looking to convert from mormon to catholic

[Stephen168]

I support the Catholic doctrine of Theosis as expressed in CCC 460

Which is not Mormon doctrine, so why would you join a church with a belief about eternity and God complete different from your own?

 

[Stephen168]

For four months, almost continuously, Tony, a former Catholic, has tried to claim that the Mormon Church and Catholic Church teach the same Doctrine. For four months, almost continuously, he has been told by Catholics, same ex-mormon, that he is wrong. I believe proselytizing to the meaning for his deflection.

 

[Tony888]

For four months, almost continuously, Tony, a former Catholic, has tried to claim that the Mormon Church and Catholic Church teach the same Doctrine. For four months, almost continuously, he has been told by Catholics, same ex-mormon, that he is wrong. I believe proselytizing to the meaning for his deflection.

I must call you dishonest on on this one Stephen. Please provide a reference where I’ve said RCC Theosis is the same as Exaltation?

If you can’t provide a reference, stop bearing false witness

What I have noticed, is you seem embarrassed about your RCC doctrine on Theosis. Most Catholics don’t understand it so they get confused.

PS, nothing in CCC 458-461 contavenes LDS doctrine.
Exaltation differs because LDS have additional revelation on top of what the RCC uses for Theosis.

 

[Stephen168]

I must call you dishonest on on this one Stephen. Please provide a reference where I’ve said RCC Theosis is the same as Exaltation?

I every post in which you refuse a simple yes or no answer and claim, as a Mormon, to accept the Catholic Church’s teaching. In this way you are leading people to believe they are the same. There is even a suggestion of it in the same post:

Exaltation differs because LDS have additional revelation on top of what the RCC uses for Theosis.

Another attempt to made the Doctrines appear to be the same. It is not.

Trying to make this point seems to be the only reason you have come to this form. It is the only reason you would repeat a claim knowing it is false. And not taking ever opportunity to clearly show how different the teachings are between to the Mormon Church and Catholic Church is dishonest at this point. Answer her question with an honest simple yes or no.

The beauty of being Catholic is we don’t have to play these games with our beliefs.

 

[Tony888]

Jjarek
make up hour mind, did she ask what I thought or what was LDS doctrine?
I’m clear she asked what i thought - I answered
If she had asked for a link to LDS doctrine, I would have provided such links.

 

[Stephen168]

For the 4th time please simply answer my valid & critical question Yes or No - You be a God or not - Christ or Christlike is not my question. God hood on your horizon?; do you believe if worthy, in the Celestial Kingdom, you will inhabit your own planet & with your earthly wife have spirit children… Yes or NO

make up hour mind, did she ask what I thought or what was LDS doctrine?
I’m clear she asked what i thought - I answered

Where did you give the Yes or No answer?

 

[Tony888]

Stephen
So you can provide no reference where I’ve said they are the same - good, don’t repeat this lie again

You are welocme to compare and contrast Theosis with Exaltation, but please use official sources as I have done.

 

[Tony888]

Good, you acknowledge I answered **her **questions and she never asked for the official doctrine on Exaltation.

I’m not going to derail further here with you on your new question. Start a new thread if you want to compare and contrast Theosis vs Exaltation. It deserves it’s own thread.

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen
So you can provide no reference where I’ve said they are the same - good, don’t repeat this lie again

You are welocme to compare and contrast Theosis with Exaltation, but please use official sources as I have done.

Oh, it is not a lie. In the very same post in which you denied the doctrines are the same, you continue to suggest they are the same. By not answering Pep Mom’s question in a direct yes or no manner as she requested, you continue your claim that there are the same teaching. The audience has noticed how you will not answer her question directly.

 

[truthsave]

I try to suppose the reason why Tony doesn’t give a direct answer to the questioning about becoming a god or not. Of course it is a personal supposition made on my experience with mormons, so would Tony receive my exuse if the following are not his same reasons.

Of course a mormon can become a god and live a populate another planet with his wife. This is mormon doctrine. Of course if a mormon has to accomplish this he has to follow the commandaments and the different rules of his doctrine.

