Mormons to build temple in Rome

[RC_Matt]

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?

No, there is no intention to be rude; nor was it rude. If you’re going to make a representation of the nature that you did, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be asked for an explanation.

As far as LDS social services are concerned, I can only speak for my own community. They do not provide assistance to non-members nor participate in ecumenical community outreach programs. I don’t know what goes on elsewhere. As I mentioned, they do tend to take care of their own, and that is a good thing.

 

[mfbukowski]

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

Wow I am not sure how to respond to this one! But you know I just can’t let it go…

So you are saying that because your fornication rate exceeds ours, you will always be number 1?

That’s an …interesting… point of view

Incidentally I hear there are a FEW Mormons who actually kiss before they are married!

 

[jean8]

No, there is no intention to be rude; nor was it rude. If you’re going to make a representation of the nature that you did, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to be asked for an explanation.

As far as LDS social services are concerned, I can only speak for my own community. They do not provide assistance to non-members nor participate in ecumenical community outreach programs. I don’t know what goes on elsewhere. As I mentioned, they do tend to take care of their own, and that is a good thing.

Info about Joseph Smith see,

familyfriendsfreedom.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/joseph-smith-how-did-he-die-this-was-a-question-posted-this-week/

Have you read about their Temple ceremonies?

jean8

 

[PaulDupre]

I mean mormons cant even kiss unless there married

That was certainly not my experience when I was a single Mormon.

 

[ronald_g_w]

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.

 

[RC_Matt]

15 ¶ I Daniel was grieved in my spirit in the midst of my body, and the visions of my head troubled me.
16 I came near unto one of them that stood by, and asked him the truth of all this. So he told me, and made me KNOW the interpretation of the things.

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. (Peter KNEW nothing doughting )
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.

Surely if the Holy Ghost gave Peter that sure Knowledge of who Jesus was He can do the same for us or is this only reserved for a select few ?
LDS have a beautiful scripture … And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

In your Old Testament quote, in Daniel’s dream, the verb “know” is used in a different context. My Bible phrases it slightly differently, “he made known to me the meanings of the things,” i.e., he identified and explained what was up with the four beasts.

Peter’s revelation was both objective, he was there physically with Jesus and a personal witness to the events; and subjective, the Holy Spirit confirmed to him that Jesus was the Christ. Both aspects of revelation, combined, gave him knowledge; that’s why he was given revelation of both natures. Subjective revelation alone cannot result in absolute knowledge. It can foster very powerful faith, but it can’t result in unqualified knowledge. We won’t have that (for a long time, I hope…) until we’re dead.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No, these are tautologies, not facts. Tautologies are by definition always true and convey no real information.

“The moon is made of green cheese, or it is not” Is true

“I can fly like a bird or I cannot” Is true

But neither of these propositions convey any useful information.

Facts can be true or false, depending on their context. There are no facts about things which do not exist, or have not happened yet.

I suppose we’re operating from different definitions of the word “fact” In my book, a fact is by nature an actuality; or an objective reality. These things don’t change.

It is an LDS doctrine that the jews colonized the Americas prior to the western movement of the european civilizations. That doctrine is either true, or it is false - from an objective perspective. Evidence supporting or refuting it may wax and wain, but the fact will always remain true or false.

A tautology is true by virtue of its logical form alone. My intention was not to prove or disprove the facts stated, but to show that, by logical form, they cannot be BOTH true and false. You seem to be suggesting that facts (objective and actual) can change over time, depending on point of view and evidentiary support. My point is that despite the evidence, or lack of evidence, facts remain either true or false and that does not change.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hard to respond when you post responses like you did above, but I’ll do my best here…

Robert in SD:

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.

mfbukowski:

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.

My point is that there is a distinction between knowing and believing. Believing requires faith, and faith comes from God’s own grace. Why did Mary believe… She was full of grace. Why did Paul believe - because he was given the gift of faith, by grace. I’m sure there are some who receive “visions” or “revelations” and reject them because of a lack of faith. My point - my only point - was that personal revelation is no basis for claiming truth of doctrine. I think I’ve answered your question now.
Robert in SD:

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.

mfb:

We disagree – see above

I saw it. I think my position is well established, and yours is not. I’m sure we disagree about that too.
mfb:

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.

I think if you are interested in truth you need to engage reason together with faith. Relying on nothing but a personal revelation for doctrine is risky at best.
mfb:

I think we both believe in the Second Coming. I think THAT “public revelation” should make some difference in moving us toward unity. Agreed?

