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

[SteveVH]

I did reply, but I like to keep my replies as short as I can, as you might have noticed!

Yes, especially when you are avoiding a question. I’m sorry, but you did not give me an answer. Following is your quote from D&C and your explaination:

D&C 84:

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The attempt by the saints to build the city at that time failed, because they were not yet ready for it, and persecution followed, and the Lord permitted their enemies to prevent them from building it. But the promise still remain in force, and was deferred until a future time when the saints would be better prepared to build it; and the prophecies will be fulfilled in due course when the Lord decides in His wisdom when the time is the right for it to be fulfilled.

Your quote from D&C states that the location of the Temple will be in the State of Missouri and that this was appointed by “the finger of God” and “dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith” This temple “shall be reared in this generation.” You then state that the prophesies will be fulfilled in due course. Yet JS stated it would be done in his generation.

In your second attempt to explain this you gave me a preposterous comparison between a commandment of God and a prophesy, as if they were the same thing. Then you tell me that you have answered my question and apparently aren’t willing to go any further.

So I will ask again. Reading the prophecy (and it is a prophecy when you say “verily
this is the word of the Lord”) and then acknowledging reality (it didn’t happen when JS said it would and it was he that volunteered the specific information as to where and when) how do you claim that this is not a false prophesy?

Thank you.

---

 

[SteveVH]

zerinus, two questions here. It occured to me while reading this post that either Joseph Smith or the Lord spoke in Old English (thy and thou and so forth). Does this not strike you as strange?

Second question is that Joseph Smith said “which temple shall be reared in this generation”. You have given your explanation as to what happened but would this not prove that this statement was a fallacy? Was this not a prophecy? It just seems a little convenient to say that it has been deferred to a future time. Thanks.

 

[zerinus]

What?!? What would be the point of this without sexual activity?

Because that is what “married” elderly couples presumably do who have passed the age of sexual activity. They might sleep in the same bed, and dress or undress in front of each other. If one of them fell sick, and was being cared for by the other, they might become exposed to each other’s nakedness.

 

[zerinus]

You know we are talking about the elderly here–the ones who have fought the battle of gravity and have lost.) As to Mormons wanting this? A little hard to do since Mormons wear their garments 24/7.

I don’t know about you, but this part of the conversation seems to me to be uncomfortable and rather unnecessary.

Well you are the people who are dragging it that way. I am merely replying to your posts.

 

[Jay53]

Because that is what “married” elderly couples presumably do who have passed the age of sexual activity. They might sleep in the same bed, and dress or undress in front of each other. If one of them fell sick, and was being cared for by the other, they might become exposed to each other’s nakedness.

Perhaps you just phrased it wrong then. I saw this as they “wanted” (the word you used) to see each other naked. Just seeing someone naked is not a sin.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, especially when you are avoiding a question. I’m sorry, but you did not give me an answer. Following is your quote from D&C and your explaination:

Your quote from D&C states that the location of the Temple will be in the State of Missouri and that this was appointed by “the finger of God” and “dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith” This temple “shall be reared in this generation.” You then state that the prophesies will be fulfilled in due course. Yet JS stated it would be done in his generation.

In your second attempt to explain this you gave me a preposterous comparison between a commandment of God and a prophesy, as if they were the same thing. Then you tell me that you have answered my question and apparently aren’t willing to go any further.

So I will ask again. Reading the prophecy (and it is a prophecy when you say “verily
this is the word of the Lord”) and then acknowledging reality (it didn’t happen when JS said it would and it was he that volunteered the specific information as to where and when) how do you claim that this is not a false prophesy?

Thank you.

“Verily this is the word of the Lord” does not make a prophecy. It can also make a commandant.

 

[zerinus]

Perhaps you just phrased it wrong then. I saw this as they “wanted” (the word you used) to see each other naked. Just seeing someone naked is not a sin.

That is daft!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps you just phrased it wrong then. I saw this as they “wanted” (the word you used) to see each other naked. Just seeing someone naked is not a sin.