Now one thing to point out. A mormon is extremely reluctant to express this outside a mormon context and territory. Among other mormons he knows what to say, and he knows that if he say this is normal. Outside mormon circle…
Try even to ask about Kolob. They immediately tell you it isnot taught in their doctrine that god (I don’t put the g in big letter since I don’t consider mormon god my Lord) lives either in this planet (Kolob) or nearby. They will tell you it is not an important question, but they have even a song about it! I don’t think if something is not important you will ever sing a supposely religious song about it.
OK maybe they know that this point (becoming a god) doesn’t receive a good public review, that they would be considered at least very weird, but the early Christians were affirming their faith not risking to be considered weird but risking to give their life for it!
Just because they were deeply believing in it behond public consensus, or acceptance.

In the past I thought when they were talking outside the mormon circle they could feel there was something strange about these affirmations, that something was wrong about these statement because when you really believe in your doctrine or religion you are not afraid to expose it! If somebody atheist will ask me if for me Christ is really the Son of God, I just will say yes.

Now I don’t know what to believe why mormon act like this outside their circle. If it is for the reason I am stating they should think very deeply about continuing following their doctrine.

Sometime I think mormonism make them fell so good and everything in control and living protected in a restricted enviroment with strong family value, that they just swallow the camel for their own egoistic wellness. Thing that is very understandable. But if they realize they to for it they really should think twice.

 

[KathleenGee]

Tony,

For the umpteenth time, you are using typical Mormon misinformation to support your cause…by mis-using and mis-interpreting CCC460.

I told you my formation was under Archbishop Levada who is presently overseeing the Congregation of Faith—orthodoxy. He appointed a priest who had gained his advanced education at the Vatican.

The only notation the priest told us to add was only in CCC460…we are partakers of divine grace, but we do not become gods.

When we receive the sacraments, we are already receiving divine grace. We don’t have to work our way through this life so we can be come gods…This is Arianism. This is why the Apostles Creed was further defined in the Nicene Creed to answer this idea that Christ had a beginning and an end.

It was St. Athanasius…who the Mormons are misusing to show that the Early Church Fathers did support Joseph Smith’s ideas of becoming gods…

To the contrary, it is St. Athanasius who withstood many who were falling into Arianism, including many bishops. He was exiled 5 times as bishop as he fought this heresy about unity and divinity of Jesus Christ…all started by one priest.

And our church does not revolve around the teachings of one man, Arius, but of Christ through His apostles.

St. Athanasius said that if the divinity and of being one substance with the Father was not clarified…then Christianity would fall back into polytheism – multiple gods-- and eventually paganism…in these times paganism rules in power, greed, and pride…man making himself god.

Furthermore…all the catechetical teachings leading up to CCC460 are all about the Eucharist…and in sequence…when we partake in the Eucharist…we enter into the life of grace…and it is in grace that we share in the divinity of Christ…as a priest said recently…our very dna is spiritual…we were made for God…but we are not made to become separate gods.

You are using CCC460 out of context and is Arian, not Catholic, not Christian…but a false understanding of Christ.

Please stop insisting this. Your so-called Mormon scholars are really more sophists. And what they are doing is misleading you people – again.

 

[TexanKnight]

Tony, no disrespect intended, but you have made several posts since I asked you to answer Mom’s questions, and you still have neglected to answer them. Is it that you do not know the answers, or is it you are afraid to answer them?

 

[Lefty0908]

That quote from Paul was speaking to the Corinthians, who apparently were listening to ‘teachers with itching ears’ that told them to do those sorts of things that were not taught to them by him, or any of the other Apostles. They were obviously engaging in many practices that they made up on their own, or that some of their newer members were suggesting to them. He felt that they were being mislead by many of those people into doing things that were incorrect because they weren’t following what they had been taught from the beginning. If he didn’t think they were significantly against the Apostle’s teachings, he would not have had to write to them so many times to correct them. (He also might have been referring to other types of practices that were done for the dead, like making personal sacrifices on their behalf [things like fasting, etc.].)

