MERGED Questions about Mormonism

[twopekinguys]

If I was talking to someone who had an interest in seeing things from another’s perspective, a basic human social courtesy, I would bother to answer. If someone wants to know what the church believes re. black and the priesthood, pm me. Please, only if you are interested in hearing the entire background. Don’t bother if you want to bible bash.

So, I will take that as a no then.

Again, with the attacking the poster instead of addressing the subject. Is this standard operating procedure?

 

[Porknpie]

I have had extensive discussions regarding this matter. Dogs (and animals) have a soul but not an eternal one, it ceases to exist. This is per the same EWTN you are quoting, “In the case of plants and animals the soul goes out of existence.” This is opposed to the soul of man, “But in the case of man, the soul remains in existence because it is a spiritual or immaterial thing.” Legitimate question, do Catholics believe an animals soul is material? Or is it just an immaterial ‘thing’ of another, non immortal nature? It is the position of the Church that all life has immortal souls, each valuable and of worth eternally in the eyes of Father. Remember, he knows of each sparrow that falls. Though we are of much more worth than the sparrow, He still knows the sparrow. Anyway, this is a bit light hearted at best.

The main point here is that one way or another, whether our pets are with us or not, we will not care as we will be eternally happy with God, incapable of any sadness. I’m still not understanding where you are getting your theology from that indicates animals will be in heaven with us. Again, though, it matters not. “God’s ways are not our ways, God’s thoughts are not our thoughts” applies here. God in his infinite love will take care of us…

 

[RebeccaJ]

All pets go to heaven, except cats, because they’re atheist.

(Someone said that to me, back when I was an atheist. )

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

All pets go to heaven, except cats, because they’re atheist.

(Someone said that to me, back when I was an atheist. )

Celine Cat is not amused. lol http://www.freyacat.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Ceiling-Cat-Picture.jpg

 

[RebeccaJ]

Celine Cat is not amused. lol http://www.freyacat.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Ceiling-Cat-Picture.jpg

I was not amused when it was said to me either! :crying:

 

[Stephen168]

Read the above carefully. No really. You missed it, read it again. Ok, I’ll help:

Does that help? No?

Yes, the former inhabitants before Europeans arrived; Native Americans. This is what my Mormon friends believed in the 1970’s. But science has shown them and Joseph Smith to be wrong.
Church History:

I was also informed concerning the aboriginal inhabitants of this country, and shown who they were, and from whence they came; a brief sketch of their origin, progress, civilization, laws, governments, of their righteousness and iniquity, and the blessings of God being finally with drawn from them as a people was made known to me:…

In this important and interesting book the history of ancient America is unfolded, from its first settlement by a colony that came from the tower of Babel, at the confusion of languages to the beginning of the fifth century of the Christian era.

We are informed by these records that America in ancient times has been inhabited by two distinct races of people. The first were called Jaredites and came directly from the tower of babel. The second race came directly from he city ofJerusalem, about six hundred years before Christ. They are principally Israelites, of the descendants of Joseph. The Jardites were destroyed about the time that the Israelites came from Jerusalem, who succeeded them in the inheritance of the country. The principal nation of the second race fell in battle towards the close of the fourth century.** The remnants are the Indians that now inhabit this country.**

 

[Stephen168]

Truth be told, the real reason I could never be a catholic is because they deny my Australian Shepherd, Fancy, and my Weimaraner, Fred. having a soul and entry into the Kingdom of God.

Being a Mormon doesn’t change this fact.

 

[wussup]

Yes, the former inhabitants before Europeans arrived; Native Americans. This is what my Mormon friends believed in the 1970’s. But science has shown them and Joseph Smith to be wrong.

See, that is the tricky thing with analyzing scripture without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When one delves into such religious hobbies, it is almost by definition without such guidance. The Scripture says one thing, not another.

Back to the soul thing…the question never was answered, do RC believe non-human souls have a materiality that human souls do not? Also, another related question, aside from Aristotelian logic, what scriptural support is there for this idea of the spirit of man, the spirit of all other living matter being different. In particular I am interested in support for Question 75 of the Summa.

 

[Stephen168]

See, that is the tricky thing with analyzing scripture without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. When one delves into such religious hobbies, it is almost by definition without such guidance. The Scripture says one thing, not another.

