Mormons prefer to prey on which? - Catholics or Protestants?

[Jerusha]

Well, we don’t exactly put them into gas chambers to convert them, if that is what you had in mind! . . /

I firmly agree. Although LDS do not kill those who refuse their teachings, some do have a talent for making life awfully uncomfortable for those who have no interest in converting. The more resistant they are, the more they harrass. No wonder they have a serious PR problem.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the point at which the church apostatized. That is a good illustration of how the church should have continued to operate if it had not apostatized. We believe that the institution of the Twelve Apostles was meant to continue in the church, and in fact form the governing counsel of the church. The fact that it didn’t is an indication of the loss of that priesthood authority in the church.

Sometimes I am amazed when I run across pockets of the Protestant community where the Apostolic teaching has been retained. I wonder why this, when so much else was lost?

Again, that is not the point at which the church had apostatized. The church was fully functional and operational at that point in time.

I am eager to learn when the apostasy occurred, how and why it happened.

By the Apostasy we don’t mean that the Holy Spirit left the church, or ceased to function or be operational in the lives of faithful Christians. If you are going to fire millions of questions at me about the Apostasy, I think you should first read that article I had given in post #55 where most of your questions have already been answered.

OK. Just the hierarchy aposotosized,then?

We think the Pope is a good man, and does a lot of good things. But we disagree with the Catholics that he still holds the keys of the priesthood.

Did got take them away, or did he lose them? What prevented Christ from preserving His priests? Was He too weak to do what He said He would?

You are venturing into different areas of doctrine now, which should be discussed separately. To cut a long story short, we also believe there is only one true supreme God. The LDS doctrine of the plurality of gods is first of all in agreement with what the early Christians believed; and secondly, it simply defines a degree of salvation in the kingdom of God. We become gods by grace, and remain subservient to and continue to worship the one true God of heaven, which is the Father; and also His Son Jesus Christ.

No, you are not in agreement with what early Christians believed. Not by a long shot.

I understand why you believe that you are, though. I had not realized before the lengths to which LDS had taken the notion of theosis.

 

[zerinus]

I firmly agree. Although LDS do not kill those who refuse their teachings, some do have a talent for making life awfully uncomfortable for those who have no interest in converting. The more resistant they are, the more they harrass. No wonder they have a serious PR problem.

Mormons neither harrass anybody, nor do they have a PR problem. Dream on, if you please.

 

[zerinus]

Sometimes I am amazed when I run across pockets of the Protestant community where the Apostolic teaching has been retained. I wonder why this, when so much else was lost?

Not sure what you mean by that. Please explain.

I am eager to learn when the apostasy occurred, how and why it happened.

See this article, as previously mentioned.

OK. Just the hierarchy aposotosized, then?

No, by the Apostasy we mean that the priesthood authority of the Church was lost.

Did got take them away, or did he lose them? What prevented Christ from preserving His priests? Was He too weak to do what He said He would?

All explained in that article. See above.

No, you are not in agreement with what early Christians believed. Not by a long shot.

We think that we are!

I understand why you believe that you are, though. I had not realized before the lengths to which LDS had taken the notion of theosis.

Our doctrine is not derive from theosis. It is derived by revelation from heaven. But it is intriguing to find such similarities between it and theosis.

 

[dianaiad]

Marriage in this life, is meant to reflect in an imperfect way, the perfect unity of the Trinity. Since we are with God in heaven, why why would we need marriage? We will still be with our loved ones and friends in heaven, plus, we’ll be in the presence of God. What more could we possibly want?

In Christ,
Michael

Ok, this is a very serious question, not a snipe or a snark or anything like that.

Where in Catholic teachings, scriptures or Tradition does it say that you will 'still be with our loved ones and friends in heaven…???"

What, precisely then, does Catholicism consider heaven to be?

 

[dianaiad]

Well the vows don’t say anything about losing ones family after death which is what Dianaid claims we believe. And do you believe that family only consists of people you are married to, I have a somewhat wider group I define as family:shrug:

Look, I’m not commenting on what you believe individually. I know that you all hope for a continuance of the family; such a hope is ingrained in each of us, I think.