The unity of the saved and the unity of the damned. We are either goats or sheep. Whether we disagree or agree on doctrine, it is certainly my hope we will be together in heaven, neighbor.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

No, you are projecting your experiences onto St.Paul. There is no more to be said than what Jesus’ Himself said. Anyone who has had an encounter with a Person, the One Who died for all, KNOWS.

You are the one that keeps on insisting it has to be a “feeling”, as I have already told you, it is not a feeling, it is a KNOWING.

Do they know by faith? Or do they know by feeling, emotion, and/or human experience? If not one of these, how does one “know” they had an experience with God.

(This is a rhetorical question, and not a personal attack.)

Peace,
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Again, extremely difficult to respond as you posted, but doing my best…

Originally Posted by Robert in SD:

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.

mfb:

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

Perhaps the reason is that their Church tells them… (rightly or wrongly) that public revelation is continuing. My hunch is that a mormon would do well in the LDS church if he could convince his brethren that the Lord was revealing new (and popular) doctrine to him alone. Another reason is that, perhaps, we are dealing with discernment as opposed to revelation, and what you would call revelation, Catholics would call discernment; reserving private revelation for a very specific sort of event.
mfb:

I think he gives it [revelation] 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 think you are confusing revelation with faith here.
mfb:

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…

No. discernment and private revelation are two different things. Perhaps we are merely disputing over a difference in vocabulary here?
mfb:

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!”

Again, I think you are using the term incorrectly here. There is discernment of spirits, and there is revelation. Two different concepts. The first is an act of the person, perhaps arising through supernatural grace, while the second is a direct communication to the individual by the Divine Being. Not the same. Neither is the basis for establishing the truth of doctrines, although discernment is an act of reason and faith.
mfb:

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!

But that is my point. You are suggesting that we cease contemplation of truth in doctrine at the moment of revelation. I would say that process sets aside the discernment process that you seem to be acknowledging here.
R in SD:

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.

mfb:

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.

And now we come full circle back to my original point. You may personally “KNOW” that the revelation you received is from God (and is not psychosis, or hallucination, or someone’s practical joke, or just misguided religious fervor), but your own personal “knowledge” is not a proper basis for proving its truth to others who “KNOW” something different in the same way.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

I suppose we’re operating from different definitions of the word “fact” In my book, a fact is by nature an actuality; or an objective reality. These things don’t change.

It is an LDS doctrine that the jews colonized the Americas prior to the western movement of the european civilizations. That doctrine is either true, or it is false - from an objective perspective. Evidence supporting or refuting it may wax and wain, but the fact will always remain true or false.

A tautology is true by virtue of its logical form alone. My intention was not to prove or disprove the facts stated, but to show that, by logical form, they cannot be BOTH true and false. You seem to be suggesting that facts (objective and actual) can change over time, depending on point of view and evidentiary support. My point is that despite the evidence, or lack of evidence, facts remain either true or false and that does not change.

Peace,
-Robert

1)Regarding facts: “Your book” and “my book” disagree. My book is later Wittgenstein. Facts depend on the context.

1. Mormon doctrine is that about 20 people, some of whom were descendents of Joseph of the bible (Jews are from the tribe of Judah) landed somewhere in the Americas, and stayed. It is a distortion and over-simplification to say they “colonized the Americas”.
2. I disagree that the truth value of any statement except a priori statements do not change.

 

[ronald_g_w]

In your Old Testament quote, in Daniel’s dream, the verb “know” is used in a different context. My Bible phrases it slightly differently, “he made known to me the meanings of the things,” i.e., he identified and explained what was up with the four beasts.

 

[Chris-WA]

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 ?

I can speak more to the Catholic view. For believing, practicing (those are important qualifiers, by the way) Catholics, there is nothing more important that we do in our lives than attending mass because that’s where we receive Christ in the Eucharist. As Pope John Paul II said, the Eucharist is the source and summit of our lives. The Eucharist is the real and true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is not a symbol, nor just a rememberance. It is an actual participation in the life of Christ. So Catholics believe that in the mass, heaven literally touches down to earth. Many Catholics don’t understand this and therefore fail to appreciate the magnitude of what the mass means. They don’t realize that the mass is simultaneoulsy going in perpetually in heaven, and that we are surrounded by the saints and angels when we worship.

So why build beautiful cathedrals and churches? Because those edifices are meant to help us recognize where we are when we attend mass–heaven. They are meant to lift our spirits to heaven, because heaven truly touches down to earth in the mass. Sadly, many Catholics have no concept of this because of poor catechesis. So cathedrals aren’t meant to dazzle the world with Catholic power and monetary wealth, but to lift our spirit to heavenly things. God gave us five senses. We are meant to worship with all of those senses. And when you walk into a Catholic cathedral, you do just that.