This conversation is cracking me up. BUT, a one-time co-worker of mine (LDS) had a husband who did not want to see her undressed in front of him. I didn’t ask why. TMI already, I really didn’t want to know more.

 

[Jay53]

This conversation is cracking me up. BUT, a one-time co-worker of mine (LDS) had a husband who did not want to see her undressed in front of him. I didn’t ask why. TMI already, I really didn’t want to know more.

There was once a radio contest where the one spouse had to guess how many people their spouse had seen naked. My husband and I laughed because my answer would probably have been in the hundreds (at least). (occupational hazard ) Without knowing my occupation, I’m not sure how the audience would have viewed me after that revelation.

 

[momor]

Well you are the people who are dragging it that way. I am merely replying to your posts.

I take exception to what you just said. The Catholic position on the issue of consummation has been explained to you by several people but you are the one that keeps wanting to argue it.

 

[zerinus]

I take exception to what you just said. The Catholic position on the issue of consummation has been explained to you by several people but you are the one that keeps wanting to argue it.

Because the “Catholic position” is absurd. It don’t make sense. It means that an elderly couple who love each other but have passed the age of sexual activity cannot legally get married in the Catholic Church. That is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,

There is an added thought for your question about the following:

D&C 84:

2 Yea, the word of the Lord concerning his church, established in the last days for the restoration of his people, as he has spoken by the mouth of his prophets, and for the gathering of his saints to stand upon Mount Zion, which shall be the city of New Jerusalem.
3 Which city shall be built, beginning at the temple lot, which is appointed by the finger of the Lord, in the western boundaries of the State of Missouri, and dedicated by the hand of Joseph Smith, Jun., and others with whom the Lord was well pleased.
4 Verily this is the word of the Lord, that the city New Jerusalem shall be built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place, even the place of the temple, which temple shall be reared in this generation.

The added thought (besides this quote by Zerinus above) is that you identify the clauses of the “prophecy and commandment”, (as you might wish to call it either way). Clause #1 is that the New Jerusalem shall be “built by the gathering of the saints, beginning at this place” which was at the place where they were gathered and where they began the work of building the New Jerusalem and gathering the saints (you see, the gathering of the saints begins the work of building the New Jerusalem, since the New Jerusalem is the fulfillment of Zion and Zion begins to be built wherever the saints gather in a place of holiness and peace with a temple in their midst).

Clause #2 is the phrase “which temple shall be built in this generation”, and that temple was built indeed, in Nauvoo, IL, where the saints received their endowment with power from on High before their journey west to escape those who had robbed them. God had commanded them to build a temple, and they did despite the opposition of the forces of destruction in the world–the forces which always oppose the building of Zion wherever the saints go to with their might and build it. They find a way, and they did find a way, and indeed the New Jerusalem will be built during the latter days in America, the land of a latter-day Zion (among others in the world). But it is a long process. Not a problem–an opportunity, day by day and year by year. The building up of places of Zion in the world fulfill the prophecies of Isaiah.

Parker, thanks. I appreciate the lengths to which you have gone in your explanation, but you are still avoiding the obvious IMO. The temple was to be built in the “State of Missouri” in “this generation”, not in Nauvoo, IL. There is something that is even more puzzling to me though; the whole idea of the Temple being central in the building of the New Jerusalem. Revelation 21:22 states “I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb. The city had no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gave it light, and its lamp was the Lamb”. (NAB)

The “New Jerusalem” is a heavenly city, the dwelling of God among His people. It has been built by God himself. God does not have to depend upon man to “purchase the land” and physically build the city. The temple is God Himself, not a physical structure. In fact, the entire description of the city is prefaced upon the verse “Come here. I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb”. (Rev 21:9) John then goes on to describe the city. From what I have seen this is fairly typical of Mormon theology. It seems that you cannot imagine a God so glorious, so majestic, so incomprehensible to our finite minds, so He must be made of flesh and bone. There is no such thing as “mystery”. But I find it absolutely incredible that your interpretation of these passages would lead you to think that the task of building the “New Jerusalem” is up to mankind, even down to the buying of the land. The New Jerusalem exists in the place that “no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, nor mind conceived”. It is a city built by God and he has no need of our physical efforts. Besides being a false prophecy, the entire idea is flawed.

