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

[dianaiad]

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.

My apologies about calling you Julie. This isn’t the first time I have confused names…and unfortunately it probably won’t be the last. I try to be careful, but I don’t always succeed.

I’m interested in your information, though. Which church writings are you referring to?

 

[dianaiad]

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

What part of “I NEVER GO TO ANTI-CATHOLIC SOURCES” did you miss, Paul?
I happen to take a very hard line on that. I read the bulls. I read history…and NOT from any anti-Catholic viewpoint, either.
paul c;6318852:

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.

Paul, you didn’t read the bulls yourself, did you? I suggest that you do that, and then look at the history and the timing.

Those bulls were not 'misinterpreted."

 

[TheosisM]

My apologies about calling you Julie. This isn’t the first time I have confused names…and unfortunately it probably won’t be the last. I try to be careful, but I don’t always succeed.

I’m interested in your information, though. Which church writings are you referring to?

I believe she is referring to this:

"“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). "

catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp*

 

[AMDGtoo]

I believe she is referring to this:

"“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]). "

catholic.com/library/What_Catholic_Means.asp*

Yes, the letter is by St. Ignatius of Antioch. William Jurgens, includes it (and more) in his book The Faith of the Early Fathers. You’ll also find it (and more) in Maxwell Staniforth’s Early Christian Writings and J.B. Lightfoot’s The Apostolic Fathers that came out in 1891, and of course Migne’s Patrologia available in 1875.

 

[paul_c]

TheosisM,
I have thought so and hoped that those who have quoted Luke 20 would have understood the New Testament teachings on the resurrection of the just and the unjust, but when the Luke passage about marriage in heaven is used with the words “accounted worthy to obtain the resurrection” and that is presented as truth with no “footnote”, so to speak, then I have to wonder what is really being believed–especially when I have pointed out the discrepancy and then I am called to the carpet about questioning whether the precise language is correctly transcribed or translated.

There is no descrepancy. Jesus was clear in all three Gospel renderings that there is no marriage in heaven. This completely obliterates the claim by Joseph Smith that celestial marriages are required for “exaltation”. I notice you never commented on 1Corinthians 7, where Paul also completely obliterates the celestial marriage idea.

You have rendered the loss of the idea of celestial marriage the cornerstone of the Apostasy, yet you have not been able to document one verse that demonstrates that Christ ever taught it or that the original Apostles ever believed it. Your entire argument is based on two unrelated points. The first being that Adam and Eve were told to procreate. The second being that Christ said that divorce was against God’s will. Nieither of these points can be extended to say that marriage is a requirement for heaven without doing violence to scripture, since they are completely contrary to how both Jesus and Paul lived their lives and to what they said about marriage.

Everything is stacked against your view.

Valid scripture stands against celestial marriage, calling forth the attributes of celibacy in the name of God
The lives of Jesus, Paul and so many celibate saints prove that marriage can not be a requirement for heaven.
The fact that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young used celestial marriage as an excuse for having sex with the wives and daughters of their followers, breaking the commandment against adultery and causing scandal among the people, shows further that this was not a doctrine from God.

Everything you know and believe about Mormonism appears to be balanced on this view of Celestial marriage, which can so easily be disproved. Why can’t a man as intelligent as you, see that?

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s not just “for them”. As Paul C noted, corresponding Scripture notes that there is no marriage (or taking in marriage) in the resurrection (in the heveanly bliss of living with God). Both Matthew and Mark state that those that are resurrected (and therefore enjoy the bliss of heaven) are like the angels. (And Catholics know that angels not only take their name from their purpose–“messengers”, they are pure spirits having no corporal bodies.)

Back to my question in the post: Where did Christ explicitly say “the woman will be married to all seven men in the resurrection because there will be marriage in heaven”?
(Please remember that it is you who say that Jesus claims that everyone, the worldly, the evil, and the children of God will be resurrected.)

Also (for ParkerD’s benefit) the question posed by the Jews is based on Jewish Law, as found in Deuteronomy 25

5 “If brothers dwell together, and one of them dies and has no son, the widow of the dead man shall not be married to a stranger outside the family; her husband’s brother shall go in to her, take her as his wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother to her. 6 And it shall be that the firstborn son which she bears will succeed to the name of his dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out of Israel. 7 But if the man does not want to take his brother’s wife, then let his brother’s wife go up to the gate to the elders, and say, ‘My husband’s brother refuses to raise up a name to his brother in Israel; he will not perform the duty of my husband’s brother.’ 8 Then the elders of his city shall call him and speak to him. But if he stands firm and says, ‘I do not want to take her,’ 9 then his brother’s wife shall come to him in the presence of the elders, remove his sandal from his foot, spit in his face, and answer and say, ‘So shall it be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house.’ 10 And his name shall be called in Israel, ‘The house of him who had his sandal removed.’

