Mormon's & Mary

[majick275]

well there you have it. from a known expert with well documented evidence to support it…

here is where you can see the consistent teaching on Mary:
catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp

here on baptism:

catholic.com/library/sacraments.asp

more detail on that here:

catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

good info on development:

catholic.com/library/Can_Dogma_Develop.asp

the real status of limbo and how it applies to unbaptized infants:

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0101fr.asp

it should be noted that things that were canonized relatively recently have been taught all along. this can be seen in both scripture and tradition.

 

[rmcmullan]

Majick, thanks for the links. I was especially interested in the one “Can Dogma Develop” but I am disappointed because it seems they are saying, “While God’s truths are eternal, man’s understanding of them can take time to develop”. But that seems to work out to exactly what I was saying.

 

[majick275]

I would tell you that the difference is one of consistency. Catholic doctrinal development moves down the same “path” if you will. for example, Mary is special, Mary is Holy, Mary went straight to heaven, etc.

This is opposed to doctrine changing based on situations. polygamy is good, no polygamy, secret polygamy for select individuals, polygamy required for exaltation, no earthly polygamy, etc.

and no I really don’t want rabbit trail after the assumption of the BVM or LDS polygamy, i use those examples here merely in an illustrative manner since we’ve all discussed them previously.

 

[rmcmullan]

Sorry, but I don’t find that much more helpful, mostly because consistency is like fairness, very open-ended and subject to wildly individual personal interpretations.

After reading that link to Origen’s 15 anathemas, I thought, Holy Smokes, no one in their right mind would ever think that way nowadays. Well, I know we have the printing press now and mass communication of all sorts which greatly aids the cause of education. But assuming that Origen was an intelligent man, and what the Catholic church evolved to, I would say some distance has been covered.

So, to my original point. It would be at least disingenuous for someone to post Origen’s teachings somewhere and say, “This is what Catholics teach!” But back in his day, it might have been.

 

[majick275]

fortunately the Catholic church has official dogma clearly defined. this is seen in the various official documents produced by the ecumenical councils and papal decrees. It can be seen thoroughly documented in canon law and in a more practical use mode in the catechism.

as to Origen, one has to look even at ECF’s for their “role” in the church. if for instance a priest or even a bishop expresses opinions in their writings they are just that…opinions. this would be analogous to LDS writers publishing their own private books. (hugh nibley, cleon skousen, etc.) some ECF’s by virtue of their position in the church would be closer to James Talmadge or Bruce R. Mconkie and then popes just writing books would be similar to LDS presidents writing their own books.

some differences should be noted though. LDS Apostles are ordained as prophets, seers and revelators. they along with the LDS presidents claim direct revelation form God for what they teach. what they proclaim in general conference is considered to be on level with scripture.

Catholic writings have very strict guidelines for being classified as binding doctrine. it is obvious then what the official dogma is. that is what cannot be changed. for instance, a future pope or council could never proclaim that Mary didn’t remain ever virgin or that the God wasn’t truly present in the eucharist.

They COULD later more clearly define how that is so. For instance on the real presence it has “developed” (doctrinally) that the wine when consecrated during mass becomes truly the blood of Christ yet maintains the appearance to all senses of wine. it was always taught that it was truly Christ’s blood but it is the doctrinal development that helps us understand why after it is changed it still looks, smells, tastes like wine.

I’m still giving you Mconkie for Origen straight up.

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay, for an example, let’s take Acts 10, where the church was steered in an entirely new direction and the gospel was to preached to the world instead of the Jews only. Do you consider that still part of the open revelation period, and if not, how much leeway to steer the church away from its roots does any modern day leadership have?

Catholic writings have very strict guidelines for being classified as binding doctrine.

Maybe you’re right, that’s the way to go. Some of the teachings are simply not subject to debate and if the Catholic church has these clearly defined, then kudos to them. You’re right in pointing out the same lack in the Mormon church but you’ve had more time. Except for the Amish, women don’t wear hats anymore either so not all the advice from either the Bible or a modern leadership is on the same level.