The problem is, though, that your wedding vows (and ours, too, if they are not ‘sealings for Time and all Eternity’ in a Temple) are very, very specific; the marriage lasts until death. Period. After one spouse dies, the other is free to marry in the Catholic church, even though a divorce does not so free him or her.

So I can’t help but think that, y’know what? I think the priest MEANS that when he says “until death do you part.” Why not? WE do when a couple is married by a Bishop outside Temple walls.

What I am asking, quite seriously, is what is it in Catholic teachings, scriptural or traditional, that contradicts that?

What we say to people is, look, we believe that marriage CAN last for eternity, that families CAN be ‘sealed’ together as a family unit, and we believe it so much that we officially say so when we marry people in the Temple. That’s what we believe. It is up to you to place that up against what you believe and decide which are ‘true.’

I would be very grateful, myself, if some one of you would give me some chapter and verse regarding this, because I am stuck with two things here: first, there are the standard vows and marriage practices of the CAtholics which seem rather clearly to indicate that marriage ends at death. Second, I have the arguments I am given BY others (including Catholics) that our practice of sealing for time and all eternity (Eternal Marriage that does not end at death) is wrong because there is 'no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven."

The standard interpretation of that is, well…all the bonds are dissolved, people aren’t married any more. No relationship with your wife/husband that you don’t have with every other soul in heaven.

At the same time, I am given the 'what makes you think we aren’t going to have our families in heaven? ’ question. My answer is, well, you guys just told me so.

What are we to think, guys, eh?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Look, I’m not commenting on what you believe individually. I know that you all hope for a continuance of the family; such a hope is ingrained in each of us, I think.

The problem is, though, that your wedding vows (and ours, too, if they are not ‘sealings for Time and all Eternity’ in a Temple) are very, very specific; the marriage lasts until death. Period. After one spouse dies, the other is free to marry in the Catholic church, even though a divorce does not so free him or her.

So I can’t help but think that, y’know what? I think the priest MEANS that when he says “until death do you part.” Why not? WE do when a couple is married by a Bishop outside Temple walls.

What I am asking, quite seriously, is what is it in Catholic teachings, scriptural or traditional, that contradicts that?

What we say to people is, look, we believe that marriage CAN last for eternity, that families CAN be ‘sealed’ together as a family unit, and we believe it so much that we officially say so when we marry people in the Temple. That’s what we believe. It is up to you to place that up against what you believe and decide which are ‘true.’

I would be very grateful, myself, if some one of you would give me some chapter and verse regarding this, because I am stuck with two things here: first, there are the standard vows and marriage practices of the CAtholics which seem rather clearly to indicate that marriage ends at death. Second, I have the arguments I am given BY others (including Catholics) that our practice of sealing for time and all eternity (Eternal Marriage that does not end at death) is wrong because there is 'no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven."

The standard interpretation of that is, well…all the bonds are dissolved, people aren’t married any more. No relationship with your wife/husband that you don’t have with every other soul in heaven.

At the same time, I am given the 'what makes you think we aren’t going to have our families in heaven? ’ question. My answer is, well, you guys just told me so.

What are we to think, guys, eh?

post 60

 

[zaffiroborant]

Ok, give him some sources…but what is your problem with explaining it to HIM?

I had real monks and priests explain Marianism to me, and I believe even you have to agree that I understand your reverence for her, why you pray to her and what you are NOT doing when you pray to her for intercession.

Is it so tough for you to do the same for him in re. the trinity?

Why can’t I get an answer to the question
Why is it ok for LDS to teach Trinitarian doctrine to 12 year old’s but it is unacceptable for Catholics to teach LDS doctrine to their 12 year old’s?

 

[rinnie]

Thank you for bringing that up. That is not the point at which the church apostatized. That is a good illustration of how the church should have continued to operate if it had not apostatized. We believe that the institution of the Twelve Apostles was meant to continue in the church, and in fact form the governing counsel of the church. The fact that it didn’t is an indication of the loss of that priesthood authority in the church.