But, if it was a legitimate practice that was considered necessary, all of the other Apostles would have been teaching it, everywhere they went. Since it was only briefly mentioned in this one letter to the Corinthians in the entire Bible, and none of the early Church fathers even mentioned it more than in a few passing remarks, I would have to believe that it was just another one of their many errors that he was trying to correct before it became a more widespread problem. Baptism is only necessary for the living, not the dead. Once a person has passed over the veil, it’s too late for them to be Baptized. God will decide if they will be given a choice to accept Christ or not. He doesn’t really need us to help Him out with that. He can handle it on His own because He knows what’s really in their hearts, and that’s all that really matters at that point.

Thanks, T. I respect Catholic teachings on the dead because they leave no doubt that you take seriously your responsibilities to those who have died, and reflect your belief that God has not forgotten the dead and will deal justly with them.

The brevity of I Cor 15:29, along with its addressing a practice that is nowhere else mentioned in the Bible, can certainly be seen as somehow needing interpretation. But I still maintain that it can be more easily seen as a straightforward statement of Paul’s referencing a known, orthodox practice that he uses as an argument to buttress the main point of the chapter, which is the reality of the resurrection. For the learned Paul to cite a heterodox practice in support of the central event of all Christianity doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

If it was a legitimate practice that was considered necessary, all of the other Apostles would have been teaching it. Who is to say that wasn’t the case? I don’t think either of us believe that the NT contains a complete repository of all the teachings and practices of first century Christianity.

Clement asked Peter “shall those be wholly deprived of the kingdom of heaven who died before Christ’s coming?” Peter assures Clement that provision has been made for their salvation, leaving it in general terms by stating that this is “as far as we are allowed to declare these things” and “you compel me, O Clement, to touch upon things which we are forbidden to discuss” (Clementine Recognitions). It’s reasonable for me to think that the concept of baptism for the dead was known by the apostles and taught by them on a limited basis, hence the scarcity of references in the NT.

None of the early Church fathers even mentioned it more than in a few passing remarks. Lack of abundance doesn’t equate to lack of significance. And what is the significance of their remarks? From the Pastor of Hermas, considered to be a trustworthy commentator on the established practices of the early church: “These Apostles, and the teachers who had proclaimed the name of the Son of God, after they had fallen asleep in the power and faith of the Son of God preached likewise to the dead; and they gave them the seal of the preaching. They accordingly went down with them into the water and came out again. But although they went down while they were alive and came up alive, those who had fallen asleep before them went down dead, but came out again living; for it was through these that they were made alive, and learned the name of the Son of God” (Codex Vaticanus 3848).

Tertullian comments on the practice, first approvingly, then later with doubts. In the 5th century, Epiphanius is aware of it, as is Ambrose. Peter the Venerable in the 12th century uses much the same logic as you to try and distance the church from Paul’s straightforward declaration.

“They were baptized at that time for the unbaptized dead, with good intention but not wisely, supposing that since they had not received baptism while alive, they could help out the dead by baptizing living persons for them” (Peter the Venerable, Against the Patrobrusian Heretics). Elsewhere he says: “‘They were being baptized for the dead’ refers to the good works which the living were doing for the dead,” except, that is, for baptism, “for it is not by baptism but by other good works of the living … it is to these and not to baptism that the Apostle refers.” Which is precisely why he says baptism, for by strange logic, when the Apostle says black he really means white, and that is why he says black. (I totally stole that last paragraph from Hugh Nibley).

As time passed and the early understanding of the practice was lost, the problem sectarian Christianity faced (and that Latter-day Saints don’t) came in trying to explain how Paul said one thing while meaning something totally different. Is baptism a necessary ordinance or not? Is there one Lord, one faith, one baptism or not? Why does he cite a scorned practice to support a central tennant of faith?

If you’re going to study your way out of Mormonism (the long ago forgotten theme of this thread), our practice of baptism for the dead probably isn’t going to yield the satisfaction you seek.

 

[RebeccaJ]

As time passed and the early understanding of the practice was lost, the problem sectarian Christianity faced (and that Latter-day Saints don’t) came in trying to explain how Paul said one thing while meaning something totally different. Is baptism a necessary ordinance or not? Is there one Lord, one faith, one baptism or not? Why does he cite a scorned practice to support a central tennant of faith?

