LDS worship

[pmccombs]

… Despite all the evidence to the contrary? 2000+ years of history and writings? Such doubt in the face of evidence makes me wonder if you really are any kind of agnostic at all. If you can’t believe what’s right in front of your own two eyes, forming any kind of a deeper faith is going to be something of a…challenge, for you.

Hey, sometimes I wonder if I’m any kind of agnostic at all too!

But evidence? I’m aware of evidence that goes every which way! There is so much evidence in front of my eyes, I don’t know what to believe. Whose word and whose evidence is best? I’ve settled on a “most likely” story, by which I mean the one that seems to make the most sense to me. It isn’t the same story you have, and not a particularly hopeful one. Strange, huh? Maybe my mind is defective!

Anyway, there was a group of early Christians who called themselves gnostics (these are generally considered heretics in Orthodox Christianity) because they had “gnosis,” or knowledge. They thought they knew things. I only call myself an agnostic because I don’t know things, and it seems to me an impossible task to really know. And so I am content with merely practicing religion if I can’t know it. I try to do the best I can.

The ways in which people develop deeper faith, or even certainty, is very interesting to me. What would it take for me to get something like that? It’s a great discussion, but not really one for the topic of LDS worship, I guess.

 

[pmccombs]

You mentioned Bauer, so I assumed you shared his views, my mistake.

Well, Walter Bauer was one who challenged the prevailing view of the relationship between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. He was making the claim that what we call “orthodoxy” was simply one of many forms of Christianity and that it became the dominant one, maybe because of its presence in Rome. Ehrman coined the term “proto-Orthodox” to describe the early Christian faction that eventually asserted its views over all the rest. So I do share their ideas that orthodoxy is not something primary in Christianity, only something that is dominant.

 

[Stephen168]

Well, Walter Bauer was one who challenged the prevailing view of the relationship between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. He was making the claim that what we call **“orthodoxy” was simply one of many **forms of Christianity and that it became the dominant one, maybe because of its presence in Rome.

Yes, there was A, B, & C

So I do share their ideas that orthodoxy is not something primary in Christianity, only something that is dominant

There was A, B, & C

Ehrman coined the term “proto-Orthodox” to describe the early Christian faction that eventually asserted its views over all the rest. So I do share their ideas that orthodoxy is not something primary in Christianity, only something that is dominant.

Not exactly A, but B and C

I said this:*To accept an apostasy, I must first accept that there is something called Orthodoxy and that there was an original, monolithic Church. *

Not A, but B and C. You seem to disagree with yourself.

Hypothetically, say a guy tells a story about a handful of people arriving in North American by boat and these people were the forebears of all the people found in North America. Then we find out that thousands of people were already here at that point in time.
Based on the new information I don’t think you would say the boat people were never in North America, just that they were not the only ones in North America. I can understand that if you didn’t like the storyteller, you would try and stretch the new information to make his story a complete lie, but rationally it would not hold.

 

[TexanKnight]

Hey, sometimes I wonder if I’m any kind of agnostic at all too!

But evidence? I’m aware of evidence that goes every which way! There is so much evidence in front of my eyes, I don’t know what to believe. Whose word and whose evidence is best? I’ve settled on a “most likely” story, by which I mean the one that seems to make the most sense to me. It isn’t the same story you have, and not a particularly hopeful one. Strange, huh? Maybe my mind is defective!

Anyway, there was a group of early Christians who called themselves gnostics (these are generally considered heretics in Orthodox Christianity) because they had “gnosis,” or knowledge. They thought they knew things. I only call myself an agnostic because I don’t know things, and it seems to me an impossible task to really know. And so I am content with merely practicing religion if I can’t know it. I try to do the best I can.

The ways in which people develop deeper faith, or even certainty, is very interesting to me. What would it take for me to get something like that? It’s a great discussion, but not really one for the topic of LDS worship, I guess.

Well, as I always say, if you are going to be an agnostic, you may as well follow a dangerously false prophet…

 

[catholic-rcia]

Agnostic to me means being honest, when you say I just don’t know. My grand father was agnostic and He brought me Christ and he did not even know it. He truly loved others and he loved this life. I believe he is in heaven. I believe the only way you can come to a solid belief in Christ (not making us better than anyone else) as God is through direct contact with Him. When you hear His voice how could you not believe in Him?