Again, that is not the point at which the church had apostatized. The church was fully functional and operational at that point in time.

By the Apostasy we don’t mean that the Holy Spirit left the church, or ceased to function or be operational in the lives of faithful Christians. If you are going to fire millions of questions at me about the Apostasy, I think you should first read that article I had given in post #55 where most of your questions have already been answered.

We think the Pope is a good man, and does a lot of good things. But we disagree with the Catholics that he still holds the keys of the priesthood.

You are venturing into different areas of doctrine now, which should be discussed separately. To cut a long story short, we also believe there is only one true supreme God. The LDS doctrine of the plurality of gods is first of all in agreement with what the early Christians believed; and secondly, it simply defines a degree of salvation in the kingdom of God. We become gods by grace, and remain subservient to and continue to worship the one true God of heaven, which is the Father; and also His Son Jesus Christ.

Joseph Smith said that of Jesus Christ, not of himself. That was his take on 1 Corinthians 15:24–28. There is nothing sinister about that comment.

I understand you disagree with the Catholic’s that is easy to see. But again where is your proof that The Pope lost the keys. Who may I ask again took them from him. Because as I am sure you can plainly see he is still there. Again can you show me proof in scripture that said that Apostolic succession ends. Actually I showed you scripture that say it does not. Those are the words of Christ he said he will give the Priest and leaders of the Church the words until the end of time. What do you think of that scripture, ignore it or what?

And I did indeed read what you quoted in your post and again as I said you are going to have to do better then that. Again may I ask did Jesus lie to us, Again I think not. You answer makes no sense at all. What about acts 20:28 The Holy Spirit appointed you overseers to tend the church, Jn 20:22 As my Father sent Me I send you receive the Holy spirit. Acts 13:3 the laid hands on them and sent them off. Acts 14:11 t he appointed prebysters in each church. Tit 1:5 appooint presbyters in every town as I directed you.

Now you say you believe the Holy Spirit is still alive in the Church, how us that possible if you deny the power given to Priests by the Holy Spirit not be be alive? Explain please?

Also JS was self appointed. Again goes totally against scripture. Scripture says you are called to the life from Christ. Not yourself. Explain please?

 

[rinnie]

Again you said the Priesthood authority was lost. And then you gave me scripture that makes no sense about the Priesthood being lost. That scriptue does not say that by a long shot. The Church was built upon foundation of Apostles and Prophets and is to this day.

why if the Priesthood authorrity is lost is Acts 1:20 say let another take his office. Could you explain that? Either Jesus had the Power to anoint Priests or he didn’t. We know he did. Now if you deny Apostolic Succession you deny the Power Jesus had in the first Place.

 

[ParkerD]

Why can’t I get an answer to the question
Why is it ok for LDS to teach Trinitarian doctrine to 12 year old’s but it is unacceptable for Catholics to teach LDS doctrine to their 12 year old’s?

Zaffiroborant,
As you had previously noted, such teaching would depend on the source, especially if it is described as “doctrine.” Twelve-year-olds are curious, naturally asking questions. I think it is a good thing if a teacher will try and understand beliefs different than their own, and answer questions honestly such as to say, “From what I have understood, their teaching on that particular question is as follows…” Then the student could decide if they wanted to seek more information from a primary source.

But it is a far different thing to teach or present information using biases and words that denigrate such as “brainwashed” or “cult” since they have negative connotations in the world today, generally. (I am not implying that you in particular would.) If a teacher thinks their own biases will strongly impact how they answer a question, they ought to at least acknowledge that to a group of students, or say the student should look it up from a primary source, not from a biased source.

I was not trying to imply I would ever attempt to “teach Trinitarian doctrine”–only to be able to answer a potential question with an honest and hopefully fair but somewhat brief answer that reflected an attempt to understand a religion. I think if students hear that a teacher has tried to understand another religion fairly, then they can feel less threatened by the world around them as they come to realize that people have different perspectives and that’s not only acceptable but is a good thing.

