Mormons to build temple in Rome

[mfbukowski]

I understand that, being an LDS member, you subscribe to the idea that public revelation is ongoing. On that point we can respectfully disagree. But that’s not really the point I was trying to address. My point is that we cannot rely on personal revelations to support the truths of our religious doctrines, because there is no way to verify the validity of the reveleation as inspired. In other words, I think it is improper to suggest that I can ascertain the validity of the LDS faith by reading the Book of Mormon and then asking the HS to send me a revelation that it is either true or false. Similarly, I think it is improper of me to suggest that you ascertain the validity of the truths of the Catholic Church by taking a copy of the Catechism home, reading it, and asking the HS to come and reveal to you its truth.

You are not understanding my point. You have still not answered how it was that Mary and Paul decided their revelations were “true”. My point was that they just “knew” – read RebeccaJ’s post above.

You are incorrect here. Go back and reread the article. Public revelation involved God over time revealing himself to all of mankind through the history Adam, Abraham, Moses, David and ultimately by sending us His final Word on the subject, Jesus Christ. Public revelation ended with Jesus Christ because, after His own Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, died and rose from the dead, there was nothing left to be revealed publicly. Private revelation does not exceed what was encompassed in this original body of public revelation. I understand that you disagree with this notion. But your disagreement on this point does not invalidate my original point - i.e. that personal subjective spiritual experiences cannot be a proper basis for validating doctrine as true or false.

We disagree – see above

Wrong analogy. Private revelation is to Public revelation what “commentary” is to Scripture. Sometimes informative. Sometimes confusing. Never binding. And, importantly, not extending beyond what it seeks to comment upon.

I’m not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that rejecting private revelation as a proper basis for ascertaining truth of doctrine is arrogant?

Both the Pluto and the fish analogies were intended to make the same point

This takes inspiration entirely out of the writers’ hands, and removes the magesterial authority of the Church from the process of selecting the canon of scripture. And it also makes some faulty presuppositions about the nature of OT writing, which is beyond the context of this discussion. And, as noted above, public revelation is more than simply revelation included in the bible.

This was not about the OT exclusively, in fact I was thinking more about the NT. I am not sure what you mean I think my point stands

Christianity uniformly agrees that public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, becuase Jesus was the final Word by which God revealed His nature to humanity. We do not need any new revelation. What we need is to pay more attention to what was revealed by God in Christ. And we have not solved all the worlds problems, but with Christ we could. Nothing new regarding Him needs to be revealed for this to happen.

I am not interested in what Christianity uniformly agrees, I am interested in the truth. I agree we need to pay more attention to what we have.

No. But continuing public revelation would move us all further from that unity.

*I think we both believe in the Second Coming. I think THAT “public revelation” should make some difference in moving us toward unity. Agreed? *
(continued on next post)

 

[RC_Matt]

Matt. 16: 17
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

From the above scripture it is evedent that just being there was not enough for many walked and talked with Him yet gained no testimony as to his devine calling and who he was. The witness has to come from the Holy Ghost inorder to cement it within our very being hence this witness is more sure than just being there.

You’re right, Ronald; I agree with you (this time…) and should have been more detailed.

When Peter answered Jesus’ question by acknowledging Him as the Son of God, there were two aspects to that response. The first was objective. Peter was a companion of Jesus and witnessed His words and miracles; the healing of the sick, the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, preventing him from sinking, etc. The second aspect was subjective, the inner illumination by the Holy Spirit that enabled him to recognize the One performing the miracles as the Son of the Father. Both elements, objective and subjective, natural and supernatural, worked in concert to bring about knowledge of truth.

 

[RC_Matt]

No, it would not matter.

Why should I share such an experience with you? Joseph Smith testified of that same experience, and you do not believe him either.

How would you know that I was telling the truth, or not halucinating or whatever?

You would not know. You would be speculating.

It would not impove your understanding from where you are right now. And no amount of study could convince you conclusively.

Don’t you see my point?

You would only know if you yourself had the experience.

Why did Paul NOT doubt his own experience?

You have not answered any of these points because you cannot.

You’re not answering the question I asked.

 

[mfbukowski]

We know the truth by faith and reason. Both are gifts of God. Most people go their whole lives without receiving a private revelation. Many have faith despite that lack.

Why do virtually all Mormons believe that they receive private revelation all the time? This is a substantial difference.

Protestants don’t seem to need the authority of the magesterium. They take the Virgin Birth as a matter of christian dogma - without proof other than the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and those who came thereafter.

