I have no doubt that you do. I think Catholics and Mormons share much in terms of how to live out their lives.
You and I both know that there is an infinite step between being a father and a God. The responsibilities of being God are unthinkable. Besides, how can there be more than one all powerful and omniscient God? If there were even two, they would have to share power and no longer would be all powerful.
paul c;6365621You and I both know that there is an infinite step between being a father and a God. The responsibilities of being God are unthinkable. Besides said:
And aren’t you here assuming that it will not be? Why is your assumption better than another’s?
Perhaps not, but we aren’t TOLD that they will not be, and most of the information we have about the after life seems to take for granted that we will still be who we basically are–else why have rewards and punishments for what we did or thought here?
We aren’t? Says who? True, we will not have the sort of physical needs that come along with having a mortal, physical body, but then again we are ALSO told that we will be resurrected–that is, we will have a physical body, again. As well, this resurrection, or getting a physical body again, is seen to be a GOOD thing.
sez who?
Well, come to think of it, I haven’t been married (in the civil sense at least) for fifteen years, and I’m perfectly content with that state. On the other hand, I’m a widow…and I believe that when I die my husband will be waiting to see and be with me.
Say WHAT???
Well, you certainly reacted to that one better than I did!
(grin) as mockingly put as that is, Rebecca, you are quite right. We DO believe that everybody is born without sin…until they are old enough to commit their own. Both Catholics and Mormons put the age of accountability at around seven or eight. It’s a little arbitrary, of course, since everybody is different, but I think it’s safe to say that, as you wrote here, “by the time they’re eight years old” almost every child knows enough about right and wrong to know when they are doing the wrong thing…sinning.
Hi Diana. I just have a question about the Mormon view of heaven (or anyone else’s) when we consider that “no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor mind conceived what God has prepared for those who love Him”. Doesn’t that tell us that heaven is beyond our ability to comprehend, and therefore any attempt to do so is pretty much futile? Just wondering what your thoughts might be and actually I would address this question to anyone who thinks they may have “conceived” what heaven is really like.
We will not only be who we basically are, we will be who we truly are; more ourselves then we were on earth. We will be perfected into the creature that God originally intended us to be. I agree completely.
I totally agree that we will have a body, but it will be a glorified body. As to any needs? God tells us that “every tear will be wiped away”. I don’t think we will ever be “in need” of anything because we will be in the presence of God. But yes, the resurrection of our bodies is a GOOD thing, awesome!
Diana, as a Catholic I look with hope to the day that I see my mother and little brother again. I really can hardly wait. We believe we will be with each other again, and I will be with my wife again when we leave this world. And I believe that the relationship between me and my wife in heaven will be intimate beyond my imagination, a relationship that we cannot fathom. It will be above and beyond earthly marriage. And I will enjoy this relationship with everyone in heaven because we will all be in Christ.
Paul C,
Well, Yeah, I believe there is one God in three persons. That is the concept of the Holy Trinity. I know the LDS do not beleive this and instead believe that there are many Gods. But you know that contradicts the first commandment, right? “I am the Lord, your God, you shall not have other gods besides me.” And how about John 1:1 ==> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God
The Bible, on more than one occasion, says a WHOLE HOUSEHOLD or family was baptized. Now, you either have to believe that included children, or that miraculously, the only households where everyone was baptized no children existed. Or, that LDS do not consider children to be part of the household.
I’m not certain what you mean by ‘grace’ in this context, except that I think you mean it is something given by God…and in this case God didn’t give these infants anything. He simply did not burden them with the sins of Adam. It’s innocence. It’s a complete lack of sin…it’s also a complete lack of positive virtue, too…it is simply innocence. It’s not something given that can 'wear off…" Innocence is the state of “not…” as in “not sinning.” When one makes a conscious choice to sin, one is no longer innocent. It is no more a ‘grace,’ I think, than someone who has never smoked has been given ‘grace’ because he never picked up a cigarette. That person is simply innocent of smoking, until he smokes.
Wait. You are qouting the Catholic Catechism to prove MORMON doctrine and ideas? I just want to be sure you are actually doing that…
How does either one of these passages prove that Mormons don’t think infants are 'part of the family?" In fact, you know better. We believe that infants and children under the age of accountability, BEING innocent until they start to understand the difference between right and wrong and make conscious decisions to do the wrong thing (and we all do that…) are the epitome of what the Savior said when He said 'of such are the Kingdom of Heaven."