 

[tundramom]

Look, I’m not commenting on what you believe individually. I know that you all hope for a continuance of the family; such a hope is ingrained in each of us, I think.

The problem is, though, that your wedding vows (and ours, too, if they are not ‘sealings for Time and all Eternity’ in a Temple) are very, very specific; the marriage lasts until death. Period. After one spouse dies, the other is free to marry in the Catholic church, even though a divorce does not so free him or her.

So I can’t help but think that, y’know what? I think the priest MEANS that when he says “until death do you part.” Why not? WE do when a couple is married by a Bishop outside Temple walls.

What I am asking, quite seriously, is what is it in Catholic teachings, scriptural or traditional, that contradicts that?

What we say to people is, look, we believe that marriage CAN last for eternity, that families CAN be ‘sealed’ together as a family unit, and we believe it so much that we officially say so when we marry people in the Temple. That’s what we believe. It is up to you to place that up against what you believe and decide which are ‘true.’

I would be very grateful, myself, if some one of you would give me some chapter and verse regarding this, because I am stuck with two things here: first, there are the standard vows and marriage practices of the CAtholics which seem rather clearly to indicate that marriage ends at death. Second, I have the arguments I am given BY others (including Catholics) that our practice of sealing for time and all eternity (Eternal Marriage that does not end at death) is wrong because there is 'no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven."

The standard interpretation of that is, well…all the bonds are dissolved, people aren’t married any more. No relationship with your wife/husband that you don’t have with every other soul in heaven.

At the same time, I am given the 'what makes you think we aren’t going to have our families in heaven? ’ question. My answer is, well, you guys just told me so.

What are we to think, guys, eh?

Hi Dianiad,
Good question. To me, not being married in heaven is not a problem. (Not because I don’t love my hubby and want to be with him forever…well, MOST of the time. ) Here is a quote from the CCC I have read the thread, but don’t recall if the quote on heaven is here. Personally, I believe that when we get to Heaven, we are not in family “units” per say. We are more in communion with each other as a body of believers without the sort of pack mentality needed to survive here on Earth. There won’t be any “us against them”. We will all be one big happy.

II. HEAVEN

1023 Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face:598

By virtue of our apostolic authority, we define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints . . . and other faithful who died after receiving Christ’s holy Baptism (provided they were not in need of purification when they died, . . . or, if they then did need or will need some purification, when they have been purified after death, . . .) already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment - and this since the Ascension of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ into heaven - have been, are and will be in heaven, in the heavenly Kingdom and celestial paradise with Christ, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the Passion and death of our Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and do see the divine essence with an intuitive vision, and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature.599

1024 This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called “heaven.” Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

1025 To live in heaven is “to be with Christ.” The elect live "in Christ,"600 but they retain, or rather find, their true identity, their own name.601

For life is to be with Christ; where Christ is, there is life, there is the kingdom.602

1026 By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has “opened” heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ.

1027 This mystery of blessed communion with God and all who are in Christ is beyond all understanding and description. Scripture speaks of it in images: life, light, peace, wedding feast, wine of the kingdom, the Father’s house, the heavenly Jerusalem, paradise: "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man conceived, what God has prepared for those who love him."603

1028 Because of his transcendence, God cannot be seen as he is, unless he himself opens up his mystery to man’s immediate contemplation and gives him the capacity for it. The Church calls this contemplation of God in his heavenly glory “the beatific vision”:

How great will your glory and happiness be, to be allowed to see God, to be honored with sharing the joy of salvation and eternal light with Christ your Lord and God, . . . to delight in the joy of immortality in the Kingdom of heaven with the righteous and God’s friends.604

1029 In the glory of heaven the blessed continue joyfully to fulfill God’s will in relation to other men and to all creation. Already they reign with Christ; with him "they shall reign for ever and ever."605

in Christ
Steph

 

[mjf001]

Look, I’m not commenting on what you believe individually. I know that you all hope for a continuance of the family; such a hope is ingrained in each of us, I think.