The other day two Mormon missionaries came to my door. I know my Catholic faith very well. After our discussion they began to walk to the next door, the youngest Missionary turned and said “you need to come to our church, they both laughed a bit and walked on”

This stemmed from a youngsters pride. Mormons and Catholics both have the sin of pride, but Catholics can come to a better understanding of pride than Mormons because of our belief in the Holy Trinity. The core of the Catholic faith is found in the peace of Christ (true humility). It is our center, it is found in the Crucifixion equally with the glorious resurrection. Where nothing is expelled, rather it is all accepted. Because in this kind of peace true peace reigns. Where even our enemies our truly loved and truly forgiven. Seeing our own self’s as enemies of Christ, also loved and forgiven. This peace can not be merited or earned in any way. It can only be received with empty hands through our honest confessions, and its only found in the Catholic faith. It extends to all faiths and traces can be found in them. All traces of Christ. The Catholic Church truly has the fulness of Christ. We have the opportunity to fill our cups a little or all the way depending on how willing we are to surrender our pitiful lives over to this truth. Over to Jesus.

God always speaks the truth to us. Jesus described himself as “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14: 6-11). God encourages us to live in His truth through Jesus Christ, within the Trinity. Faith cannot be built upon a false pretense. Faith-seeking is one of the oldest preoccupations of the human mind. We seek to understand as best we can God our Creator and His love for each one of us. At one time or another we all may feel alone. Some of us have been rejected; some of us have rejected another. Some have come against great trials and given up on life altogether.

It is our hope as Catholics that we can share the Love of Christ with you, because He can help our lives become happier and more meaningful. The peace that Christ can bring when we come to Him for strength in our suffering and our joy can replace every pill ever made, every drink ever drank and every new age psychiatrist that ever lived.

I was Mormon, I am a Catholic. Now a part of the body of Christ. Part of the authentic Christian Church.

 

[Angelina5]

Hey!!

I was Mormon as well for ten tears, before being called back to the Holy Catholic Church!!
To me, it is utterly ludicrous to think or assume that Christ would not prevail against Satan during the “Apostasy”, leaving thousands of good Christians without any Holy authority on Earth. And don’t get me started on Joseph Smith fulfilling the definition of a “false prophet”.
Because U was so convinced that the LDS Church was the church founded by Christ & was blind-sided for ten tears, I doubt myself every day.
What I have loved about the Catholic faith thus far, is that everything is explained beautifully and simply by scripturr and common sense. Its truth invites questioning & deepens one’s faith. Polar opposite of the Mormon “shelving” reasoning.

Agnostic to me means being honest, when you say I just don’t know. My grand father was agnostic and He brought me Christ and he did not even know it. He truly loved others and he loved this life. I believe he is in heaven. I believe the only way you can come to a solid belief in Christ (not making us better than anyone else) as God is through direct contact with Him. When you hear His voice how could you not believe in Him?

The other day two Mormon missionaries came to my door. I know my Catholic faith very well. After our discussion they began to walk to the next door, the youngest Missionary turned and said “you need to come to our church, they both laughed a bit and walked on”

This stemmed from a youngsters pride. Mormons and Catholics both have the sin of pride, but Catholics can come to a better understanding of pride than Mormons because of our belief in the Holy Trinity. The core of the Catholic faith is found in the peace of Christ (true humility). It is our center, it is found in the Crucifixion equally with the glorious resurrection. Where nothing is expelled, rather it is all accepted. Because in this kind of peace true peace reigns. Where even our enemies our truly loved and truly forgiven. Seeing our own self’s as enemies of Christ, also loved and forgiven. This peace can not be merited or earned in any way. It can only be received with empty hands through our honest confessions, and its only found in the Catholic faith. It extends to all faiths and traces can be found in them. All traces of Christ. The Catholic Church truly has the fulness of Christ. We have the opportunity to fill our cups a little or all the way depending on how willing we are to surrender our pitiful lives over to this truth. Over to Jesus.

God always speaks the truth to us. Jesus described himself as “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14: 6-11). God encourages us to live in His truth through Jesus Christ, within the Trinity. Faith cannot be built upon a false pretense. Faith-seeking is one of the oldest preoccupations of the human mind. We seek to understand as best we can God our Creator and His love for each one of us. At one time or another we all may feel alone. Some of us have been rejected; some of us have rejected another. Some have come against great trials and given up on life altogether.