What about spending the money on the poor instead? Well, you should know that no organization on earth does more for the poor than the Catholic Church, and this has been true for centuries.

 

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps the reason is that their Church tells them… (rightly or wrongly) that public revelation is continuing. My hunch is that a mormon would do well in the LDS church if he could convince his brethren that the Lord was revealing new (and popular) doctrine to him alone. Another reason is that, perhaps, we are dealing with discernment as opposed to revelation, and what you would call revelation, Catholics would call discernment; reserving private revelation for a very specific sort of event.

I think you are confusing revelation with faith here.

No. discernment and private revelation are two different things. Perhaps we are merely disputing over a difference in vocabulary here?

Again, I think you are using the term incorrectly here. There is discernment of spirits, and there is revelation. Two different concepts. The first is an act of the person, perhaps arising through supernatural grace, while the second is a direct communication to the individual by the Divine Being. Not the same. Neither is the basis for establishing the truth of doctrines, although discernment is an act of reason and faith.

But that is my point. You are suggesting that we cease contemplation of truth in doctrine at the moment of revelation. I would say that process sets aside the discernment process that you seem to be acknowledging here.

And now we come full circle back to my original point. You may personally “KNOW” that the revelation you received is from God (and is not psychosis, or hallucination, or someone’s practical joke, or just misguided religious fervor), but your own personal “knowledge” is not a proper basis for proving its truth to others who “KNOW” something different in the same way.

Peace,
-Robert

These posts are very confusing to me with quoting me quoting quotes that I never said, etc. I wish I was better at the system, and I think you don’t quite have it mastered either.

Anyway, I think I get your point, and we disagree. I think you still do not understand my points and I guess you think the same.

As far as ending up in heaven together, from my point of view, you will have plenty of opportunity to learn more in the afterlife

From your point of view, I can always plead “invincible ignorance” which I am sure I have convinced you that I have!

To me it seems obvious, and a couple of your Catholic compadres seem to agree that that truths are revealed to individuals all the time

Here are some quick quotes, without much research–

"1Cor 2:
10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.
11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

Ephesians 3
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel"

(new doctrine revealed)

"Matt 11
25 ¶ At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.
26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. "

As you might suspect, I really like the part about things being hid from the “wise and prudent” which were “revealed to babes”.

This was a quicky search, and I didn’t even find the one I was looking for–

Anyway, I think our disagreement is largely semantic if we could sit down and talk for an hour or two.

 

[mfbukowski]

And now we come full circle back to my original point. You may personally “KNOW” that the revelation you received is from God (and is not psychosis, or hallucination, or someone’s practical joke, or just misguided religious fervor), but your own personal “knowledge” is not a proper basis for proving its truth to others who “KNOW” something different in the same way.

Peace,
-Robert

Nobody ever said this.

Only the prophet has the keys to revelation for the whole church, or to use your words, “to others”. If someone comes up with a goofy doctrine, we ignore him. It has to be canonized scripture before it is canonized scripture.

We can pray on our own to have a revelation about if the prophet is right, and if our revelation disagrees with the prophet’s, we can just leave the church.

Every member should have their own revelation about every doctrine, and is free to leave it they don’t.

So we have a lot of people getting the same revelations.

 

[Annie_B]

If your mormon bishop knew you were a baptized Catholic you would be excommunicated from the mormon church. You cannot be both mormon and catholic-- officially.

To join another church is not automatic cause for excommunication. I know - I have been on both sides of this coin myself…Unless you are actively - and very publicly - spouting/teaching against LDS church teachings and trying to get others to go along with you, you are not likely to get excommunicated. As far as being Catholic and joining the Mormon church and going back to the Catholic church (which I did) that works too. Unless I officially left the RCC (which I believe take some writing to a bishop or something of that sort…not really sure…) they consider me still a catholic. And, unless I request to have my name removed from LDS church records, I am still, technically, a Mormon…I guess they each want a piece of me

I am sorry this is “off topic” but I flet I should ad my 2 cents worth from my own experience in response to the referenced post…

Annie

 

[mfbukowski]

To join another church is not automatic cause for excommunication. I know - I have been on both sides of this coin myself…Unless you are actively - and very publicly - spouting/teaching against LDS church teachings and trying to get others to go along with you, you are not likely to get excommunicated. As far as being Catholic and joining the Mormon church and going back to the Catholic church (which I did) that works too. Unless I officially left the RCC (which I believe take some writing to a bishop or something of that sort…not really sure…) they consider me still a catholic. And, unless I request to have my name removed from LDS church records, I am still, technically, a Mormon…I guess they each want a piece of me

I am sorry this is “off topic” but I flet I should ad my 2 cents worth from my own experience in response to the referenced post…

Annie

That is not what the handbook says. You don’t have to resign, they can excommunicate you.

