slaves in the Papal states.

In fact, “Dum Diversas” is the real problem; in that one Pope Nicholas granted Portugal the right to make “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” hereditary slaves…and that’s what kicked off the international slave trade.

What are you talking about here? Its very poor apologetics to make sweeping generalizations without a single example. Give even one example of the Pope leading Catholics in a direction opposing Catholic teaching. Again, these are very strong accusations to make without a single line of supporting data.

would 'Dum Diversus" work?

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2501.htm

[/URL]

I understand that as a Mormon, it will be difficult for you to accept that you have been mislead. Nonetheless, I feeled compelled to point out the truth to you. Its up to you whether you accept it.

I understand your view point. Do you understand why I would react as I did after reading these bulls, written by Popes and which made such sweeping changes in the lives of nations?

 

[dianaiad]

I know I don’t think it is “begging the big question” to insist that historical documents should be considered when it comes to the question of the founding of the Catholic Church. In fact, if any of us read Jurgens book on the Early Church Father
s, (or Lightfoot’s The Apostolic Fathers, or Staniforth’s Early Christian Writings, or even Migne’s masterpiece, Patrologia), he would see that the word “Catholic” first appears in a letter of St. Ignatious of Antioch (around 107 A.D.) to distinguish it from some heretical groups at the time. St. Ignatious letter indicates that by that time, the original Christian Church was already well known as the “Catholic Church”. Furthermore, I have only heard the claim that the Catholic Church was started around 300 A.D. from Protestant debates (of course, I would expect that Mormons would also have that mistaken idea since their founder was from Protestant roots.)

Actually, Julie, our claim is that the original Christian church, begun by Jesus, started drifting away in a little more than a generation after the apostles died. The priesthood was lost, we believe…and try as everyone might, the doctrinal train got a little more derailed with every further generation.Frankly, I would count your beginnings from the first schizm at 451 after the Council of Chalcedon. It’s fuzzy, but that’s about as good as any other date. Certainly it doesn’t seem like the two factions AFTER this split were quite the same as the larger singular group before it, and which of those factions am I supposed to accept as the ‘true’ one, anyway?

 

[paul_c]

In Luke 20:34 we see that Christ talks about the “children of this world” which is logical since the subject of the passage was the hypothetical Sadducees brothers who were “children of this world” rather than “sons of God” because they had rejected Christ and rejected the resurrection. So if you want to be one of the “children of this world” and want your friends and associates and loved ones to be so designated, then that would be a choice you and they can make but it is a different choice than I make. I choose to be a “son of God” following God’s commandments and knowing that Christ makes possible a resurrection with a celestial marriage. A choice leading to be “equal unto the angels” is not a choice I want to make for myself, but you will certainly receive that if that is what you desire and live for.

Parker, what you are saying is a complete distraction and not on point. When he says children of this world, he is simply saying that humans on earth marry, but that those in heaven do not. Your argument that these people are hypothetical is irrelevant. And your argument that they are not worth of heaven is contradicted in line 35, where it says that those who are deemd worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead don’t marry. Despite your rhetoric, this is a clear contradiction to the doctrine of Celestial marriage. Let any lurker judge for themselves based on Luke 20: 34-35:
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

Matthew 19:12 was a response to the disciples’ expressed worry that “If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.” This was after Christ had said marriage was given by God–“God hath joined together”. God did the joining, not man. Man does the “putting asunder”, as it seems your train of thought does also. (Sorry to say).

Sure, marriage is sacred to Catholics too and the Catholic Church, in following Christ’s teaching does not allow divorce. But marriage is not a requirement to get to heaven. I’ve already shown you that from above. and Matthew 19:12 re-enforces it:
12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

Christ was telling the disciples that some refrain from marriage or a second marriage because they realize they can’t commit to a marriage where divorce is not an option. That is why they “have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.” They realize they can’t live the law of marriage given by God, because of their own weakness. The idea of “able to receive it” refers back to verse 11, which is talking about that “all men cannot receive this saying” which is the saying “let not man put asunder”.