You also bring up an interesting point about McConkie, that he was ordained an Apostle and therefore a prophet, seer and revelator but even he needed the occasional “correction” from the prophet.

 

[Allweather]

Okay, for an example, let’s take Acts 10, where the church was steered in an entirely new direction and the gospel was to preached to the world instead of the Jews only. Do you consider that still part of the open revelation period, and if not, how much leeway to steer the church away from its roots does any modern day leadership have?

I don’t see how you can say the Church “was steered in an entirely new direction” in Acts. Jesus instructed the Apostles, Go into all the world… He also made other comments to them during his ministry that intimated that the saving Gospel would be preached not only to the Jews, but to non-Jews as well. Acts doesn’t show them going in an “entirely new direction” but rather following out the instructions and prophetic words of Jesus.

Time and again, what we’re really talking about is competing interpretations of Scripture. However, in this case, the meaning seems clear, and not much open to variant interpretations.

 

[james71]

Being a new mormon on this board of course I’m drawn to any topic with Mormon in the title. I hope any responses to my comments will be thoughtful and respectful. As incredible as it may seem to some, I believe what I believe with the same passion and spiritual conviction as anyone. I feel about my faith just like you do about yours. It is deeply rooted in my heart and it affects everything I do for the better. Anonymous forums are challenging places in which to discuss things of the soul. It seems a little more care could be taken here than what I’ve seen so far in these interfaith discussions.

I’ve been an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS for 20 years and I’ve never been taught that God had sex with Mary. I’ve never been taught He didn’t. I’ve been taught what you all have been taught from the same passages of scripture. Have I heard latter day saints speculate on the topic? Rarely. Have priesthood holders of the past in various capacities speculated in public about this topic? It wouldn’t surprise me. But modern LDS leaders do not teach this. It is certainly not a tenant of our faith. To claim such is very inflammatory and sensational and it sure gets people’s attention though. If you would like to know what mormon’s believe, ask one. Better yet, if you want to know what the Modern LDS church teaches on a given topic - try the website or official materials in print. Any given mormon may believe a lot of things about which there is no official position. I guarantee there will be nothing about God having sex with Mary among official chruch publications. You will also be hard pressed to find anything about God’s genitalia. (I thought that was a really crude remark and again rather inflammatory.)

Are Mormon’s revisionist? I don’t’ think so. Is our faith and understanding of the gospel evolving? Absolutely. We are the best ‘Mormons’ we’ve ever been. We understand our own doctrine better than ever and hopefully we will continue to grow in the knowledge and understanding of our faith. Isn’t one of the defining characteristic of something that is alive is that it changes, it grows? Mormons, like all people are products of our environment and our experiences. It is difficult to cleanly separate the divine and the humane in our natures and some of the things we feel and believe and say are reactions from our culture and tradition - not inspiration. We have never claimed infallibility for our leaders’ lives or words. Some will then say “If it is all up for grabs then what do you have?” … trying to nail jello to a wall. Nothing about our church is ‘up for grabs’ - we proceed and progress under the influence of the Holy Ghost only as fast as our weakest members can run. You pull too hard and you break the chain at the weakest link. Is everything said by leaders of the ancient church between 0 and 200 AD believed and followed in any church today? Of course not. We grow. We change - hopefully ever forward towards our Father and his Christ.

James.

 

[Allweather]

James… Welcome.

Why doesn’t the LDS church have a catechism?

When one wants to know what the Catholic Church teaches, one has only to pick up the Catechism of the Catholic Church and read it, to find out.

With Mormons, it is a lot less direct, as you correctly note in your post where you say, if we want to know what Mormons believe ask a Mormon. Well, the problem with this is that Mormons themselves often don’t know what their church teaches. Since there is no Mormon catechism, there is no one place someone can go to find out EXACTLY what Mormons believe and why.