So for all ParkerD’s English diagramming, he fails to grasp the question is in regards to the Law, and not in regards to any particular person.

 

[Anna_Scott]

(Emphasis is mine

No, I’m telling you that in this case ‘speech’ and ‘discourse’ are synonyms. None of Joseph Smith’s discourses or speeches are in the Journal of Discourses. . . . .

. . . . . 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, 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, 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. . . .

**dianaiad,

Still await a response to my post linked below:**

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):

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

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):

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

 

[ParkerD]

Also (for ParkerD’s benefit) the question posed by the Jews is based on Jewish Law, as found in Deuteronomy 25
So for all ParkerD’s English diagramming, he fails to grasp the question is in regards to the Law, and not in regards to any particular person.

RebeccaJ,
Thanks for pointing that out, since I hadn’t looked it up. This would be why the story of Ruth is so particular about how Boaz became her husband after her first husband had died and after the closest kinsman had declined to raise up seed unto the dead first husband. (Ruth 4). We note, however, that the child of Boaz and Ruth is Obed, the father of Jesse, who is the father of David who is the progenitor of both Joseph and of Mary. Thus, the ancestry of Christ is figured through Boaz and not through the dead first husband, Chilion. Thus, the ancestry of Boaz runs back to Phares, son of Judah, which means that Christ was Jewish by birth as the son of Mary. (Matthew 1:1-6).

This would be important to distinguish the intent of the Mosaic law on this point, which seems to be that families and firstborn are very important and the idea of a firstborn son is not to be taken lightly, but does not mean that someone such as Boaz was not figured into the ancestry of the child born to the marriage after a first husband had died with no firstborn son.

Another thing I’ve been able to grasp from looking at this subject more in depth is that the Luke version of the experience with the Sadducees renders in English the single Greek word for “resurrection” as the words “the resurrection”–and of course commas are added by the translator and do not appear in the original language–so the text “worthy to obtain that [world or kingdom] and resurrection from death” is singling out a particular kind of resurrection, and not classifying all resurrection.

But obviously, no Catholic is going to believe that, and I doubt that any Catholic will bother to figure out the grammatical structure of the passage in Matthew, as it would not suit their purposes. But such is life–not a problem for me at all.

Peace to all.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Honestly, with all the talk about the Sadducees, it appears that you have forgotten that the Sadducees were just another group of Jewish leaders (who didn’t believe in the resurrection), who were trying to “trick” Jesus by the story of the woman whose had remarried seven times and the by asking Him the question about whose wife she will be in the afterlife. I’m sure that they weren’t prepared for Jesus answer. His answer did not negate the resurrection. He simply acknowledged that in heaven there is no need for marriage since in those in the resurrection are like angels (pure spirits) and so there isn’t any marriage there!

Sometimes I think you Mormons strain so much (and supposedly check grammar, etc. and I suppose make diagrams too) that you miss the obvious! Marriage…is…only…for…this…earth. There…is…no…marriage…in…the…resurrection. Jesus…said…so.

 

[ParkerD]

Honestly, with all the talk about the Sadducees, it appears that you have forgotten that the Sadducees were just another group of Jewish leaders (who didn’t believe in the resurrection), who were trying to “trick” Jesus by the story of the woman whose had remarried seven times and the by asking Him the question about whose wife she will be in the afterlife. I’m sure that they weren’t prepared for Jesus answer. His answer did not negate the resurrection. He simply acknowledged that in heaven there is no need for marriage since in those in the resurrection are like angels (pure spirits) and so there isn’t any marriage there!

Sometimes I think you Mormons strain so much (and supposedly check grammar, etc. and I suppose make diagrams too) that you miss the obvious! Marriage…is…only…for…this…earth. There…is…no…marriage…in…the…resurrection. Jesus…said…so.

AMDGtoo,
For…you…that’s…true…Well…said…by…Jesus…and…by…you.