*I think it is remarkable that Protestants take so much of the Catholic church into their doctrine. To me it is a sign of inconsistency. *

But God does not give the gift of private revelation to all people. Are you not confusing revelation with grace here?

I think he gives it to all. I think you cannot know what is true without it. I think you have received it yourself. If you believe that Jesus is the Christ, I think you have had that revealed to you.

I pray for guidance; strength, compassion, truth, etc. And I talk to my wife about her belief.

I suppose that if I was lucky enough to receive God’s direct revelation that my wife’s child was conceived by the power of the HS, that would change my actions. But the point of my original hypothetical was that I would not accept my wife’s revelation as truth without questioning, praying, searching of my own. Apparently, you would not either.

Ah, but why pray for guidance if it cannot come because there is no private revelation? I KNEW you believed in it! Or more precisely perhaps you “knew” about it without knowing you did

Pray for the same spirit of discernment that St. Joseph was given (and invite St. Joseph to intercede as well).

*EXACTLY! That spirit of discernment is called “private revelation!” *

I don’t know. What if the revelation I received was different from my wife’s revelation? Which should I believe?

I don’t know. What if my personal revelation differed substantially from my wife’s? Should I believe either of them. Should I think this was some sort of trick or reality TV practical joke show? It’s hard to say. But my point was about a situation where you have competing personal revelations. What if my vision told me that Allah had deigned to send another prophet to preach the message of Muhhammad to the Western world? Should I believe that message, or my wife’s message that the God of Israel was sending another Messiah?

*That scenario is not what we were discussing, but yes, I think you would be crazy NOT to do all those things! I would advise any Mormon who had similar “revelations” to do the same. At some point however, you would have to decide if the revelations or your reason prevailed. I have no problem with reason prevailing over goofy “revelations” and neither does the church. We are not promoting psychosis here! *

If my wife and I were receiving conflicting messages from an entity claiming to be God, you’d better believe I would want to call in the experts for their guidance and assistance on the matter.

*I don’t disagree at all, in this scenario. My point was that if you HAD received a revelation which you KNEW was from God, you should not go to someone who has a vested interest in proving that revelation false, to interpret it for you. The scenario I presented was different from what you brought up, which is fine. I just wanted to show the difference.

OH YES that RebeccaJ post I referenced was #180
*Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

You’re not answering the question I asked.

Because you did not answer the question I asked first.

 

[mfbukowski]

You’re right, Ronald; I agree with you (this time…) and should have been more detailed.

When Peter answered Jesus’ question by acknowledging Him as the Son of God, there were two aspects to that response. The first was objective. Peter was a companion of Jesus and witnessed His words and miracles; the healing of the sick, the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, preventing him from sinking, etc. The second aspect was subjective, the inner illumination by the Holy Spirit that enabled him to recognize the One performing the miracles as the Son of the Father. Both elements, objective and subjective, natural and supernatural, worked in concert to bring about knowledge of truth.

Wow I actually agree! We definitely need to break out the guitars and sing Kumbaya!

 

[RC_Matt]

If the garden of Gethsemane was not part of his atonement, why did an angle come to strengthen Him and why was his agony so great at this time to cause His sweat as it were great drops of BLOOD. there were others in his day who were crucified therefor this alone was not what prompted him to say if thou be willing, remove this cup from me. Surely it included that moment, His trial, ridicule, scurging and altimately the cross ?

I agree with Paul Dupre. Through His suffering and death, Christ atoned for the sins of the world. Gethsemane, or “the Agony in the Garden,” was the beginning of His suffering and therefore the initiation of the atonement, which cumulated with His death on the cross.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I wonder if the Pope will go to the open house. That would be awesome.

Well, he should chow down beforehand if he attends, because you know there will be no espresso served. No espresso in a section of Roma! That IS a crime.

However I am sure there will be sugar cookies, and if it’s a supper, Jello and hashed brown casserole.

Just want to lighten things for you, Hal. I know you don’t have it easy.

 

[RC_Matt]

Because you did not answer the question I asked first.

No, follow the thread back. I initially asked you a question, to which you have replied by making comments, asking me questions and speculating as to what I think and what my response to your answer might be. But, you still have not answered the question I asked.

 

[PaulDupre]

I think that we as Mormons need to ponder and meditate more than we do, because that is when true understanding comes. We preach it, but for the most part, I think we do not do it. I think that is the real benefit of the rosary for Catholics. As a Mormon I have come up with regular routines of meditation on a personal basis which I have found very valuable.

That’s good, I hope you keep doing it.