So, maybe you could explain to us Catholics, who are accustomed to an orderly, systematic theology, why it is that the LDS church doesn’t put its teachings into a catechism.

God Bless…

 

[Allweather]

Okay, for an example, let’s take Acts 10, where the church was steered in an entirely new direction and the gospel was to preached to the world instead of the Jews only. Do you consider that still part of the open revelation period, and if not, how much leeway to steer the church away from its roots does any modern day leadership have?

Sorry, rmcmullan, I didn’t have time to look up the Bible verses that apply to what I was trying to say earlier. Here it is, the Great Commission, Matthew 28:18 and onward:

““And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days even to the consummation of the world.””

There are many other Biblical references to the fact that God meant the Gospel to go out into the whole world and not be limited to the Jews. But this is a good one!

At the Council of Jerusalem undoubtedly the Apostles used these many Scriptural references, both OT and their oral knowledge of what Jesus had taught them (only a small part of which is recorded in Scripture) to arrive at the conclusion they did. This is a perfect example of how the revelation has already been given in its fullness, but our understanding of it is still being developed. That is a very big difference from the Mormon concept of ongoing revelation, in which things can change dramatically in an instant.

 

[james71]

Allweather - thanks for your reply. You’re right, there is no LDS catechism. The closest thing I can think of would be the Articles of Faith - something Joseph Smith authored when asked by a newspaper columnist to encapsulate the Church’s doctrine. I’ll link it for you here but be aware that no one considers this a litmus test for mormonality. Official mormon understanding on spiritual and religious topics are readily available from the church’s website.

How much of the Catholic Catechism deals with essential doctrines of salvation and how much is informational and faith promoting (deviance from which does not constitute heresy)?

As a Latter Day Saint I feel I am given great latitude to approach God in a personal way. I don’t feel a set of beliefs is forced upon me. I do feel there are revealed truths, canonized in our official scripture that define us. It would be meaningless to claim association to an organization but uphold none of its guiding principles. But ANYTHING outside of canon is/was meant for the audience and setting in which it was received and delivered. God reveals himself line by line, precept by precept, each building on the last. Some Old Testament teachings are (IMO) directly contrary to the New. Does that make the revelations of the past invalid and the mouthpieces who communicated those teachings false prophets? I don’t believe so. They were giving God’s word to a specific people at a specific time. God does not change. We do and our capacity to understand his BIg Picture expands over time.

LDS have a serious responsibility to struggle and strive to gain their own spiritual witness and conviction about the doctrines of the church. It is not easy but the growth we enjoy because of this open-ended invitation is worth it.

Thanks for listening. =)

Articles of Faith
LDS.ORG

 

[james71]

At the Council of Jerusalem undoubtedly the Apostles used these many Scriptural references, both OT and their oral knowledge of what Jesus had taught them (only a small part of which is recorded in Scripture) to **arrive at the conclusion they did. **

This *is *a very important difference in how Mormon’s view God’s leadership of his Church and how many other churches view it. Are you saying that an official body of early Christian leaders got together during the Council of Jerusalem and compared notes (written and oral) and decided among themselves what they felt God wanted to next? Please clarify if I have understood you incorrectly?

Mormon’s would say that the Lord’s will was revealed, clarified and made plain through inspiration and revelation to his authorized servants. Do you feel such an event is still considered possible to Catholics? I understand that many religions believe that direct revelation is a thing of the past. It was my understanding that Catholics believe that we don’t/can’t rely only on what was said in the past but that God continues to reveal his will to his Church.

Interesting stuff =)

 

[james71]

In thinking about what is the Litmus test for mormonality I have come up with a few indisputables I think, in order of importance.