But “as for me and my house”, marriage is an eternal covenant and I am deeply and eternally grateful that it is. It is so much more than having children! So much deeper, richer, fuller, and more meaningful although having children (whether by birth or by adoption) enriches marriage by vast dimensions. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” is oh, so true.

The talk today at BYU centered on the natural family as the basic unit of society. It was a great talk. The Cardinal even talked about the opportunity he had had to lead the Mormon Tabernacle Choir once in Chicago, and how his mom had always loved the choir. I think he connected well with the audience, and shared the mutual concerns about the moral direction of society, and gave a meaningful historical backdrop that will be well worth studying. I liked his focus on the natural family, and appreciated his talk.

 

[Answersplease]

But obviously, no Catholic is going to believe that, and I doubt that any Catholic will bother to figure out the grammatical structure of the passage in Matthew, as it would not suit their purposes. But such is life–not a problem for me at all.

Peace to all.

Answersplease:

Elitist AND pompous.

I’m not surprised by your behaviour.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RebeccaJ,
Thanks for pointing that out, since I hadn’t looked it up. This would be why the story of Ruth is so particular about how Boaz became her husband after her first husband had died and after the closest kinsman had declined to raise up seed unto the dead first husband. (Ruth 4). We note, however, that the child of Boaz and Ruth is Obed, the father of Jesse, who is the father of David who is the progenitor of both Joseph and of Mary. Thus, the ancestry of Christ is figured through Boaz and not through the dead first husband, Chilion. Thus, the ancestry of Boaz runs back to Phares, son of Judah, which means that Christ was Jewish by birth as the son of Mary. (Matthew 1:1-6).

This would be important to distinguish the intent of the Mosaic law on this point, which seems to be that families and firstborn are very important and the idea of a firstborn son is not to be taken lightly, but does not mean that someone such as Boaz was not figured into the ancestry of the child born to the marriage after a first husband had died with no firstborn son.

Another thing I’ve been able to grasp from looking at this subject more in depth is that the Luke version of the experience with the Sadducees renders in English the single Greek word for “resurrection” as the words “the resurrection”–and of course commas are added by the translator and do not appear in the original language–so the text “worthy to obtain that [world or kingdom] and resurrection from death” is singling out a particular kind of resurrection, and not classifying all resurrection.

Interesting, but nothing to do with the topic.

But obviously, no Catholic is going to believe that, and I doubt that any Catholic will bother to figure out the grammatical structure of the passage in Matthew, as it would not suit their purposes. But such is life–not a problem for me at all.

Peace to all.

ParkerD, the answer is a straight answer. If I ask you, “ParkerD, if my friend and her friends go on a killing spree, is this murder?” And you answer, “Yes, they are murderers.” Well, are we discussing my friend and her friends only, or are we referencing the law, which applies to all people under the same law?

If you are only talking about my friends, does this imply that I can go on a killing spree and it is not murder?

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

This beyond the pale.

Dianaiad continually slings biased and misleading mud at Catholicism and none of the Catholics take offense.

On the otherhand I post direct quotes from their leaders and expose Mormonism AND I GET VERBALLY BASHED BY FOUR CATHOLICS.

Then “why me” takes intentionally misleading bashes at me saying that I put my own commentary inside the posts, when THAT IS NOT TRUE because I just use the colors to highlight the ORIGINAL TEXT.

The only reason I care is that I don’t want the weaker Catholics to be taken in by Mormonism which is false and not of God, so it must be of you know who…

These “holier than thou” Catholics that continually harp about working together, bash Christians when they call a cult a cult; and then do nothing when the cults cast doubt and mud on Christianity.

This is beyond the pale.

There is even a Jew who is in RCIA that speaks for moral relativism.

I begin to see that unholy spirits are at work here.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Answersplease- I have thought the same about this particular forum for a long time. But it doesn’t do any good to attack people who are being deceived. The deceivers on the other hand, hide behind the charity of good Catholics, take advantage of it, and cry foul at any perceived slight. It is an evil pattern.

 

[Answersplease]

(Matthew 19:4) Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

Shouldn’t it be plural as in “females”, the early Mormons were polygamists.

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Lets use a little modern English: “the two shall be one flesh?”

How does that work out with the early Mormon polygamists?

In their case, should it say “the more than two shall be one flesh?”

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Wait a minute now, Joseph Smith married women who were ALREADY married to earlier husbands.