It is our hope as Catholics that we can share the Love of Christ with you, because He can help our lives become happier and more meaningful. The peace that Christ can bring when we come to Him for strength in our suffering and our joy can replace every pill ever made, every drink ever drank and every new age psychiatrist that ever lived.

I was Mormon, I am a Catholic. Now a part of the body of Christ. Part of the authentic Christian Church.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Hey!!

I was Mormon as well for ten tears, before being called back to the Holy Catholic Church!!
To me, it is utterly ludicrous to think or assume that Christ would not prevail against Satan during the “Apostasy”, leaving thousands of good Christians without any Holy authority on Earth. And don’t get me started on Joseph Smith fulfilling the definition of a “false prophet”.
Because U was so convinced that the LDS Church was the church founded by Christ & was blind-sided for ten tears, I doubt myself every day.
What I have loved about the Catholic faith thus far, is that everything is explained beautifully and simply by scripturr and common sense. Its truth invites questioning & deepens one’s faith. Polar opposite of the Mormon “shelving” reasoning.

Thanks for that. It is so real as to the human dilemma. We go to Church knowing we are not worthy, not that different than the Apostles who hid themselves in the upper room. It is Jesus that is worthy and Him that keeps us from hiding. It is good to know that God loves us as we are no matter who we are or where we are. This is what changes us and guides us to a deeper relationship warts and all.

 

[Jack_Mormon]

Seems like you are forgetting one important thing here. The entire basis of the LDS church is that there was an Apostasy and therefore the need for a “restoration” of the origninal Church. It is the one legged stool upon which the LDS church either stands or falls, IMO. Prove there was an apostasy and you might have some credibility.

Hi Steve.

I just signed up, and it seems to me that I just signed an agreement that prohibits non-Catholics from Proselytizing their views. If you want a Mormon to prove to you that there was an apostasy, shouldn’t you do this on a forum where the rules allow that line of argument?

On the other hand, you are quite right that the LDS church is premised on the notion of an Apostasy. We aren’t the only Christian church that’s taught that, either.

If you want to read a good Talmage book, I’d strongly recommend Jesus the Christ, which is based in scripture. The Great Apostasy used to be quite popular in the church, but has fallen into disfavor and has been disproved on a few points. And TGA never had the semi-canonical status that JTC had. As a Mormon missionary in the 1980s, I wasn’t even allowed to own a copy of TGA or so-called “Mormon Doctrine,” even though a few missionaries unfortunately flouted this rule.

 

[Imcatholic7]

There is nothing in the Bible that talks about garments like the LDS use, or that everyone wore them, as the Mormons do. Nor that they had odd symbols on them, as the Mormons have. So, no, the gsrments are nothing like what our Priests wear.

And yes, in the temple ceremonies, a woman does not go the to “Celestial Kingdom” unless beckoned by her husband.

The “sticks” have nothing to do with the Book of Mormon. It was a prophet explaining that the people could be reunited.

But, for a Catholic, you sure know all the LDS apologetics. Makes me wonder…

I don’t think you need to wonder.

 

[Jack_Mormon]

Oh dear. Tex has confused the Celestial Kingdom of Heaven with the Celestial room of the temple.

Wish I could say more to correct his errors, but even though I seem to be on my way out of the church, I do try to keep my promises. (and no, dear Tex, it’s not out of fear of getting murdered. LOL!)

Suffice to say that LDS doctrine is quite specific that an unmarried woman CAN enter the Celestial Kingdom. There are simply some callings within the Celestial Kingdom which require marriage. And if you are married, yes, you do pass through the veil together. Surely Mormons aren’t the only people who see marriage as a holy sacrament and believe that a husband and wife, sealed together in God’s sight and through his holy authority, enjoy a special and unique relationship to each other.

 

[Jack_Mormon]

All of which means he has dodged, again, my questions. How can you be feeling the love of God as you promise to slash each others throats and disembowel each other? Does that sound like the worship of a loving God?

Mormons do not and have never promised to slash each others’ throats and disembowel each other. I received my endowments in 1986, and you know that’s before the ceremony was shortened and removed the penalties. So I know what they were.

Really, Tex. When kids say “cross my heart,” do you accuse the children of promising to stab each other to death if they break the promise?