That is not what he is saying at all. You are deceived . He is saying, as simply as he stated it, that some people forsake marriage for the kingdom of Heaven. This is not because they can’t commit to a marriage without divorce. Why would not marrying at all be better than that if you also follow the laws of chastity? No, what he was talkign about is people devoting their lives to God without being distracted by the obligations of a marriage. Just as Paul talked about in 1Corinithians 7:

32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and he is divided

… 38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

From the beginning “it was not so” that divorce was permitted by God’s laws. It was a lesser allowance in the Mosaic law and code. God’s laws were that God joins a marriage together, and what God does He does with eternity in mind.

this was the question being address in Luke 20. There is no divorce on earth, but the marriage vows are broken by death. If your spouse dies, you are free to re-marry, correct?

But again, you have what you want in that you evidently want to be as the angels, which is just fine. I choose to be a “joint heir”, a “son of God”, not an “angel” or “like an angel.” We are making different choices, which is what the gospel of Jesus Christ allows us to do, you and I.

As if that choice really exists… Celestial marriage is not of God and it certainly doesn’t define levels of heaven. I have shown you (and the lurkers) where scripture clearly contradicts Joseph Smith’s self-serving doctrine, demonstrating his apostasy. It is now up to you to take the appropriate action.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, what you are saying is a complete distraction and not on point. When he says children of this world, he is simply saying that humans on earth marry, but that those in heaven do not. Your argument that these people are hypothetical is irrelevant. And your argument that they are not worth of heaven is contradicted in line 35, where it says that those who are deemd worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead don’t marry. Despite your rhetoric, this is a clear contradiction to the doctrine of Celestial marriage. Let any lurker judge for themselves based on Luke 20: 34-35:
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

Sure, marriage is sacred to Catholics too and the Catholic Church, in following Christ’s teaching does not allow divorce. But marriage is not a requirement to get to heaven. I’ve already shown you that from above. and Matthew 19:12 re-enforces it:
12 Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it."

That is not what he is saying at all. You are deceived . He is saying, as simply as he stated it, that some people forsake marriage for the kingdom of Heaven. This is not because they can’t commit to a marriage without divorce. Why would not marrying at all be better than that if you also follow the laws of chastity? No, what he was talkign about is people devoting their lives to God without being distracted by the obligations of a marriage. Just as Paul talked about in 1Corinithians 7:

32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and he is divided

… 38 So then, the one who marries his virgin does well; the one who does not marry her will do better.

this was the question being address in Luke 20. There is no divorce on earth, but the marriage vows are broken by death. If your spouse dies, you are free to re-marry, correct?

As if that choice really exists… Celestial marriage is not of God and it certainly doesn’t define levels of heaven. I have shown you (and the lurkers) where scripture clearly contradicts Joseph Smith’s self-serving doctrine, demonstrating his apostasy. It is now up to you to take the appropriate action.

Paul C,
Here are all the verses in the New Testament dealing with the connotation of “children of this world” or in other words, children of the things of the world:

Matt. 13: 38
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Luke 16: 8
8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Luke 20: 34
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

Eph. 2: 2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

It is a simple concept to understand. There is a difference between the “children of this world” and the “children of light” or the “sons of God.” They don’t receive the same blessings in the hereafter–that is the point of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even though all people will be resurrected.

A married man need not be “anxious about the things of the world”. Some are, but it need not be so. I am sure God will bless those who are able to bless their marriage and still be anxious about the “things of God.”

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
As a follow-up to my last post and in answer to the question about Matthew 16:18, since the thread I had posted an answer to has moved off of the first page, here is the response so that you don’t have to wonder where it is, plus I’ll add a bit to the opening for clarity:

In Matthew 16:18, Christ tells Peter three sub-sentences that are joined by conjunctions. The first sub-sentence is “thou art Peter.” The second and third sub-sentences need to be looked at carefully in a grammatical way for understanding their meaning:

Using English grammar, one needs to deal with the prepositions before one deals with figuring out the subject and the objects of prepositions. One does this be identifying the prepositions, which are “upon” and “of” and “against”.