Since no man can put asunder what God hath joined together, does that mean that Joseph Smith acknowledged his wives’ other husbands as his “brother husbands” just like the wives acknowledge the other wives as their “sister wives”.

This is what I keep repeating but it is not heard. “God hath joined together.”

I heard it all right, but did you hear me?

HEAR THIS:

“What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”

Wait a minute now, Joseph Smith married women who were ALREADY married to earlier husbands.

Since no man can put asunder what God hath joined together, does that mean that Joseph Smith acknowledged his wives’ other husbands as his “brother husbands” just like the wives acknowledge the other wives as their “sister wives”.

We have eternal possibilities in God’s view of things, and a covenant with Him is an eternal covenant.

A legal agreement is only valid if BOTH sides keep their end of the bargain.

I’m sure God keeps His side though.

This is a simple concept. “They twain shall be one flesh.” This is more than having children. This is becoming one in the eyes of God, and it is for an eternal purpose that should not be slighted in any way.

“They twain shall be one flesh.” OR “The two shall be one fles.”

A very simple concept indeed: TWO become ONE.

Again, how does that work out with the early Mormon polygamists, since they were clearly MORE THAN TWO.

 

[ParkerD]

Interesting, but nothing to do with the topic.

ParkerD, the answer is a straight answer. If I ask you, “ParkerD, if my friend and her friends go on a killing spree, is this murder?” And you answer, “Yes, they are murderers.” Well, are we discussing my friend and her friends only, or are we referencing the law, which applies to all people under the same law?

If you are only talking about my friends, does this imply that I can go on a killing spree and it is not murder?

RebeccaJ,
Your analogy would have the answer that anyone who goes on a killing spree has committed murder, of course. That analogy can be used although a poor one, but illustrates that the specific group or those who choose to live as they live (the Sadducees, who did not believe in Christ and did not believe in the resurrection, and thus brought “damnation” to themselves by their choices) will receive the reward which is a consequence of their choices not to believe in Christ. I agree totally that Christ’s answer was a direct, specific, and straight answer to that specific group about their specific status in the resurrection.

If you’re saying that Christ never singled out specific groups of people such as the Pharisees and the Sadducees and the scribes and never discussed the consequences of their unbelief in specific ways, then I disagree and I would say that Luke 20:45-47 illustrates this fact–Christ’s message was a similar one about the scribes as about the Sadducees.

But again, all this will be lost on those for whom grammar is a tough subject. I always enjoyed the challenge of diagramming sentences and figuring out subjects, predicates, direct and indirect objects, prepositional phrases, and so forth–fun subject!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, I have wondered why Mormons fail to notice God didn’t make women for Adam.

Jesus defining marriage as it was “from the beginning” seems to be a difficult concept.

 

[RebeccaJ]

But again, all this will be lost on those for whom grammar is a tough subject. I always enjoyed the challenge of diagramming sentences and figuring out subjects, predicates, direct and indirect objects, prepositional phrases, and so forth–fun subject!

ParkerD, Jesus brought us the New Covenant, that all, Jew and Gentile, fall under. There is not one covenant for you another for everyone else. If you do not want to believe what He taught then perhaps it is time for you to rethink what discipleship really means. hint: It doesn’t mean explaining away His teachings to suit your purposes.

If you are basing this covenant on belief, there is only heaven and hell, there is no in-between. Sheep and goats. Those who follow Jesus, those who do not. The Sadducee’s risk was hell, not a different level of heaven. Choose to be a sheep ParkerD, not a goat.

 

[Answersplease]

Yes, I have wondered why Mormons fail to notice God didn’t make women for Adam.

Jesus defining marriage as it was “from the beginning” seems to be a difficult concept.

Yes, a woman, not multiple women, for Adam.

 

[ParkerD]

quotes and comments

Answersplease,

Joseph Smith had no sexual relationships with married women, nor did he ever have a child by any other woman than Emma. He entered into plural marriage (mostly platonic relationships) with extreme reluctance but knowing he had been commanded to do so by God, and knowing that Abraham and Jacob had had plural marriages that were covenant marriages and thus the twelve tribes of Israel are a covenant heritage for all twelve tribes of Israel.

I do not make it my business to tell God what He can or cannot do with regard to legitimizing plural marriages when He has placed on earth that kind of marriage for a set period of time. I am certainly glad I am not living in one of those times, but those marriages would have sought “oneness” yet also have allowed for the full development and unique qualities of each woman within those marriages.