It is not a problem for Christianity. Those who lived before Jesus were not baptized, and are not required to be baptized. Baptism is a Sacrament of the living. We are judged at the moment of our death. This has always been a doctrine of the Catholic Church. There isn’t a waiting room where we get a second chance. If there were, there should be some sort of doctrine that the souls of the dead can also receive the chance to repent of their sins before being judged…would only be fair, right? As that is what you are saying about the souls of the dead, they can repent of their sins.

For the Christian practice to make any sense whatsoever, it would only have been done for those who had the desire to be baptized, but who died before that baptism occurred. I don’t see anything in the quotes you have that people were baptizing every person that had ever died and had never been baptized…in historically non-existent Mormon-like temples.

If you’re going to study your way out of Mormonism (the long ago forgotten theme of this thread), our practice of baptism for the dead probably isn’t going to yield the satisfaction you seek.

The practice in and of itself perhaps, but when looked at in the context of Christian belief, the LDS doctrines and practice of baptism for the dead do not fit, at all. Studying the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Apostles will make it clear to anyone that there is no need to baptize the dead.

The dead are dead, the race is over, and their souls are in the hands of God’s Justice and Mercy.

Also, your quotes are a mish-mash of unrelated groups. For example the Petrobusians are a sect that arose in the 12th century. Hardly an example of Apostolic belief being handed down, but an example of an early Protestant sect that arose. Further, the only quote I see attributed to “Peter the Venerable” is from Mormon sources. I don’t find a primary source that says he ever addressed baptism of the dead…he did address the baptizing of infants, which the Petrobusians had rejected (along with the building of churches).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Considering Peter of Bruys, I don’t think he makes a good case for Mormonism. If Mormons read anything about him, I don’t think they would either. I highly doubt he ever supported baptizing the dead, as he was dead set against Catholic prayers for the dead, teaching that the “The good deeds of the living cannot profit the dead… those things are vain that are done by the living for the dead…”

This one appears to be just another Mormon myth.

 

[KathleenGee]

The Lord stressed many times the profound worth of daily life, that we do not know the time or hour that He takes us to our judgment.

We must be like the wise virgins who kept the oil of faith always lit with the life of Christ.

 

[Kathryn_Ann]

im a non active mormon and want to convert to catholcisism. how do i do this? steps and tips please

**

:angel1:
God bless you on your faith journey! Please find your nearest parish, call the church secretary and ask about RCIA, and perhaps make an appointment with the Pastor. I’m so happy to hear of your interest in converting to the Faith, and hope you will find a home parish soon. Welcome!**

 

[Telstar]

Thanks, T. I respect Catholic teachings on the dead because they leave no doubt that you take seriously your responsibilities to those who have died, and reflect your belief that God has not forgotten the dead and will deal justly with them.

NP, L.
There’s no doubt that it was a practice among the Jews of the OT to pray and offer sacrifices for the dead. It’s always been a practice in the Church to pray for the souls in Purgatory, where Jesus says in Luke 12, “I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite.”. Our prayers can shorten their sentence and lessen their torment so they can be released from the “wages of sin” (for those not worthy of damnation).

The brevity of I Cor 15:29, along with its addressing a practice that is nowhere else mentioned in the Bible, can certainly be seen as somehow needing interpretation. But I still maintain that it can be more easily seen as a straightforward statement of Paul’s referencing a known, orthodox practice that he uses as an argument to buttress the main point of the chapter, which is the reality of the resurrection. For the learned Paul to cite a heterodox practice in support of the central event of all Christianity doesn’t make a lot of sense to me.

I find it interesting that Jesus repeated so many times in the Gospels that it’s absolutely necessary for our salvation, to eat His actual flesh and drink His blood, yet LDS and Christians choose to believe that it was only meant to be a ‘symbolic’ memorial gesture. But, the practice of Baptism for the dead is easily accepted as true, based on a single misunderstood passage in Paul’s Epistle.

If it was a legitimate practice that was considered necessary, all of the other Apostles would have been teaching it. Who is to say that wasn’t the case? I don’t think either of us believe that the NT contains a complete repository of all the teachings and practices of first century Christianity.