 

[why_me]

To join another church is not automatic cause for excommunication. I know - I have been on both sides of this coin myself…Unless you are actively - and very publicly - spouting/teaching against LDS church teachings and trying to get others to go along with you, you are not likely to get excommunicated. As far as being Catholic and joining the Mormon church and going back to the Catholic church (which I did) that works too. Unless I officially left the RCC (which I believe take some writing to a bishop or something of that sort…not really sure…) they consider me still a catholic. And, unless I request to have my name removed from LDS church records, I am still, technically, a Mormon…I guess they each want a piece of me

I am sorry this is “off topic” but I flet I should ad my 2 cents worth from my own experience in response to the referenced post…

Annie

You may be correct since that religious faiths are not wanting to lose members too easily. However, if a mormon joins the catholic church through baptism, he or she is basically saying that the lds church is not true. Thus, there is no reason to be a member since the baptism takes an active decision by the person. But yes, a person can do both without a problem.

However, once a former lds person begins to spew negatives about the lds church and its leaders, I would recommend resignation or excommunication from the lds church.

 

[ronald_g_w]

I can speak more to the Catholic view. For believing, practicing (those are important qualifiers, by the way) Catholics, there is nothing more important that we do in our lives than attending mass because that’s where we receive Christ in the Eucharist. As Pope John Paul II said, the Eucharist is the source and summit of our lives. The Eucharist is the real and true body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is not a symbol, nor just a rememberance. It is an actual participation in the life of Christ. So Catholics believe that in the mass, heaven literally touches down to earth. Many Catholics don’t understand this and therefore fail to appreciate the magnitude of what the mass means. They don’t realize that the mass is simultaneoulsy going in perpetually in heaven, and that we are surrounded by the saints and angels when we worship.

So why build beautiful cathedrals and churches? Because those edifices are meant to help us recognize where we are when we attend mass–heaven. They are meant to lift our spirits to heaven, because heaven truly touches down to earth in the mass. Sadly, many Catholics have no concept of this because of poor catechesis. So cathedrals aren’t meant to dazzle the world with Catholic power and monetary wealth, but to lift our spirit to heavenly things. God gave us five senses. We are meant to worship with all of those senses. And when you walk into a Catholic cathedral, you do just that.

What about spending the money on the poor instead? Well, you should know that no organization on earth does more for the poor than the Catholic Church, and this has been true for centuries.

What is the difference between mass in the local church as against the mass in a cathedral ?

 

[RC_Matt]

He still knew the answer with surity !

Ronald, dude, you’re grasping at straws here… “To make known” is a transitive verb, it means to communicate, to reveal; in this case he was simply explaining what the four beasts were, not defining divine truth.

Once the Holy Ghost had revieled this unto him I am sure the rest all made perfect scence and confirmed his belief but you and I are not to have the objective therefor we have to only go by the subjective.

Yup; and because we have the subjective we have faith.

If the witness of the Holy Ghost is not unto sure knowledge, how then does one blasphem against the Holy Ghost ?

Matt. 12: 31
31 ¶ Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Heb 10:26
26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,

We can only deny the Holy Ghost when we have been given that sure knowledge therefor I submit to you that we can know without any dought those things that are revealed to us by the Holy Ghost. ie: that Jesus is the Christ, who his mouth piece is upon the earth at this time etc

I gotta catch a plane, so I’m rushing here. To sin against the Holy Spirit is to refuse His grace, to deliberately (not through ignorance or mental incapacity) remain consciously, obstinately and unrepentantly in grave sin until the end. You can’t be forgiven for sin if you consciously refuse to acknowledge that you have sinned in the first place and choose, i.e., make a decision, to side with evil. The human conscious, which I think is probably the greatest proof of the existence of God, is hardwired into all of us and it is perfectly in concert with what Jesus taught. We all know the difference between right and wrong; for whatever reason, some people willfully choose to follow evil.

We’re just going around in semantic circles and I think it’s best that we agree to disagree. I’m aware that many Mormons testify and are convinced that they know the church is true and that Joseph Smith was a prophet. You may believe that inner conviction rises to the level of the revelation given to Peter and some others; but it doesn’t and nobody, other than other Mormons (and not even all of them), will agree with you on that point.