Christ could have said, “I will build my church upon this rock” and that clarifies the subject without getting mixed up by the object of the preposition.

What is the subject of this second sub-sentence? The subject is “I”. Where is Christ going to “build [His] church”? We look at the prepositional phrase, and learn where He is going to build–“upon this rock”. What is Peter seeing in his mind’s eye at this point? He is seeing a rock that forms the foundation of Christ’s church on earth.

What does Peter later write about the foundation of Christ’s church on earth? Why, we find the answer to this in 1 Peter 2:6. The “chief corner stone” is Christ, “and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.”…

“The gates of hell will not prevail against it” is a separate sub-sentence that is added to the other sub-sentence by a conjunction. The word “it” can be used because the hearer has formed a picture in their mind’s eye such that they can see (in their mind) a picture to which the word “it” refers. The picture is of a rock, with a congregation of believers built up “upon the rock”. The reason the congregation of believers are able to withstand the “gates of hell” is because they are built upon the rock, the foundation, who is Jesus Christ. If they were built on any other foundation, they would not have the same promise. The “gates of hell” will not prevail against anyone who builds their own foundation on the rock, Jesus Christ; and the rock itself will indeed prevail against the gates of hell because Jesus is the holder of the keys to the gates of hell–He and only He. (See Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 1:17-18 and Revelation 3:7). No man is the holder of the keys to the gates of hell. Peter is not the holder of those particular keys.

Peter had a rock-solid testimony of Christ because the Father had revealed knowledge to Peter about Whom Christ is. I have no problem with Peter being a “rock”, but he was not “the Rock”, and he knew it. His name was not “changed” to Peter, it was an added designation, thusly: “Simon Peter”.

Parker,
You must understand that we defend this particular quote against Protestants and Mormons all the time. This is key to many because they understand that if Peter was really given the keys to the kingdom and if the church founded on him was really going to prevail against the gates of hell, then their arguments against the Catholic church become arguments against Christ, And they are right.

Your argument that Peter was not the rock on which Christ founded his church argues against the simple reading of the line.

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In the language of the day, line 18 is " Your are rock and upon this rock I will build my church. You know that Peter means rock, right.

You, and the Protestants who argue that the rock in the first half of the sentence is not what he is referring to in the second half of the sentence are just shielding themselves from the obvious truth. If you want to be saved, you need to understand the truth. and by the way, Jesus, the good shepard, speaking to Peter after the resurrection, told him to tend his flock in John 21: 15-17:
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

This just reiterates the point that Peter was put in charge of the church. And your claim that Peter was only a designation, is not supported by scripture. Jesus renamed him during their first encounter according to St. John: John 1: 42
42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

You are trying very hard to prove your point of Celestial marriage and hence the apostasy, but you need to avoid or twist scripture to do that. It must be becoming obvious to you by now that something is very wrong in your theology. Take the time to reinvestigate that which you beleive.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Actually, Julie, our claim is that the original Christian church, begun by Jesus, started drifting away in a little more than a generation after the apostles died. The priesthood was lost, we believe…and try as everyone might, the doctrinal train got a little more derailed with every further generation.Frankly, I would count your beginnings from the first schizm at 451 after the Council of Chalcedon. It’s fuzzy, but that’s about as good as any other date. Certainly it doesn’t seem like the two factions AFTER this split were quite the same as the larger singular group before it, and which of those factions am I supposed to accept as the ‘true’ one, anyway?

Not Julie and your post doesn’t seem to address mine that noted that documents of early Church writers noted that the Church founded by Jesus was already known as the Catholic Church as early as 107 A.D. so your claim that the Catholic Church is not around 2000 years old is…incorrect.

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
Here are all the verses in the New Testament dealing with the connotation of “children of this world” or in other words, children of the things of the world:

Matt. 13: 38
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

Luke 16: 8
8 And the lord commended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the children of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of light.
Luke 20: 34
34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

Eph. 2: 2
2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

It is a simple concept to understand. There is a difference between the “children of this world” and the “children of light” or the “sons of God.” They don’t receive the same blessings in the hereafter–that is the point of the gospel of Jesus Christ, even though all people will be resurrected.