The problem is, though, that your wedding vows (and ours, too, if they are not ‘sealings for Time and all Eternity’ in a Temple) are very, very specific; the marriage lasts until death. Period. After one spouse dies, the other is free to marry in the Catholic church, even though a divorce does not so free him or her.

So I can’t help but think that, y’know what? I think the priest MEANS that when he says “until death do you part.” Why not? WE do when a couple is married by a Bishop outside Temple walls.

What I am asking, quite seriously, is what is it in Catholic teachings, scriptural or traditional, that contradicts that?

What we say to people is, look, we believe that marriage CAN last for eternity, that families CAN be ‘sealed’ together as a family unit, and we believe it so much that we officially say so when we marry people in the Temple. That’s what we believe. It is up to you to place that up against what you believe and decide which are ‘true.’

I would be very grateful, myself, if some one of you would give me some chapter and verse regarding this, because I am stuck with two things here: first, there are the standard vows and marriage practices of the CAtholics which seem rather clearly to indicate that marriage ends at death. Second, I have the arguments I am given BY others (including Catholics) that our practice of sealing for time and all eternity (Eternal Marriage that does not end at death) is wrong because there is 'no marriage or giving in marriage in heaven."

The standard interpretation of that is, well…all the bonds are dissolved, people aren’t married any more. No relationship with your wife/husband that you don’t have with every other soul in heaven.

At the same time, I am given the 'what makes you think we aren’t going to have our families in heaven? ’ question. My answer is, well, you guys just told me so.

What are we to think, guys, eh?

Marriage is only necessary in this life. If marriage is to reflect in an imperfect way, the perfect union of the Trinity, why would we need it when we are in the presence of God? Marriage is also for the husband and wife to get to heaven. If the husband and wife are already in heaven, why is marriage necessary. Marriage is also for the instruction of any children the couple are blessed with in the faith, and to try to help them find their vocation. How is this necessary in heaven?
So, from a Catholic point of view, marriage is an institution for this world. It’s not necessary or needed in the next world. Since we’re all adopted into the same family at baptism, I think it’s pretty much just assumed we’ll all, more or less, be in the same place (not talking a physical place necessarily) when we die. I think it’s a safe assumption to think we’ll gravitate to those of our family with whom we were closest while in life, while still being part of that larger family we entered into at baptism. Keep in mind, I was baptized in 2004, so I’m still learning. This is my layman’s understanding of what I’ve learned so far, and I reserve the right to revise my understanding as I discover new information.
But, the most important part, the part we should truly be striving for, is that we’ll be in the presence of God for all eternity. That is the reward. That’s enough for me, how about you?

In Christ,
Michael

 

[Finrock]

Good afternoon rinnie! I’m not sure if we’ve interacted before, but to be on the safe side, I just want to say that it is a pleasure to meet you.

I hope you don’t mind if I briefly interject in to your conversation with zerinus. I only wanted to comment on the quote below.

Also JS was self appointed. Again goes totally against scripture. Scripture says you are called to the life from Christ. Not yourself. Explain please?

First, I wanted to acknowledge that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees that a person can’t appoint themselves a prophet. Please, consider our 5th Article of Faith:

“We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.”

It is our claim that Joseph Smith was called of God to be a prophet and that the priesthood of God was restored to the prophet Joseph Smith by the laying on of hands by heavenly messengers. First, John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and restored the Aaronic priesthood. A bit later, we believe that Peter, James, and John, came down to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and restored the higher priesthood or the priesthood after the order of the Son of God (we call this the Melchizedek Priesthood). And, finally, the prophet Elijah appeared to Joseph and Oliver and restored the keys to bind in heaven, those ordinances performed on earth.

The question, of course, is that was a restoration such as what the Church of Jesus Christ asserts, necessary? Further, if it was necessary, did the events that Joseph Smith claims to have occurred, really occur? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints answers to the affirmative to both of these questions. Obviously, other religions do not. But, the point I wanted to make is that we recognize the need to be called of God and set apart by proper authority and we believe this is precisely the pattern of how the priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[mjf001]

Good afternoon rinnie! I’m not sure if we’ve interacted before, but to be on the safe side, I just want to say that it is a pleasure to meet you.