So you believe God burdens people with sin?
No, I’m showing you where a Catholic is coming from when they say your children are not a part of your family.
Catholics believe, as I showed you in the Catechism, baptism makes one an adopted son/daughter of God. Also, the family in Catholicism is recognized as a small church in and of itself. This is based on a couple having a sacramental marriage and then having their children baptized, they are brought into the family of God, which the couple themselves belong to.
Which has nothing to do with the statement a Catholic made and that you are not understanding.
Like I said, the graces of God wear off. That is how a Catholic sees this statement…if God is protecting an infant from sin, why would He remove this protection?
Maybe you could tell me how an infant is worthy, or not, of baptism. It is a very strange statement.
Yes, and you believe they become an un-member of the Kingdom of Heaven unless they are baptized at 8.
Yes Diana, I understand. Most people have a sense of “family”, mother, father, children etc. Single parent families etc. No one is saying the familial relationships and/or love aren’t there.
I am sorry for your loss.
For a Catholic, there is. The statement that your children are not part of your family came from a Catholic. Yes, I know LDS belief, but I also know Catholic belief. I gave you the explanation for a statement that came from a Catholic.
She is referring to grace in the Catholic context of how it is understood, not the LDS context.
I don’t see that Rebecca is doing this. Instead I see her saying “LDS believe in X, but according the CCC, the belief is Y.” There is an unspoken implication in there that Rebecca believes the CCC’s version and not the LDS version. I don’t think at all that she is trying to do what you thought.
I don’t think that they were meant to…rather they were describing the Catholic beliefs about baptism.
It is true they ignore this but in the larger context, baptism is how we become members of the Kingdom of Heaven, adopted sons and daughters. This is clearly taught in scripture.
Thank you for clarifying this for me. As a relative newbie to the whole Catholic thing, this was something that I hadn’t grasped until you pointed it out.
Exactly.Thank you for clarifying this for me. As a relative newbie to the whole Catholic thing, this was something that I hadn’t grasped until you pointed it out.
It sounds like not baptizing a child, to a Catholic, would be similar to a Jewish family not having their son ritually circumsized when he was 8 days old. It wouldn’t make sense, at least among the observant, to not do this.
It amazes me that people argue infants are not baptized when the Bible is clear that whole households were baptized. And whole households did not just include the family. It included everyone who lived in the house. This often included other realted families (like the husband’s brither and his wife and children) and any servants and their families. To assume that NONE of those people had infants is a very strange leap to make.
No, I don’t. That’s rather the point, isn’t it, that I DON’T believe this? That’s the whole idea behind the belief that children are born innocent. In fact, it is those who believe that they are born with the burden of original sin who believe that God burdens them with it, not us.
Innocent children don’t need to be “adopted.” They already ARE children of God…“of such are the Kingdom of Heaven,” remember? We do not believe that ANYBODY needs “adopting” until after they need baptism for their own personal sins. As well, we believe that any child 'born under the covenant," that is, born to a couple who were married in the Temple, are eternally tied to their parents and families with unbreakable bonds. There simply isn’t a faith on the planet that puts more importance on the family than we do. Some come close–nobody puts MORE importance upon the family.
I see. So what you are saying isn’t that MORMONS don’t believe their children are members of the family. You are saying that CATHOLICS do not believe their children are members of the family until they are baptised. I think you should not project, Rebecca. We don’t believe that we have to ‘bring them into’ the family. They are already THERE. We need do nothing to put them there.
GOD is not protecting an infant from sin, Rebecca. You have this backwards, entirely. If a child is born under the burden of original sin, it’s not the CHILD’S fault. God put it there. After all, He created us all, did He not? Isn’t He in total control of His own creation? According to your beliefs, no child arrives on the planet with anything God hasn’t put there–and that would include the burden of original sin.
It is not that an infant is not worthy. It is that no infant REQUIRES it. It’s like that analogy of offering a coat; you don’t offer one to a man who already has one, and it’s not because the man is unworthy of your offer; it’s that he doesn’t need a coat.
Yes…for HIM.