A married man need not be “anxious about the things of the world”. Some are, but it need not be so. I am sure God will bless those who are able to bless their marriage and still be anxious about the “things of God.”

Nice try but you are creating linkages that don’t exist.Focus specifically about what he says in this verse… He isn’t speaking about the unworthy in Luke 20:34-35. He says those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming and and the resurrection will not marry. He’s clearly talking about those that will “be exalted” in your terms.
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are **deemed worthy **to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

 

[paul_c]

Actually, Paul, the following quote: “The Catholic church never descriminated by race so to say the world was not ready for Black priests prior to 1978 is self serving.” is pretty clear.

And thus you do precisely what I said you would do: dismiss the actions of the very highest leaders of your church (the Popes…and by the way, this wasn’t about the Crusades.) by claiming that they were just men and not fallible. It DOES beg the question about what ‘faith and morals’ covers if it doesn’t cover stuff like slavery, though.

Oh, dear. OK…Pope Nicholas V, Dum Diversas, 1452 (June 18)
Same pope, “Romanus Pontifex” 1455 (January 8th)
Pope Calixtus “Inter Caetera” 1455…
Pope Paul III, “Sublimus Dei” (1537 which forbade the enslavement of indigenous peoples of the Americas…but which did not specifically forbid slavery in other cases. This bull has been quoted as being anti-slavery in general, but Paul sactioned slavery in Rome and the enslavement of Muslims and Africans who were NOT Muslim. since this is so, the lack of language specifically prohibiting enslaving anybody BUT indigenous Americans is pretty telling. In fact, this Paul repealed the ancient practice of allowing slaves to claim their freedom under the Emperor’s statue on Capital Hill if they were able to reach it, affirmed the right of the inhabitants of Rome to buy, sell and own slaves, and authorized the purchase and possession of Muslim slaves in the Papal states.

In fact, “Dum Diversas” is the real problem; in that one Pope Nicholas granted Portugal the right to make “Saracens, pagans and any other unbelievers” hereditary slaves…and that’s what kicked off the international slave trade.

would 'Dum Diversus" work?

I understand your view point. Do you understand why I would react as I did after reading these bulls, written by Popes and which made such sweeping changes in the lives of nations?

I’m afraid that you have allowed yourself to be overcome by anti-Catholic propaganda.
Here is a secular view from wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex

Romanus Pontifex[1] is a papal bull written January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V to King Afonso V of Portugal. As a follow-up to the Dum Diversas, it confirmed to the Crown of Portugal dominion over all lands discovered or conquered during the Age of Discovery. Along with encouraging the seizure of the lands of “Saracens, pagans … and other enemies of Christ”, it repeated the earlier bull’s permission for the enslavement of such peoples. The bull’s primary purpose was to forbid other Christian nations from infringing the King of Portugal’s rights of trade and colonisation in these regions

.

These passages specifically granted to nations and explorers cause to seek out lands unknown to Christians. In 1493 Pope Alexander VI issued Inter caetera stating one Christian nation did not have the right to establish dominion over lands previously dominated by another Christian nation, thus establishing the Law of Nations. Together, the Dum Diversas, the Romanus Pontifex and the Inter Caetera came to serve as a justification for the Discovery Doctrine and the Age of Imperialism. They were also early influences on the development of the slave trade of the 15th and 16th centuries, even though the papal bull Sublimus Dei of 1537 forbade the enslavement of non-Christians.

The intention of the original 3 documents was to take permanent prisoners of war, rather than killing them. When it became obvious that people had misinterpreted the intent, a new bull was released forbidding the enslavement of non-Christians (not only in the Americas).

Back to the original point, read the History of the Church by Eusebius. It will change your perspective about the first 3 centuries of Christianity. Learn the truth. there was no apostasy.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
You must understand that we defend this particular quote against Protestants and Mormons all the time. This is key to many because they understand that if Peter was really given the keys to the kingdom and if the church founded on him was really going to prevail against the gates of hell, then their arguments against the Catholic church become arguments against Christ, And they are right.