I hope that in the end I meet you in heaven and we can laugh at our meager understanding of the greatness of God and stand in awe of the fulfillment of His plan.

 

[SteveVH]

“Verily this is the word of the Lord” does not make a prophecy. It can also make a commandant.

You seem to be more than implying that God commanded Joseph Smith to build the temple in the State of Missouri, rather than Joseph Smith making a prophecy, yet you won’t come right out and say that. Lets say you’re right. Does this mean then that Joseph Smith disobeyed God’s command? In one of your prior posts to me you stated that God gave us the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” and that asked “does this mean that no one will kill”? I’m paraphrasing. In other words, even though God makes a commandment it doesn’t mean that the commandment won’t be broken. I agree. He is either a false prophet or he broke a direct command of God. So which is it?

For my edification, will you please tell me what does constitute a prophecy if not “thus saith the Lord” or “verily this is the word of the Lord”?

 

[zerinus]

You seem to be more than implying that God commanded Joseph Smith to build the temple in the State of Missouri, rather than Joseph Smith making a prophecy, yet you won’t come right out and say that. Lets say you’re right. Does this mean then that Joseph Smith disobeyed God’s command? In one of your prior posts to me you stated that God gave us the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” and that asked “does this mean that no one will kill”? I’m paraphrasing. In other words, even though God makes a commandment it doesn’t mean that the commandment won’t be broken. I agree. He is either a false prophet or he broke a direct command of God. So which is it?

For my edification, will you please tell me what does constitute a prophecy if not “thus saith the Lord” or “verily this is the word of the Lord”?

D&C 124:

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.
50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.
51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.
52 And I will answer judgment, wrath, and indignation, wailing, and anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God.
53 And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation concerning all those who have been commanded to do a work and have been hindered by the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God.
54 For I am the Lord your God, and will save all those of your brethren who have been pure in heart, and have been slain in the land of Missouri, saith the Lord.

 

[momor]

Because the “Catholic position” is absurd. It don’t make sense. It means that an elderly couple who love each other but have passed the age of sexual activity cannot legally get married in the Catholic Church. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Methinks thou doth protest too much.

 

[SteveVH]

D&C 124:

49 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings.
50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.
51 Therefore, for this cause have I accepted the offerings of those whom I commanded to build up a city and a house unto my name, in Jackson county, Missouri, and were hindered by their enemies, saith the Lord your God.
52 And I will answer judgment, wrath, and indignation, wailing, and anguish, and gnashing of teeth upon their heads, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord your God.
53 And this I make an example unto you, for your consolation concerning all those who have been commanded to do a work and have been hindered by the hands of their enemies, and by oppression, saith the Lord your God.
54 For I am the Lord your God, and will save all those of your brethren who have been pure in heart, and have been slain in the land of Missouri, saith the Lord.

Obviously you understand that I do not accept D&C as a valid authority. Do you not find this just a wee bit convenient? Did Joseph Smith write this while sitting in a jail cell? I thought that was the case but I very well could be wrong. In any case, it was obviously written subsequent to the events taking place. It’s not as if it is a prophecy that came true. He is just stating what happened and saying that God doesn’t hold him responsible and that his enemies will pay and pay big. How do you expect anyone to give that any credibility? I’m not trying to pick on you. Honestly, can you see why some may see it this way. I could get out of a lot of messes if I could claim that God spoke to me and acknowledged my actions and has not held me responsible but has found me pure in heart. Especially if people believed me. Do you see where I’m comng from?