1. Belief and worship of one God - God the Father, his Son and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.
2. Acceptance of and sincere effort to adhere to the Gospel’s teachings and commandments.
3. Belief in and reverence for the Holy Scriptures as the revealed word of God for the authoritative instruction and enlightenment of men (this includes all four books in the mormon canon.)
4. Acceptance of the divine calling of prophets and apostles, ancient and modern as God’s mouthpieces and representatives, in as much as they are able to truly represent God in guidance and leadership.

If you accept the first two you are Christian. If you accept all four of these tenants you are a Latter Day Saint - a subset of Christianity.

Interestingly, you know what you will find plenty of reference to in modern LDS literature? How you live your life. Our leaders spend the vast majority of their time instructing us and admonishing us to be a little better, to more faithfully emulate Christ’s example in how we treat others and how we honor God with our behavior. Like a medicine, Christianity improves us only as we internalize it and let it work within us. If you are abusing your wife or children, if you are stealing from your employer, if you are withholding your abundance from the needy - you won’t long be a Mormon nor has Christ truly penetrated your heart. I think that is what Mormons believe. Isn’t that what Christ taught would separate us at the last day - not our creeds or our banners - but our conduct?

Mathew 25

31 ¶ When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?
38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee?
39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee?
40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.
46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[rmcmullan]

Allweather, you’re going off into the details of an example without considering the larger point. Peter had to be persuaded/taught through a vision that the rules regarding missionary work had changed. It was a change. Churches can and should change. The church is not God and must change if it is to progress. But there’s limit to what can change.

When a church develops sufficient faith and strength, it should move forward. Likewise, if it becomes weak, it should be reproved. The letters to the seven churches in Revelations shows this.

As for a catechism, check the Articles of Faith (scriptures.lds.org/en/a_of_f/1)). I thought those were pretty well known but maybe not.

 

[Allweather]

Allweather, you’re going off into the details of an example without considering the larger point. Peter had to be persuaded/taught through a vision that the rules regarding missionary work had changed. It was a change. Churches can and should change. The church is not God and must change if it is to progress. But there’s limit to what can change.

Au contraire, mon frere. I am considering the larger point. The larger point is that nothing NEW was revealed unto the Apostles regarding the inclusion of the gentiles. The only thing that changed was their understanding of what had already been revealed by Jesus, and through Scripture. This is the critical difference between Mormon religion and Catholic religion. Mormon religion thinks that new revelation can come along any minute that will reverse direction from what had gone before. Catholic religion knows that anything that comes along “new” must conform to what was before. If it doesn’t, then it is false.

I’m familiar with Joseph Smith Jr’s articles of faith. Those are not a catechism. If you want to see what a real catechism is like, pick up a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can also find it online.

 

[rmcmullan]

The larger point is that nothing NEW was revealed unto the Apostles regarding the inclusion of the gentiles.

Okay, if you’re going down that alley, I can’t really discuss it anymore. I think you’re just closing your eyes and wishing away all evidence to the contrary. I know this is Catholic doctrine but I’m not even sure that it applies in this case.

 

[Allweather]

Allweather - thanks for your reply. You’re right, there is no LDS catechism. The closest thing I can think of would be the Articles of Faith - something Joseph Smith authored when asked by a newspaper columnist to encapsulate the Church’s doctrine. I’ll link it for you here but be aware that no one considers this a litmus test for mormonality. Official mormon understanding on spiritual and religious topics are readily available from the church’s website.

Thanks, James. I’m familiar with Joseph Smith, Jr’s articles and how they came to be. But those do not constitute a catechism, not by a long shot. For instance, take the first article, as found in the Pearl of Great Price: We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. Without any elaboration, one might conclude from that brief statement that Mormons believe in the same triune God that Christians believe in. But that wouldn’t be so. A catechism could help explain the Mormon doctrines of plurality of gods such that each of those persons is a separate god, rather than three persons of a unity.

Or, take article 12: We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. I wonder if the history of LDS refusal to obey United States law in the period between, say, 1850 and 1890, is an example of proper submission to secular authority. The LDS had to be forced under threat of arms to drop their polygamous practices, and these practices continued well into the 20th century, in spite of being proscribed by federal as well as state laws.