I hope you don’t mind if I briefly interject in to your conversation with zerinus. I only wanted to comment on the quote below.

First, I wanted to acknowledge that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints agrees that a person can’t appoint themselves a prophet. Please, consider our 5th Article of Faith:

“We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.”

It is our claim that Joseph Smith was called of God to be a prophet and that the priesthood of God was restored to the prophet Joseph Smith by the laying on of hands by heavenly messengers. First, John the Baptist appeared to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and restored the Aaronic priesthood. A bit later, we believe that Peter, James, and John, came down to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and restored the higher priesthood or the priesthood after the order of the Son of God (we call this the Melchizedek Priesthood). And, finally, the prophet Elijah appeared to Joseph and Oliver and restored the keys to bind in heaven, those ordinances performed on earth.

The question, of course, is that was a restoration such as what the Church of Jesus Christ asserts, necessary? Further, if it was necessary, did the events that Joseph Smith claims to have occurred, really occur? The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints answers to the affirmative to both of these questions. Obviously, other religions do not. But, the point I wanted to make is that we recognize the need to be called of God and set apart by proper authority and we believe this is precisely the pattern of how the priesthood was restored to Joseph Smith.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Unfortunately, we only have the words of Joseph Smith to assure us he was called of God. I think, from the point of view of someone who doesn’t believe the LDS is true, sufficient evidence exists to question the character, and therefore, the veracity of Joseph Smith. I would think the “founder” of a religion, should be above reproach.

 

[guanophore]

No, by the Apostasy we mean that the priesthood authority of the Church was lost.

Maybe this is why Catholics have a difficult time understanding Mormons! You have changed the definition of the words used by the Apostles!

We think that we are!

Yes, of course I am sure you think that you are in agreement with what the Apostles believed and taught. You could not think you were restoring the original Church otherwise. I think a simple study of history will show this is not the case.

Our doctrine is not derive from theosis. It is derived by revelation from heaven. But it is intriguing to find such similarities between it and theosis.

Since you seem to have studied the notion of theosis and it’s similarities with your doctrine, what prevents you from studying other ideas embraced by the successors of the Apostles?

 

[Finrock]

Good evening mjf001! I hope you have had a wonderful day.

Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my post.

Unfortunately, we only have the words of Joseph Smith to assure us he was called of God.

It does seem that way, doesn’t it?

I think, from the point of view of someone who doesn’t believe the LDS is true, sufficient evidence exists to question the character, and therefore, the veracity of Joseph Smith. I would think the “founder” of a religion, should be above reproach.

Insofar as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned, the founder of our religion is without reproach; The founder is no less than the Lord Jesus Christ himself.

Joseph Smith was a fallible man, just as you are and I. I have studied all the relevant historical data regarding Joseph Smith and here is what I found: I see a man who was flawed in many ways, and yet humble enough to be shapable in God’s hands. I see a man who had rough edges that needed to be rounded out, but a man who was overwhelmingly kind, charitable, and gave freely of his possessions to help others. I see a man who on occasion lost his temper and who could be vengeful, but a man who quickly forgave and wanted to make amends. I see a man who sometimes was boastful, however, he also suffered much pain, much loss, and much loneliness because he refused to deny his heavenly visions and experiences.

History does not allow us to ignore the bad characteristics of Joseph Smith. We can certainly see Joseph Smith’s flaws. But, neither does history, when viewed in its completeness, support the position that Joseph was a man of bad or evil character. His flaws did not define him or were they the overwhelming features of his character. At his core, Joseph Smith was a good man with a kind heart and someone who’s greatest concern was his faithfulness to his Heavenly Father and the Savior Jesus Christ.

Moses, much like Joseph Smith, had to learn that whom God calls, God also qualifies. Our flaws we cannot escape alone, but as long as we are humble, God can shape us in to what He desires and needs us to be. This has been the story of almost every biblical prophet I know. But, I believe that Jesus Christ is at the head of His church, and He uses imperfect vessels to fulfill His work. What other alternative does God have when working with us sinners?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

What I am asking, quite seriously, is what is it in Catholic teachings, scriptural or traditional, that contradicts that?