All of the temple ceremony is available in the Library of Congress; it has to be there in order for the Church to copyright it. I’ve made a covenant to not discuss it outside the temple, but it’s hardly a secret. So anyone who cares to look it up can see that your claims of “blood oaths” are false, and verge on blood libel.

 

[Jack_Mormon]

I have no idea of how old you are, but when I went thru (late 80’s) no one back there saw the tokens (is handshakes) names of those tokens, signs and penalties as symbolic.

We really believe that you would need to know those handshakes and their names in order to get into heaven…

Marie, I went through in 1986, and that was a question on my mind. Some thought one way and some another. I think it’s clearly symbolic, but that’s something I had to study out and make sense of. Just as there are probably some Catholics and some mormons who think that water of baptism literally washes away sins, while others see it as symbolic of our covenant with Christ.

To me, the cop-out is those who accuse us of lying when we simply share our beliefs about the ceremony. It’s too bad because some of the people who do that here otherwise seem like decent people, and are just parroting the tactics their friends have told them. But it’s uncivil, and I’m completely unable to have a discussion with someone that holds me a liar about my own beliefs. So I’ll put them on ignore.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

I know… shocking, isn’t it?

Oh, that language seems quite clear, don’t get me wrong. It’s just that I have my own reasons for thinking that what is written in the New Testament is most likely representative of the agendas of a particular faction of early Christianity rather than anything authoritative or divine.

This isn’t a particularly suitable thread for that discussion, though, since it has nothing to do with LDS worship, and in fact has nothing to do with LDS belief either.

You are on a journey, on a road where some of us have traveled. Perhaps you would benefit from study of legitimate sources of Biblical history; for example the Early Church Fathers - See William Jurgens’ 3 volume series on the Faith of the Early Fathers. ANYTHING by Dr. Scott Hahn. This website & EWTN’s website have many gems that would be edifying. Starting points would include a couple books that discuss “particular factions of early Christianity” are “Born Christian, Born again Catholic”. Another: “Crossing the Tiber” by Steve Ray. In the Born book, the author discusses the 5 ancient Churches especially their cohesiveness: Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople (I think is the 5th??). Historically Rome was recognized as the mother and center of early Christianity. This is easily verified. Jurgens’ series does not include all ECF writings but is an excellent read.

History & the Early Church Fathers DO point to the RCC as *authoritative and divine * contrary to many ignorant, selfish promotors of the contrived, supposed notion of “apostasy”.

 

[pmccombs]

God always speaks the truth to us. Jesus described himself as “the way, the truth and the life” (John 14: 6-11). God encourages us to live in His truth through Jesus Christ, within the Trinity. Faith cannot be built upon a false pretense. Faith-seeking is one of the oldest preoccupations of the human mind. We seek to understand as best we can God our Creator and His love for each one of us. At one time or another we all may feel alone. Some of us have been rejected; some of us have rejected another. Some have come against great trials and given up on life altogether.

It is our hope as Catholics that we can share the Love of Christ with you, because He can help our lives become happier and more meaningful. The peace that Christ can bring when we come to Him for strength in our suffering and our joy can replace every pill ever made, every drink ever drank and every new age psychiatrist that ever lived.

Now this is the kind of thing I like to read from Catholics! Thanks for sharing.

 

[TexanKnight]

Marie, I went through in 1986, and that was a question on my mind. Some thought one way and some another. I think it’s clearly symbolic, but that’s something I had to study out and make sense of. Just as there are probably some Catholics and some mormons who think that water of baptism literally washes away sins, while others see it as symbolic of our covenant with Christ.

To me, the cop-out is those who accuse us of lying when we simply share our beliefs about the ceremony. It’s too bad because some of the people who do that here otherwise seem like decent people, and are just parroting the tactics their friends have told them. But it’s uncivil, and I’m completely unable to have a discussion with someone that holds me a liar about my own beliefs. So I’ll put them on ignore.

Ignoring those who shine the light about the LDS Church is an odd way to learn, but it is an easy way to never have to look at the truth

 

[Mormon_Cultist]

The temple is also where people had to swear to allow themsewlves to be killed by having their throats cut or by having their bowels cut out.

No

It is also where a Catholic Priest is the agent of Satan

No

and we find out that Jesus and Michael made the earth and Michael became Adam

So?