 

[PaulDupre]

I agree with Paul Dupre. Through His suffering and death, Christ atoned for the sins of the world. Gethsemane, or “the Agony in the Garden,” was the beginning of His suffering and therefore the initiation of the atonement, which cumulated with His death on the cross.

Thanks, Matt. You said it better and more succinctly than I did.

 

[mfbukowski]

No, follow the thread back. I initially asked you a question, to which you have replied by making comments, asking me questions and speculating as to what I think and what my response to your answer might be. But, you still have not answered the question I asked.

Why don’t you just ask it again, instead of all this mystery. What was the question?

 

[jean8]

The president of the mormon church, Thomas S. Monson announced this morning (9:00am PST) that the LDS church would build 5 new temples. Temples are where ordinances are performed for the living and the dead, including the use of “sacred” signs and symbols, oaths and penalties.

The fisrt 4 of the 5 were announced and then a little pause, and then the announcement that the 5th would be in… Rome, Italy. There was a wry smile and the congregation (probably about 20,000) gave a rumble of laughter.

No news as to the size of the temple, whether it will be a small one like many of the new ones (often the size of a small Catholic church) or a large one. Certainly the building and dedication will be a media event. This will be good PR for the LDS church. It will be interesting how it goes. Certainly an invitation will be given to the Vatican to attend and walk through the temple before it is dedicated.

The Catholic Church - the great apostate church, according to the Book of Mormon (2 Nephi 28 and elsewhere) “the great and abominable church, whore of all the earth”.

The Catholic Church has to be apostate if the LDS church is to be true.

Anyway, I am gearing up for a number of talks at my wife’s LDS church that will mention the building of the temple in Rome - a certain sign of the Lord’s work moving ahead and us reaching the end days and the return of Christ. It will almost be as bad as there being a mormon President of the USA.

Are we neutral ? The Vatican has requested that geneological records from Catholic parishes not to be given to LDS family history researchers. There is even an exorcism prayer used by Catholic priests that mentions specifically the “angel” Moroni - the mormon “prophet” who gave the book of mormon to Joseph Smith. We are Christian’s, but not fools. Mormonism isn’t neutral. I have spoken to a number of former Catholics who became mormons. Their reasoning shows poor catechising.

Mormonism is not neutral. Take it from one who has been through the temple ceremonies. It has many good things in it. But then you can find a good biscuit in a trash can - but that is not the primary place you search for one.

God bless.

Hal.

Mormons can build temples forever. what they really need is the truth of salvation and Jesus Christ
Pray for them.

jean8.

 

[mfbukowski]

Mormons can build temples forever. what they really need is the truth of salvation and Jesus Christ
Pray for them.

jean8.

I do all the time!

 

[ronald_g_w]

Obviously you did not read back far enough on this thread because you completely misunderstood my post. One of the LDS posters criticized the Catholic Church for buidling expensive cathedrals in places where there was poverty instead of using those riches to aid the poor. I was merely pointing out that this was a hypocritical thing to say because the LDS also build lavish structures in countries where there is poverty. Neither church is wrong for doing so. There is nothing wrong with building such edifices. Both churches also help the poor. I was merely pointing out the double-standard on the part of the LDS poster.

sorry must have over looked, thanks for the above, can I ask what your understanding is for cathedrals being built as well as temples and how they respectively serve the people ?

 

[ronald_g_w]

You’re right, Ronald; I agree with you (this time…) and should have been more detailed.

When Peter answered Jesus’ question by acknowledging Him as the Son of God, there were two aspects to that response. The first was objective. Peter was a companion of Jesus and witnessed His words and miracles; the healing of the sick, the multiplication of the loaves, the walking on water, preventing him from sinking, etc. The second aspect was subjective, the inner illumination by the Holy Spirit that enabled him to recognize the One performing the miracles as the Son of the Father. Both elements, objective and subjective, natural and supernatural, worked in concert to bring about knowledge of truth.

 

[ronald_g_w]

I agree with Paul Dupre. Through His suffering and death, Christ atoned for the sins of the world. Gethsemane, or “the Agony in the Garden,” was the beginning of His suffering and therefore the initiation of the atonement, which cumulated with His death on the cross.

 

[RC_Matt]

Why don’t you just ask it again, instead of all this mystery. What was the question?

LOL, are we in an inescapable loop here; or what?

You said that you KNOW Joseph Smith was a prophet and that Mormonism is true based on direct revelation of the same manner as that afforded to Peter vis-à-vis the divine nature of Christ. I then asked if Jesus had physically appeared to you and verbally confirmed the veracity of LDS dogma. You keep waltzing around the issue, but still haven’t answered the question I asked and the answer is critical to validate that your direct revelation of truth was equivalent to that of Peter.