The tricky thing is covering up the errors of Joseph Smith. Learning the history of Mormon teaching is the quickest way to knowing the falsehood of Joseph Smith and Mormonism. It changes so fast that you don’t have to go back very far; 40 years in this case.

 

[Stephen168]

Back to the soul thing…the question never was answered, do RC believe non-human souls have a materiality that human souls do not?

I don’t believe any soul has “materiality”

 

[ThatOrthodoxGuy]

Being a Mormon doesn’t change this fact.

well put

 

[wussup]

I don’t believe any soul has “materiality”

Per the EWTN pamphlet, “But in the case of man, the soul remains in existence because it is a spiritual or immaterial thing.” The preposition ‘but’ addresses the ‘soul of man’, excluding it from the following soul is an “immaterial thing”, which makes for the possibility of “remaining in existence”. One would infer from that preposition ‘but’ that animals, et. al., are different than immaterial, or being material. So my question remains, is this pamphlet suggesting that Catholics believe animals, et. al., have material souls, and that material soul extinguishes upon death? I will not attribute to the EWTN the providence of definitively dictating Catholic Doctrine. If EWTN is incorrect, what is correct?

 

[TexanKnight]

Per the EWTN pamphlet, “But in the case of man, the soul remains in existence because it is a spiritual or immaterial thing.” The preposition ‘but’ addresses the ‘soul of man’, excluding it from the following soul is an “immaterial thing”, which makes for the possibility of “remaining in existence”. One would infer from that preposition ‘but’ that animals, et. al., are different than immaterial, or being material. So my question remains, is this pamphlet suggesting that Catholics believe animals, et. al., have material souls, and that material soul extinguishes upon death? I will not attribute to the EWTN the providence of definitively dictating Catholic Doctrine. If EWTN is incorrect, what is correct?

When did a thread about Mormonism became a series of dodges about Catholicism?

 

[wussup]

When did a thread about Mormonism became a series of dodges about Catholicism?

In case you haven’t noticed, I have avoided responded to your polemic statements. However, I am asking a question of legitimate curiosity. It is not a dodge. Gee, I am aghast that you have such problems answering basic questions about your faith. Where should I go to ask?

 

[TexanKnight]

In case you haven’t noticed, I have avoided responded to your polemic statements. However, I am asking a question of legitimate curiosity. It is not a dodge. Gee, I am aghast that you have such problems answering basic questions about your faith. Where should I go to ask?

I totally understand you not responding. You can;t fight truth, no matter how you try to twist it.

But this is not a thread about Catholics. If you are truly interested, start a thread. This thread is about the LDS Church

 

[wussup]

Fair enough. We testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living, and our salvation from personal sin. It is only through Jesus Christ we can be saved; it is through faith in His Sacrifice, recognizing him as our Lord and Savior, repenting of our sins; following through on this with a the Holy Sacrament of Baptism by a priesthood recognized and acknowledged by God as his sole instrument upon the Earth. Further we testify the Bible to be the Word of God, and the Book of Mormon to further testify of Christ Eternal Sacrifice. We testify we are all Gods Children. That He loves us all equally without partiality, so much that He presented his Son to by our Sacrificial Lamb.

 

[TexanKnight]

Fair enough. We testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living, and our salvation from personal sin. It is only through Jesus Christ we can be saved; it is through faith in His Sacrifice, recognizing him as our Lord and Savior, repenting of our sins; following through on this with a the Holy Sacrament of Baptism by a priesthood recognized and acknowledged by God as his sole instrument upon the Earth. Further we testify the Bible to be the Word of God, and the Book of Mormon to further testify of Christ Eternal Sacrifice. We testify we are all Gods Children. That He loves us all equally without partiality, so much that He presented his Son to by our Sacrificial Lamb.

The problem is, it is not the same Jesus of the Bible…so how does that work? Your jesus came from a god who was once a sinful man. And how does your atonement work when BY demanded blood oaths for some atonement? And how does the book of mormon work when it was written copying from thr Bible and other sources by a guy who was a known con man, written about people no one can find in a land no one can locate?