I totally agree that the NT is not a complete history of everything Jesus said or did. John confirms that, “21:[25] But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.”. That’s where Sacred Tradition comes into play, and adds so much of what’s missing in Scripture. But, anything that would be as important as LDS claim it to be, would not be left out of the Bible. Don’t forget, it was the Catholic Church that gave the Bible to the world, and all versions of the Bible are based on it, although many have been abridged to remove certain texts that other denominations find problematic to their own beliefs.

Clement asked Peter “shall those be wholly deprived of the kingdom of heaven who died before Christ’s coming?” Peter assures Clement that provision has been made for their salvation, leaving it in general terms by stating that this is “as far as we are allowed to declare these things” and “you compel me, O Clement, to touch upon things which we are forbidden to discuss” (Clementine Recognitions). It’s reasonable for me to think that the concept of baptism for the dead was known by the apostles and taught by them on a limited basis, hence the scarcity of references in the NT.

I think what Peter said was clear. That it’s because it was not up to them to deal with the dead. That’s totally up to God. He alone will deal with anyone that hasn’t had the opportunity to be Baptized, in this life.

None of the early Church fathers even mentioned it more than in a few passing remarks. Lack of abundance doesn’t equate to lack of significance. And what is the significance of their remarks?

Jesus preached to the ancient dead, before His Resurrection. Nothing is necessary from us, because He’ll take care of all the rest, too. This passage is not a confirmation of the practice being valid. It’s the opposite.

Tertullian comments on the practice, first approvingly, then later with doubts. In the 5th century, Epiphanius is aware of it, as is Ambrose. Peter the Venerable in the 12th century uses much the same logic as you to try and distance the church from Paul’s straightforward declaration.

“They were baptized at that time for the unbaptized dead, with good intention but not wisely, supposing that since they had not received baptism while alive, they could help out the dead by baptizing living persons for them” (Peter the Venerable, Against the Patrobrusian Heretics).

Those that denounced the practice were correct. Read this for a very good explanation of why that passage doesn’t mean what LDS think it means.

As time passed and the early understanding of the practice was lost, the problem sectarian Christianity faced (and that Latter-day Saints don’t) came in trying to explain how Paul said one thing while meaning something totally different. Is baptism a necessary ordinance or not? Is there one Lord, one faith, one baptism or not? Why does he cite a scorned practice to support a central tennant of faith?

Paul often used that means of using preposterous statements to make a valid point. Romans 3, 6, 7 9, 11 as well as his other Epistles are full of instances where he does that, many times, followed by an emphatic, “God forbid!”

If you’re going to study your way out of Mormonism (the long ago forgotten theme of this thread), our practice of baptism for the dead probably isn’t going to yield the satisfaction you seek.

No doubt. But, that doesn’t mean the subject should be swept under the rug if someone has questions about it.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

Re: PURGATORY and BAPTISM AFTER DEATH. See the Faith of the Early Fathers by William A. Jurgens Vol. 2 and 3 used here.

St Basil The Great in “HOMILIES ON THE PSALMS” (ante A.D. 370)
“…I think that the noble athletes of God, who have wrestled all their lives with invisible enemies after they have escaped all of their persecutions and have come to the end of life, are examined by the prince of this world and if they are found to have any wounds from their wrestling, any stains or effects of sin, they are detained…”

St Gregory of Nazianz’s “ORATION ON HOLY BAPTISM” A,D, 381
“I know a cleansing fire which Christ came to hurl upon the ear, and He Himself is called Fire in words anagogically applied… I know also a fire that is not cleansing by avenging, that fire either of Sodom, which, mixed with storm of brimstone, He pours down on all sinners, or that which is prepared for the devil and his angels, or that which proceeds from the face of the Lord and burns up His enemies all around. And still there is a fire more fearsome than these… all these are of destructive power, unless even here someone may prefer to understand this in a more merciful way, worthy of Him who chastises.”