How much of the Catholic Catechism deals with essential doctrines of salvation and how much is informational and faith promoting (deviance from which does not constitute heresy)?

Why don’t you get a copy, or locate it online, and read for yourself? There is too much in it for me to get specific about in such a limited space.

As a Latter Day Saint I feel I am given great latitude to approach God in a personal way. I don’t feel a set of beliefs is forced upon me.

I agree. And, the absence of a Catechism leads you to believe that you can believe just about anything you want to believe and still be a good Mormon. At what point are the real teachings of the LDS religion driven home with clarity?

LDS have a serious responsibility to struggle and strive to gain their own spiritual witness and conviction about the doctrines of the church. It is not easy but the growth we enjoy because of this open-ended invitation is worth it.

So where do Mormons find these doctrines? Are they given the 13 articles and told to meditate upon them until they get a witness and conviction and then, whatever results from that is OK?

Thanks for listening. =)

Same here, thanks for listening.

 

[james71]

We may be straying so I apologize for feeding it. I won’t tell you what catholics believe because I’m not one. I will try to explain my own beliefs and what I understand to be ‘official’ church teaching on a topic. I do think you are rather generous in covering the entirety of the catholic catechism with a blanket of conformity “to what was before.” How does something new ‘conform to what was before’ and still be new? Are you suggesting that all catholic doctrine conforms to some precedent? Maybe you could give me some examples of ‘new’ catholic doctrine that actually conforms to previously established truth. I’m no expert on your religion but - can you help me understand how celibacy conforms to a divine precedant in your mind? Celibacy seems like a completely new, unprecedented way to live one’s life - quite contrary to the patterns God himself established from the get-go, in my opinion. I certainly respect your differing opinion.

When you tell me that I believe that ‘new revelation can come along any minute that will reverse direction from what had gone before.’ I’d like you to be more specific. Can you also give me some examples? I’d like to better know what you mean before sharing what I believe.

I do believe God can do what he wants and is not constrained by mortal minds. If God showed up tomorrow in a '62 Coupe DeVille and had three heads would you argue with him? We should all surrender our wills and puny minds in the face of divine light. I have wondered if Mormon theology on things like the corporal nature of God turn out to be at least partially accurate - will Catholics argue with Him about it? 'But you can’t have a body of flesh and bone!" Seems rather silly to shut your mind to the possibility that we have not understood all that we thing we have understood.

I hope my jocularity hasn’t offended. We are swinging wide of truly debatable issues. My over-arcing goal is to treat others’ beliefs with the same respect I hope they treat mine.

Your friend,

James.

 

[james71]

BTW, I’m out for the night. Thanks for the interesting convo.

James

 

[Allweather]

Okay, if you’re going down that alley, I can’t really discuss it anymore. I think you’re just closing your eyes and wishing away all evidence to the contrary. I know this is Catholic doctrine but I’m not even sure that it applies in this case.

I haven’t SEEN any evidence to the contrary yet. I’ve provided some Scriptural evidence that demonstrates that the promise of salvation was intended, from the git-go, for ALL MANKIND and not just for the Jews. Go back and read Genesis 12 and see what the promise to Abram was. “All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you.” The Bible is full of these inferences. Jesus taught it in what little of what he said and did got recorded in the Bible. And yet, you are trying to maintain, against all Scriptural and historical evidence, that the decision of the Apostles to widen missionary activities unto the gentiles represented a complete change of direction.

That theory fits in with Mormon revelatory notions, ie that God is constantly revealing NEW and DIFFERENT things to man via his prophets, seers and revelaters. That is an enticing theory. But it leads to disaster, and heterodoxy. Eventually, prophets go sour and start prophesying false things, and new theologies that are hard to square with what has already been revealed previously, necessitating the writing of new scriptures.

Prove me wrong, friend.