 

[Porknpie]

Per the EWTN pamphlet, “But in the case of man, the soul remains in existence because it is a spiritual or immaterial thing.” The preposition ‘but’ addresses the ‘soul of man’, excluding it from the following soul is an “immaterial thing”, which makes for the possibility of “remaining in existence”. One would infer from that preposition ‘but’ that animals, et. al., are different than immaterial, or being material. So my question remains, is this pamphlet suggesting that Catholics believe animals, et. al., have material souls, and that material soul extinguishes upon death? I will not attribute to the EWTN the providence of definitively dictating Catholic Doctrine. If EWTN is incorrect, what is correct?

Wussup- …the soul of a plant or animal ceases to exist upon death. Man was created in the image of God and to love and serve God. Animals & plants are created for man and were not created to respond to God’s love. The Catechism does not state as doctrine what happens to animals after death. Anything is possible with an all loving God. As you believe otherwise…that animals go to heaven, where do you get the basis for this theology?

From the ETWN article:

One principle is that all living things have a soul. Here soul is defined as what makes an organic body live. Now when any living thing dies, its soul is separated from its body. In the case of plants and animals the soul goes out of existence

The Catechism says:

358 “God created everything for man, but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to him”

 

[wussup]

The problem is, it is not the same Jesus of the Bible…so how does that work? Your jesus came from a god who was once a sinful man. And how does your atonement work when BY demanded blood oaths for some atonement? And how does the book of mormon work when it was written copying from thr Bible and other sources by a guy who was a known con man, written about people no one can find in a land no one can locate?

We testify that Jesus is the Christ, the same as testified by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and the rest of the New Testament, even the Old Testament Prophets and Apostles. It is a sin to say that God has sinned, either his Father or His Son.

The so-called “blood atonement,” by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.
The issue of “Blood Atonement” is a classic in the charges used against the LDS Church by anti-Mormons. It originated with the so-called Danite band formed in Far West, MO by Sampson Avard (a group condemned by the LDS Church from the beginning). Blood Atonement continues to rear its ugly head because critics would rather find something sinister to lodge against the LDS Church, than to accept the facts.
Per Bruce R. McKonkie:

This is in reply to your letter of September 20, 1978, to President Spencer W. Kimball of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in which you asked some questions about the so-called doctrine of blood atonement. I have been asked, by President Kimball and by the First Presidency to respond to your inquiries

      You note that I and President Joseph Fielding Smith and some of our early church leaders have said and written about this doctrine and you asked if the doctrine of blood atonement is an official doctrine of the Church today.

      If by blood atonement is meant the atoning sacrifice of Christ, the answer is Yes.  If by blood atonement is meant the shedding of the blood of men to atone in some way for their own sins, the answer is No.

      We believe that the blood of Christ, shed in the Garden of Gethsemane and on the cross of Calvary, cleanses all men from sin on condition of repentance.  As expressed by a Book of Mormon scripture: "Salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord Omnipotent. (Mosiah 3:18.)

      We do not believe that it is necessary for men in this day to shed their own blood to receive a remission of sins.  This is said with a full awareness of what I and others have written and said on this subject in times past

      In order to understand what Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Charles W. Penrose and others have said, we must mention that there are some sins for which the blood of Christ alone does not cleanse a person.  These include blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (as defined by the Church) and that murder which is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice.  However, and this cannot be stressed too strongly, this law has not been given to the Church at any time in this dispensation.  It has no application whatever to anyone now living whether he is a member or a non-member of the Church.

Mr. Thomas B. McAffee
October 18, 1978
Page 2
There simply is no such thing among us as a doctrine of blood atonement that grants a remission of sins or confers any other benefit upon a person because his own blood is shed for sins. Let me say categorically and unequivocally that this doctrine can only operate in a day when there is no separation of Church and State and when the power to take life is vested in the ruling theocracy as was the case in the day of Moses. From the day of Joseph Smith to the present there has been no single instance of so-called blood atonement under any pretext.

      Anything I have written or anything said by anyone else must be understood in the light of the foregoing limitation.  Brigham Young and the others were speaking of a theoretical principle that operated in ages past and not in either their or our day.  As I recall, Brigham Young's illustrations were taken from the day of Moses and the history of ancient Israel and could not be applied today.

      There is no such a doctrine as blood atonement in the Church today nor has there been at any time.  Any statements to the contrary are either idle speculation or pure fantasy.  It is certainly not the current teaching of the Church and I have never in over 60 years of regular church attendance heard a single sermon on the subject or even a discussion in any church class.