The two great commandments are that we love God and that we love our neighbor as we do ourselves (Matt. 22:35-40). If being in heaven meant that we could not love others, particularly those who were close to us in this life, then that would mean that we couldn’t fulfill the second great commandment.

Christians believe in the communion of saints, which is the union of all who live in Christ. Because of the communion of saints, we may be assured that we will know and love our family in heaven, even if the relationship with them is not exactly the same as it was on earth.

---

Catechism:

[1024](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1024.htm’) This perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity - this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed - is called “heaven.” Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfillment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness.

 

[kikkichan]

…
*
Joseph Smith was a fallible man, just as you are and I. I have studied all the relevant historical data regarding Joseph Smith and here is what I found: I see a man who was flawed in many ways, and yet humble enough to be shapable in God’s hands. I see a man who had rough edges that needed to be rounded out, but a man who was overwhelmingly kind, charitable, and gave freely of his possessions to help others. I see a man who on occasion lost his temper and who could be vengeful, but a man who quickly forgave and wanted to make amends. I see a man who sometimes was boastful, however, he also suffered much pain, much loss, and much loneliness because he refused to deny his heavenly visions and experiences.

History does not allow us to ignore the bad characteristics of Joseph Smith. We can certainly see Joseph Smith’s flaws. But, neither does history, when viewed in its completeness, support the position that Joseph was a man of bad or evil character. His flaws did not define him or were they the overwhelming features of his character. At his core, Joseph Smith was a good man with a kind heart and someone who’s greatest concern was his faithfulness to his Heavenly Father and the Savior Jesus Christ.

Moses, much like Joseph Smith, had to learn that whom God calls, God also qualifies. Our flaws we cannot escape alone, but as long as we are humble, God can shape us in to what He desires and needs us to be. This has been the story of almost every biblical prophet I know. But, I believe that Jesus Christ is at the head of His church, and He uses imperfect vessels to fulfill His work. What other alternative does God have when working with us sinners?
*
Kind Regards,
Finrock

Yea, to expect Joseph Smith to be perfect, is not reasonable. I am somewhat concerned with this statement:

Joseph Smith - History of the Church, Vol. 6, p. 408, 409
I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. **Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus **ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…

Is he not putting himself above Jesus? I’m not seeing the humility here. He also seems to be equating Paul, John, and Peter to Jesus. This is more than your everyday boosting. Now this may be just one statement, but it is a BIG one statement.

Also, if it’s true that Joseph Smith married other men’s wives, that’s a big character issue, and one that occurred whilst being shapable in God’s hands, and one that Joseph Smith denied. – Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo. (Sunday, May 26, 1844)

thanks
–kc

 

[zerinus]

Maybe this is why Catholics have a difficult time understanding Mormons! You have changed the definition of the words used by the Apostles!

We believe that many early Christians (members and leaders of the church) actually apostatized, as a result of which the church as a whole lost the priesthood authority that it originally possessed. We call that the Apostasy of the early Christian church. That is not to say that there were no more good Christians left in the world. If you don’t like the word “apostasy” to describe this phenomenon, can you recommend to us a more suitable word that we can use? We can’t think of any.

Yes, of course I am sure you think that you are in agreement with what the Apostles believed and taught. You could not think you were restoring the original Church otherwise. I think a simple study of history will show this is not the case.

Well, I said that with regard to the doctrine of the deification of man (theosis) and plurality of gods that we were discussing. I am convinced that the LDS belief on that is pretty close to what the early Christians believed. I have written a couple of articles in my Blog to that effect which you can read here and here.

Since you seem to have studied the notion of theosis and it’s similarities with your doctrine, what prevents you from studying other ideas embraced by the successors of the Apostles?

Nothing, I do! I am no expert on it, but I have read some of their writings, and I like them quite a lot. I don’t think they are right about everything; but generally their writings are interesting and enjoyable to read.