 

[SteveVH]

Zerinus:

“Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh”. It is the definition of marriage. Matrimony literally means “the making of a mother”. Your example of a non-sexual, mutual self-giving relationship would not serve the primary purpose of “marriage” even though it may be a deep relationship with a true love for each other. I could understand allowing it from the stand point that their mutual self-giving, if it is indeed a complete giving of one to the other, to the best of their abilities, may fulfill the requirement of a valid marriage. I know that the Church would not refuse to bless a marriage bewteen two young people because one or the other may be sterile. I don’t think it’s as cut and dried as we may think. I’ll ask my priest.

 

[SteveVH]

jhgkjgkhk

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, thanks. I appreciate the lengths to which you have gone in your explanation, but you are still avoiding the obvious IMO. The temple was to be built in the “State of Missouri” in “this generation”, not in Nauvoo, IL. There is something that is even more puzzling to me though; the whole idea of the Temple being central in the building of the New Jerusalem. Revelation 21:22 states “I saw no temple in the city, for its temple is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb. The city had no need of sun or moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gave it light, and its lamp was the Lamb”. (NAB)

The “New Jerusalem” is a heavenly city, the dwelling of God among His people. It has been built by God himself. God does not have to depend upon man to “purchase the land” and physically build the city. The temple is God Himself, not a physical structure. In fact, the entire description of the city is prefaced upon the verse “Come here. I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb”. (Rev 21:9) John then goes on to describe the city. From what I have seen this is fairly typical of Mormon theology. It seems that you cannot imagine a God so glorious, so majestic, so incomprehensible to our finite minds, so He must be made of flesh and bone. There is no such thing as “mystery”. But I find it absolutely incredible that your interpretation of these passages would lead you to think that the task of building the “New Jerusalem” is up to mankind, even down to the buying of the land. The New Jerusalem exists in the place that “no eye has seen, nor ear has heard, nor mind conceived”. It is a city built by God and he has no need of our physical efforts. Besides being a false prophecy, the entire idea is flawed.

I hope that in the end I meet you in heaven and we can laugh at our meager understanding of the greatness of God and stand in awe of the fulfillment of His plan.

Steve VH,
You didn’t separate the clauses as I had suggested, so of course your conclusion would be faulty. It is a simple matter of grammar: the building of the temple is a different commandment or “prophecy” than the building of the New Jerusalem, and the prophecy about the city is only about the beginning of the building up of a New Jerusalem–not about its complete fulfillment, at all. (But of course there are many writers on the internet that draw attention to this “prophecy” and say it was not fulfilled, thus merely showing that the writers don’t have a clue about English grammar.)

As to the term “New Jerusalem,” you are correct that the city built by God is called this term. But Isaiah 52:1 also uses the term “Jerusalem,” and in that context it is talking about a new city–not the original Jerusalem–so one need not limit the use of the term to the heavenly city, since Isaiah didn’t and he was a pretty insightful prophet.

Have a good night, Steve.

 

[zerinus]

Obviously you understand that I do not accept D&C as a valid authority.

But I do!

Do you not find this just a wee bit convenient?

Nope!

Did Joseph Smith write this while sitting in a jail cell?

Nope!

I thought that was the case but I very well could be wrong.

There is a revelation which he received while he was in jail, but this was not it.

In any case, it was obviously written subsequent to the events taking place. It’s not as if it is a prophecy that came true.

I never claimed that any of it was a prophecy. In fact, I am arguing that it wasn’t, against you arguing to the contrary.

He is just stating what happened and saying that God doesn’t hold him responsible and that his enemies will pay and pay big.

That is not what the revelation is saying. There were thousands of Latter-day Saints involved in those events. The revelation is referring to them all.

How do you expect anyone to give that any credibility? I’m not trying to pick on you.

I do! What do I care if others don’t?

Honestly, can you see why some may see it this way.

Yea, but they are wrong!

I could get out of a lot of messes if I could claim that God spoke to me and acknowledged my actions and has not held me responsible but has found me pure in heart. Especially if people believed me.

Go ahead and do it. I am not going to stop you!

Do you see where I’m comng from?

Nope!