I don’t like to speculate on other people’s thoughts, but in the absence of an answer from you, I can only assume that your direct revelation was/is subjective in nature. That’s not the same as Peter’s experience. Peter received both subjective and objective revelation, and the two combined resulted in perfect knowledge that Jesus was the Christ. Based on subjective revelation alone, you may believe with all your heart and soul that Mormonism is true, and that’s fine, but you won’t KNOW until the day you drop dead. Of course, if Jesus personally came to you, and you guys hung out and talked about Joseph Smith, that would be a different story; but I don’t think that’s what you meant. If it was, I’d still like to hear the story though.

Life-long and very strong subjective revelation tell me that Christianity is true, and I am cognizant of that great gift of faith, not everybody has it so easy. Christian teachings, which at the core are simply love God and love your neighbor as yourself, are in perfect harmony with my God-given conscience, or soul; I don’t even have to consider veracity, it’s already hardwired. But that is a gift of the Holy Spirit, an inner communion with God; it’s a spiritual concept and goes much deeper than religion. I’m Christian because I believe to the core of my being that Jesus taught the divine truth; the world was messed-up, God sent Jesus to fix it – and He did.

Moving down a level, I think we agree unanimously that all religions teach some truth (and I don’t mean the real wacky stuff, like Scientology). The church provides a venue where we assemble as a community to worship God, learn about the Gospel to foster our spiritual development (and gives me a weekly reminder that I’m supposed to do God’s will, not Matt’s will – and they’re not always in sync); and as a, or the, Body of Christ, it actively carries Jesus’ message and fosters it in the world. I’m Catholic because I strongly feel the presence of God in the Catholic Church, which I don’t elsewhere. I believe that Catholic doctrine, particularly that related to eschatological teachings, pass the tests of reason and logic. While the forgoing may be largely subjective in nature, I’m also Catholic because I believe that the Catholic Church most closely follows and exemplifies Christ’s teachings; and that is totally objective in nature.

One of Christ’s two core teachings is to love your neighbor as yourself. In our community, our local government, for whatever reason, has chosen to largely ignore the plight of the homeless and elderly poor. Our archdiocese is highly active in providing help, regardless of religion or lack thereof, to anybody in need; and the overwhelming majority of the people receiving this help are not Catholic. I have been personally involved in this area of the ministry and I know full well the extent of the assistance and services provided to the community at large – they are extensive and absolutely change lives. For example, some Protestant acquaintances of mine, who have absolutely no financial resources, recently called me in desperation about their unmarried drug-addicted daughter, who they had just discovered was pregnant on top of everything else. I advised them where to call, and the daughter was immediately admitted to a Catholic hospital for medical detox. She is now in a Catholic long-term (name removed by moderator)atient drug rehabilitation program, a very nice place in a rural area, where she will remain for at least a year; until she and baby (and all maternity expenses will be taken care of too) are well enough to return home. She will then receive whatever after-care, training and job placement assistance she needs so that she and her new baby can get a good start in life. She and her family will pay nothing. She’ll obviously be encouraged to return to Christ, in a generic sense; nobody will try to convert her.

Several mainline Protestant churches also work with Catholic Parishes to coordinate resources and provide shelter and housing for the working poor. LDS has a very conspicuous presence in the community, however, like the Jewish community, they do a good job of helping their own (which is a good thing), but they do absolutely nothing to assist the overall community.

So, I don’t KNOW that Catholicism is true, any more than you can KNOW that Mormonism is true – we won’t KNOW that until we’re on the other side of the grass. Similarly, people who say they KNOW Mormonsim is false can’t possibly KNOW (though in my opinion it does fail the tests of reason and logic pretty miserably – and we won’t to go there). The core of my being, on a spiritual level, subjectively compels me to believe that Jesus taught God’s truth; so, I have no alternative but to be a Christian. Subjective revelation, my own objective observations vis-à-vis Christ’s core teachings, reason and common sense tell me that, of all Christian traditions, Catholicism most closely follows the path outlined by Jesus. That’s the revelation that leaves me no alternative but to be Catholic, but it’s nowhere near the league of that given to Peter. It results is life-directing faith, but not perfect KNOWLEDGE.

 

[mfbukowski]

LOL, are we in an inescapable loop here; or what?