Your argument that Peter was not the rock on which Christ founded his church argues against the simple reading of the line.

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

In the language of the day, line 18 is " Your are rock and upon this rock I will build my church. You know that Peter means rock, right.

You, and the Protestants who argue that the rock in the first half of the sentence is not what he is referring to in the second half of the sentence are just shielding themselves from the obvious truth. If you want to be saved, you need to understand the truth. and by the way, Jesus, the good shepard, speaking to Peter after the resurrection, told him to tend his flock in John 21: 15-17:
15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

This just reiterates the point that Peter was put in charge of the church. And your claim that Peter was only a designation, is not supported by scripture. Jesus renamed him during their first encounter according to St. John: John 1: 42
42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).

You are trying very hard to prove your point of Celestial marriage and hence the apostasy, but you need to avoid or twist scripture to do that. It must be becoming obvious to you by now that something is very wrong in your theology. Take the time to reinvestigate that which you beleive.

Paul C,
Jesus referred to Simon as Simon even in the quote you have cited, after His resurrection. Are you saying that He didn’t remember that He had "changed his name to Peter (Cephas)? (Obviously not). We disagree in every conceivable way but it is not because I have “twisted” scriptures. The words are clear in their meaning within their context, particularly when viewed along with other verses that can be compared to amplify the meaning of one text. But by bypassing the knowledge that Jesus Christ is the foundation, the corner stone, what you do is exactly what you have done–bring your own reasoning and your justification so that you can feel good about the choices you have made in your life. It’s OK to do that, if one wants to do that. But it is not following Christ’s teaching and Peter’s teaching and Paul’s teaching which was that by building one’s foundation on Jesus Christ and knowledge of Him, one can withstand the adversary and his techniques. I choose differently–I choose Christ as my foundation.

 

[ParkerD]

Nice try but you are creating linkages that don’t exist.Focus specifically about what he says in this verse… He isn’t speaking about the unworthy in Luke 20:34-35. He says those who are deemed worthy to attain to the coming age and the resurrection will not marry. He’s clearly talking about those that will “be exalted” in your terms.
34 Jesus said to them, "The children of this age marry and remarry;
35 but those who are **deemed worthy **to attain to the coming age and to the resurrection of the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage

No–everyone will be resurrected, the “just and the unjust.” The passage is not talking about those who will “be exalted”, at all. Either Luke wrote down something a bit incorrectly, or it was transcribed incorrectly, because the phrase “worthy to attain to the coming age and the resurrection” is a contradiction of other scriptures. Resurrection does not depend on “worthiness” at all.

The phrases in the KJV include “worthy to obtain that world” and the phrase “children of this world”. “That world” need not mean the “highest heaven”. Since it has already singled out the “children of this world”, it would appear that from among the “children of this world” there are those who will have different levels of worthiness in “that world”, since all humankind will be resurrected.

 

[paul_c]

No–everyone will be resurrected, the “just and the unjust.” The passage is not talking about those who will “be exalted”, at all. Either Luke wrote down something a bit incorrectly, or it was transcribed incorrectly, because the phrase “worthy to attain to the coming age and the resurrection” is a contradiction of other scriptures. Resurrection does not depend on “worthiness” at all.

The phrases in the KJV include “worthy to obtain that world” and the phrase “children of this world”. “That world” need not mean the “highest heaven”. Since it has already singled out the “children of this world”, it would appear that from among the “children of this world” there are those who will have different levels of worthiness in “that world”, since all humankind will be resurrected.

So now you are claiming that Luke is wrong because he doesn’t agree with how you interpret scriptures. You are only fooling yourself (and I guess, those that listen to you), What will it take for you to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply wrong about celestial marriage.

 

[Answersplease]

So now you are claiming that Luke is wrong because he doesn’t agree with how you interpret scriptures. You are only fooling yourself (and I guess, those that listen to you), What will it take for you to conclude that Joseph Smith was simply wrong about celestial marriage.

Answersplease:

Mormons think that the Book of Mormon is more perfect than the Holy Bible.

If there is any conflict between the two books, then they believe the Book of Mormon over the Holy Bible.