We used to call F&T Sundays “Open mike Sunday”.

A very appropriate description

Ignoring those who shine the light about the LDS Church is an odd way to learn, but it is an easy way to never have to look at the truth

That’s not what they said! They made the perfectly valid point that trying to have a discussion with people who are intentionally and wilfully ignorant, or who refuse to do anything but interject their opinion is a completely futile effort. I agree wholeheartedly: I’ll happily have a discussion/debate, even an argument with someone who is prepared to actually make some dialogue, but if someone just spouts out misconceptions, lies and opinions, and won’t make any effort to converse, there’s no point.

 

[Marie5890]

Ignoring those who shine the light about the LDS Church is an odd way to learn, but it is an easy way to never have to look at the truth

One thing that I have experienced, TK, in a very discernible way, is the grace that comes from a valid baptism. And one thing that I have seen with those Mormons who are BIC is how much of a struggle it is for them with out that grace.

I am profoundly grateful for my Catholic infant baptism. Im grateful for all the prayers and rosaries my grandmother said for me when I became LDS. Im grateful for all the Masses she had said in my behalf.

Ive read quite a bit on grace, esp St Augustine’s teaching on it.
Grace is invaluable. And I am grateful I have access to it. To all of it, thru the Sacraments.

I pray for the Mormon faithful, and those fallen away. It’s clear they cant see clearly. I know what that is like. It’s confusing.

I saw a recent picture of Jeffery Holland and my heart broke. I had the brief opportunity to be associated with he and his lovely wife Pat many years ago. He looks so beaten down, beaten up, emotionally, spiritually.

Sad. Sad. Sad.

The I look at the Holy Father. The gentle face, tired, but at peace and serene.
The stark difference is keen. And Benedict has about 10+ years on Pres. Holland.

 

[TexanKnight]

No

Actually, yes. People had to “suffer their lives to be taken”. They had to vow to koll or be killed. I was there. I still remember the handshakes and signs and penalties. So…YES

No

Yes. The Devil used a man dressed as a Catholic Priest to do his bidding. So…YES

So?

So, it is false. The Archangel Michael is not Adam. Of course, BY knew that…he taught Adam is our God.

That’s not what they said! They made the perfectly valid point that trying to have a discussion with people who are intentionally and wilfully ignorant, or who refuse to do anything but interject their opinion is a completely futile effort. I agree wholeheartedly: I’ll happily have a discussion/debate, even an argument with someone who is prepared to actually make some dialogue, but if someone just spouts out misconceptions, lies and opinions, and won’t make any effort to converse, there’s no point.

Ah…really? The problem is, when faced with truth about the LDS past, Mormons call it lies. So, my comment is VERY valid.
Ignoring those who shine the light about the LDS Church is an odd way to learn, but it is an easy way to never have to look at the truth

 

[Jack_Mormon]

"swear to allow themsewlves to be killed "

Nope. That is a false representation of the old oath that I originally made back in 1986. I no longer have a temple recommend, haven’t for years, but I remember what it was, and what it used to be, and it wasn’t what you said.

Can others please explain to Mormon_Cultist and Tex the difference between

A. swearing that you would SOONER ALLOW YOUR LIFE TO BE TAKEN rather than giving up the information (just as Catholic martyrs suffered torture unto death rather than renouncing the faith!) Because that’s what I signed up for.

and

B. swearing that you WILL allow yourself to be killed if you do divulge? THAT would be a blood oath, and such oaths were never part of the ceremony. Blood oaths are forbidden in the Book of Mormon.

I do concede that there are some, a small minority of silly and confused LDS folks, who have thought that they were making some sort of blood oath. Honest Catholics here will no doubt concede that there are some Catholics who have some warped and unfortunate misunderstandings about your doctrine.

To my knowledge, the only self-proclaimed “mormons” who held to blood oaths belonged to apostate cults which the LDS church has denounced. Membership in such organization is grounds for immediate excommunication from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

 

[Jack_Mormon]

I saw a recent picture of Jeffery Holland and my heart broke. I had the brief opportunity to be associated with he and his lovely wife Pat many years ago.

I love Jeff and Pat Holland. Even if I leave the church, I’ll still listen to Elder Holland’s wonderful General Conference talks. They still inspire me.