You said that you KNOW Joseph Smith was a prophet and that Mormonism is true based on direct revelation of the same manner as that afforded to Peter vis-à-vis the divine nature of Christ. I then asked if Jesus had physically appeared to you and verbally confirmed the veracity of LDS dogma. You keep waltzing around the issue, but still haven’t answered the question I asked and the answer is critical to validate that your direct revelation of truth was equivalent to that of Peter.

I don’t like to speculate on other people’s thoughts, but in the absence of an answer from you, I can only assume that your direct revelation was/is subjective in nature. That’s not the same as Peter’s experience. Peter received both subjective and objective revelation, and the two combined resulted in perfect knowledge that Jesus was the Christ. Based on subjective revelation alone, you may believe with all your heart and soul that Mormonism is true, and that’s fine, but you won’t KNOW until the day you drop dead. Of course, if Jesus personally came to you, and you guys hung out and talked about Joseph Smith, that would be a different story; but I don’t think that’s what you meant. If it was, I’d still like to hear the story though.

Several mainline Protestant churches also work with Catholic Parishes to coordinate resources and provide shelter and housing for the working poor. LDS has a very conspicuous presence in the community, however, like the Jewish community, they do a good job of helping their own (which is a good thing), but they do absolutely nothing to assist the overall community.

So, I don’t KNOW that Catholicism is true, any more than you can KNOW that Mormonism is true – we won’t KNOW that until we’re on the other side of the grass. Similarly, people who say they KNOW Mormonsim is false can’t possibly KNOW (though in my opinion it does fail the tests of reason and logic pretty miserably – and we won’t to go there). The core of my being, on a spiritual level, subjectively compels me to believe that Jesus taught God’s truth; so, I have no alternative but to be a Christian. Subjective revelation, my own objective observations vis-à-vis Christ’s core teachings, reason and common sense tell me that, of all Christian traditions, Catholicism most closely follows the path outlined by Jesus. That’s the revelation that leaves me no alternative but to be Catholic, but it’s nowhere near the league of that given to Peter. It results is life-directing faith, but not perfect KNOWLEDGE.

Thanks for your post

I think we are actually very close to agreeing as you have stated things.

As Paul DuPre mentioned in an earlier post, his spiritual experiences are sacred and private. So are mine. I consider your request to have me share the details of this part of my life comparable to asking me about details of my intimate life with my wife. Ain’t gonna happen.

Besides, any answers I would give are irrelevant because you would not believe what I told you anyway. I thought I made that point, but you keep going after the same point. You are getting close to being rude about it in my opinion. But I strongly suspect you don’t mean to be.

I don’t need your opinion of my experience to verify if it was true or not! Can’t you see how that is just a little rude at least?

I am surprised that you don’t have a “place” like that in your life, which you would not share on the internet, or are you asking me to do something you would not do yourself out of idle curiosity?

I will tell you that I have received what you would call both “subjective” and “objective” evidence or revelation using your terminology insofar as I understand it. I have sure knowledge that the path I have chosen is the correct one. No doubts whatsoever.

As part of my church calling, I deal daily with helping those who cannot help themselves, and I totally disagree that our church “does nothing” for the community at large. I see it daily. We help the homeless and provide food and housing for many whether or not they are members of the church. In our stake (as in all stakes) we have a bishop designated as “transient bishop” whose responisiblity it is to take care of those who are homeless or in need of assistance, whether or not they are members. I have worked with him often in this area.

The unwed mother example you gave is admirable. We do the same sorts of things all the time.

We even have farms and canneries which grow and process food which is given away to the needy. Most of the work on these farms and canneries are done by volunteers- just rank and file members of the church who go out to help. Most of those who are assisted are members of our church, but many are not. Just last week, I became aware of a large order for food from our ward which went to a non-member family who no one in our congregation knew, except the bishop who only knew them because they had approached him and requested help.

Our church has been famous for the aid we give in any disaster situation from Katrina, to earthquakes tsunamis or whatever. We are often first responders and are there much before the red cross or others one usually think of as “first responders”

Here is a search of our church website for references on this subject:

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=84010fd41d93b010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&hideNav=1&bucket=AllChurchContent&query=humanitarian+aid

 

[kevangreen]

I suppose in the end the catholic church who’s fore fathers were with Jesus at the last supper and before can be the only true witnesses
to Jesus church, not one that appears 1800 years after his death.

And one more thing is that Catholics marry everyone and those kids are born catholic plus we have alot of non married Catholics having kids so in the end it is the Catholics will always be the number 1 christian church though default as well as truth( I mean mormons cant even kiss unless there married)
so we have the great advantage