      You asked if the statements of our leaders of the past, including those found in the Journal of Discourses, represent the official stand of the Church.  The answer, as indicated in the comments above set forth, is that they do not.  The statements pertain to a theoretical principle that has been neither revealed to nor practiced by us.

      If by blood atonement is meant capital punishment, then any proper analysis of the subject would call the matter by the name capital punishment and not by the name blood atonement.  To use this latter term is wholly misleading and stirs up the idea that we believe in that which we most emphatically do not believe.

      We believe in capital punishment. In a revelation to Joseph Smith, on February 9, 1831, the Lord said:  "And now, behold, I speak unto the church.  Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come.  And again, I say, thou shalt not kill; but he that killeth shall die." (D. & C. 42:18-19.)

      In answering some false and scurrilous charges published against the Latter-day Saints, the President of the Church, who then was Wilford Woodruff, on January 9, 1891, wrote to the

Mr. Thomas B. McAffee
October 18, 1978
Page 3
editor of the Illustrated American. President Woodruff referred to the doctrine herein being considered as “the blood atonement fiction,” and as “the false theory of blood atonement copied by the writer in the American from old newspaper fiction.”

      Then he recites what the doctrine of the Church is when the term blood atonement is used simply as a synonym for capital punishment.

      "It is a fundamental doctrine of our creed that a murderer cannot be forgiven; that he 'hath not eternal life abiding in him'; that if a member of our Church, having received the light of the Holy Spirit, commits this capital crime, he will not receive forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come.  The revelations of God to the Church abound in commandments forbidding us to shed blood."

      With specific reference to capital punishment as practiced by the State and not the Church he said:  "It is part of our faith that the only atonement a murdere[r] can make for his 'sin unto death' is the sheddinq of his own blood, according to the fiat of the Almighty after the flood:  'Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed.'  But the law must be executed by the lawfully appointed officer.  This is 'blood atonement,' so much perverted by maligners of our faith.  We believe also in the atonement wrought by the shedding of Christ's blood on Calvary; that it is efficacious for all the race of Adam for the sin committed by Adam, and for the individual sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and who receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of authorized hands.  Capital crime committed by such an enlightened person cannot be condoned by the Redeemer's blood.  For him there is 'no more sacrifice for sin'; his life is forfeit, and he only can pay the penalty.  There is no other blood atonement taught, practiced or made part of the creed of the Latter-day Saints."

      I repeat:  Except for the atonement of Christ, which is or should be a part of the creeds of all Christian churches; and except for the use of the term "blood atonement" as a synonym--nothing more--of "capital punishment" where "enlightened" members of the Church are concerned, there is no such a doctrine in this dispensation as blood atonement.

      I have in my file a letter dated February 12, 1971, signed by Presidents Joseph Fielding Smith and Harold B. Lee as and for the First Presidency which shows that the theoretical principle of blood atonement has no application in any dispensation when there is a separation of Church and State.  They refer to the death of Christ by Jewish hands as a "capital crime," and then quote the following from the third chapter of Acts:

Mr. Thomas B. McAffee
October 18, 1978
Page 4
"And now, brethren, I wot that through ignorance ye did it, as did also your rulers . . .

      "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

      "And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you.":

The last is a lie.

 

[wussup]

[cont.]

Then they say: “From the above it is understood that this is a matter which must be left in the hands of the Lord, not for man to determine.”

      Now, as to your final question--whether blood atonement, "if" it is "a valid doctrine," would hale any affect on the mode of imposing the death penalty, I need only say:

1. Since there is no such thing as blood atonement, except as indicated above, the mode of execution could have no bearing on the matter of atoning for one’s sins; and
2. If we are speaking simply of capital punishment (and falsely calling it blood atonement), still I can see no reason for supposing that it makes the slightest difference how an execution is accomplished.
   As far as I can see there is no difference between a firing squad, an electric chair, a gas chamber, or hanging. Death is death and I would interpret the shedding of man’s blood in legal executions as a figurative expression which means the taking of life. There seems to me to be no present significance as to whether an execution is by a firing squad or in some other way. I, of course, deleted my article on “hanging” from the Second Edition of Mormon Doctrine because of the reasoning here mentioned.

      As far as I am concerned you are at liberty to quote from or use this letter in any way you deem proper.