St Augustine of Hippo in his “Enarrationes” or “EXPLANATIONS OF THE PSALMS” (inter A.D. 392-418) Ps 37,3
“Lord, rebuke me not in Your indignation, nor correct me in Your anger… In this life may You cleanse me and make me such that I have no need of the corrective fire, which is for those who are saved, but as if by fire… For it is said: “He shall be saved, but as if by fire.” And because it is said that he shall be saved, little is thought of that fire. Yet plainly, though we be saved by fire, that fire will be more severe than anything a man can suffer in this life.”

Augustine continues in “GENESIS DEFENDED AGAINST THE MANICHEANS” (A.D. 389) “The man who has cultivated that remote land and who has gotten his bread by his very great labor is able to suffer this labor to the end of this life. After this life, however, it is not necessary that he suffer. But the man who perhaps has not cultivated the land and has allowed it to be overrun with brambles has in this life the curse of his land on all his works, and after this life he will have either purgatorial fire or eternal punishment.”
Jurgens Note: “habebit vei ignem purgationis vel poenam aeternam”

Augustine in “DE FIDE ET OPERIBUS” or “Faith and Works” (A.D. 413)
“…They judge that unless they be baptized, they will be lost forever; if, however, they be baptized, even persevering in these evils, they will be saved through fire.”

Augustine in “THE CITY OF GOD” (inter A.D. 413 - 426)
“Temporal punishments are suffered by some in this life only, by some after death, by some both here and hereafter, but all of them before that last and strictest judgement. But not all who suffer temporal punishments after death will come to eternal punishments, which are to follow that judgement.”

Just a few examples to show purgatorial fires where known to the ECF’s and baptism is not a consideration after death.

The Shema mentions the practice of prayers for the dead.

However, prayers are not necessary for those in Heaven and won’t help anyone condemned to hell so why pray for them: Purgatory is the only answer.

Judas Maccabeus in 2 Maccabees 12:46 Judas & his men offered a collection and sent it to the Temple in Jerusalem on behalf of the slain who had worn amulets “sacred to the idols of Jamnia which the law forbids the Jews to wear… …for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death… Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.”

The Fathers clearly believed that after death there was no longer any POSSIBILITY of MERITING or DEMERITING.

St. Basil The Great in “EULOGIES ON THE MARTYRS AND SERMONS ON MORAL AND PRACTICAL SUBJECTS” (ante. A.D. 379) “Tell me, the reward which you expect, does it depend on the time when you lived, or on the time which follows after your death?..No, when life is over these is no longer any opportunity for the improving of piety.”

St Gregory of Nazianz “ON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE CROPS BY HAIL AFTER A PROLONGED DROUGHT AND A DEADLY CATTLE PLAGUE” (ca. A.D. 330 - ca. A.D. 389) “… But I do not mean to speak of the judgments to come, to which indulgence in this life will deliver us; for it is better to be punished and cleansed now than to be sent to the torment to come, when it will be time for punishing only, and not for cleansing.”

St John Chrysostom “HOMILIES ON PENANCE” (A.D. 381 -387)
“For the hour will come when the theater of this world will be dissolved, after which there will be no more contending for the prize, no more exertions to be made after the end of this life, no more crowns to be merited after the collapse of this theater. This is the time for repentance, that the time for judgement.”

Chrysostom again "HOMILIES ON THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW (A.D. 370)
essentially says repent now, no chance of it later after death.

Chrysostom again "HOMILIES ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS (ca. A.D.392) “…For even if you have a father, even if you have a son, even if you have a friend, even if you have any person at all who has ready speech with God, none of these shall ever save you when you have been condemned by your own works. That courtroom is of such a kind that it judges by actions alone, and in that place there is no other way to be saved… For if we have been remiss no just man will assist us, no Prophet, no Apostle, no one at all.”

According to a few of the Early Church Fathers quoted, Baptism in the afterlife is not a CONSIDERATION and according to the Golden Throated One - Chrysostrom: NO PROPHET, NO APOSTLE, will SAVE YOU (392 A.D.)

As per RebeccaJ: The dead are dead and the race is over.

 

[TexanKnight]

I have a hard time getting Tony and Parker to answer tough questions and/or to cite references