Mothers Day: Report from a Mormon ward (parish)

[Catholic_Dude]

Thanks. However, I suspect our Mormon friends, while understanding the concept of putting enmity between Satan and Eve, will not see that as applying to Mary the way we know it to be. When you do not understand the source and meaning of “full of grace”, you’re pretty much stuck.

What part of “full of grace” do you not understand?
~Fr John Corapi

 

[MelanieAnne]

What part of “full of grace” do you not understand?
~Fr John Corapi

I LOVE THAT MAN!!

 

[rmcmullan]

…HOWEVER, the very next few verses appear and virtually collide with the previous verses:
.
.
.
This does not flow with the previous verses, nor does it fit with what the Bible says. Further, the idea that you can’t have joy or do good unless you know what misery and sin feel like is nothing short of the damnable lie the devil told.

Well Catholic Dude, if you really want to discuss this I am willing but if you just want a platform to prattle on about “damnable Mormon heresies” as some do, I’m really not interested. For now, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

First of all, I don’t see the conflict you are referencing. If you really want to continue, you’ll need to spell it out for me. When we come from different persepctives, it sometimes takes a while until we can understand one another. I am a former Catholic and did attend Catholic schools until high school but I’ve been Mormon for awhile now and it’s sometimes hard to remember the RC teachings.

Perhaps another teaching where we differ has to do with the two trees in the garden: one was the tree of Life, the other was the tree of knowledge. Perhaps you don’t have this in Catholic theology but in LDS, it’s the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Before the fall, Adam and Eve did not know the difference.

I see you have made some attempts at refuting the scriptural suggestions I made concerning whether or not Adam & Eve could act as creators in the garden. I do not offer those as the type of ironclad proof convincing enough that you could leave the Catholic church and become Mormon with a clear conscience. Is there really anything that can do that outside of the witness of the Holy Ghost? No, I only offer these as food for thought and not binding on any RC.

 

[Mapi]

Also, the ward that my dauthers attend gave a flower to all the women who were at the sacrament meeting on mother’s day. It did not matter if the women were married or single or even had children…all got a flower. At the catholic mass that I attended the women who attended the mass got nothing for mothers day.

well, in my husband’s ward, only the mothers of the ward got the plant, and non mothers and visitors did not.

In my parish, we all got a free breakfast from the Knights of Colombus

 

[PaulDupre]

I dont know where you get your interpretations. That 1 Peter passage says nothing of the fall, nor of it being “supposed” to happen.

God certainly knew the fall would occur, it was done in DISOBEDIENCE to Him however. Without the fall God the Son would not have to humble himself to become man, and ESPECIALLY not die a violent death.

The idea that the fall was required for spiritual growth is nothing short of the same lie which Satan tempted Eve with: Eat this apple and you will grow spiritually.

The problem here is that Mormons always equate God’s foreknowledge with with God’s specific will. They assume that because God knew Adam & Eve would sin, that God planned it and made it happen.

I think this grows from their limited view of God - that God is not omniscient and therefore cannot know everything that is going to happen, and their idea that God is morally ambivalent and could give A&E conflicting commandments to trap them into sin.

Paul

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Well Catholic Dude, if you really want to discuss this I am willing but if you just want a platform to prattle on about “damnable Mormon heresies” as some do, I’m really not interested. For now, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Im not saying what I say to be mean. From the Catholic perspective the fall was a bad thing, that is why it is so astonishing to us when LDS not only dont see it as much of a bad thing but even as a good choice.

First of all, I don’t see the conflict you are referencing. If you really want to continue, you’ll need to spell it out for me. When we come from different persepctives, it sometimes takes a while until we can understand one another. I am a former Catholic and did attend Catholic schools until high school but I’ve been Mormon for awhile now and it’s sometimes hard to remember the RC teachings.

Perhaps another teaching where we differ has to do with the two trees in the garden: one was the tree of Life, the other was the tree of knowledge. Perhaps you don’t have this in Catholic theology but in LDS, it’s the tree of Knowledge of good and evil. Before the fall, Adam and Eve did not know the difference.

We both agree they ate from the Good/Evil tree. My point on that the 2 Neph 2:18ff passage started off saying how the devil fell, the devil wanted mankind to fall and be miserable, he is called the father of lies who told them to partake, ate “forbidden fruit”, and driven from the garden, God let them live to give them a chance to repent, “they were lost because of the transgression of their parents”, etc, etc.
All those are bad things wouldnt you say?

Yet for some reason** the passage goes onto say** if Adam had not sinned he would not have been able to have children or know joy. The fall corrupted God’s creation, what is this talk of the “benefits” of the fall? The fall was a bad thing, not something that brings joy.

And after that the passage goes onto say how we need a Messiah to rescue us, implying that the fall put us in a negative state.

I see you have made some attempts at refuting the scriptural suggestions I made concerning whether or not Adam & Eve could act as creators in the garden. I do not offer those as the type of ironclad proof convincing enough that you could leave the Catholic church and become Mormon with a clear conscience. Is there really anything that can do that outside of the witness of the Holy Ghost? No, I only offer these as food for thought and not binding on any RC.

My case was basically that the instructions to “be fruitful” and “become one flesh” were given before the fall and not dependent on whether man fell or not.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The problem here is that Mormons always equate God’s foreknowledge with with God’s specific will. They assume that because God knew Adam & Eve would sin, that God planned it and made it happen.

I think this grows from their limited view of God - that God is not omniscient and therefore cannot know everything that is going to happen, and their idea that God is morally ambivalent and could give A&E conflicting commandments to trap them into sin.

Paul

I agree Paul.

I believe the Mormon’s limited view of God is a natural outgrowth of their re-making God in the image of man, which is basically what you have when you characterize God as an exalted man. I believe the problems of understanding proceed from misunderstanding/mischaracterizing the nature of God. We are not “speaking the same language” as the Mormons do when we talk about God.

 

[teancum79]

It’s not about what you choose to “buy into”, it’s about what actually happened. The fact that you do not read or understand the original text, and refuse to accept the explanation of Biblical scholars when it is given to you does not change the nature of the Mother of God.

You keep trying to make this all about you and what you think makes sense and how you think it should be. That’s backward thinking. It’s not God’s job to accommodate Himself and His Creation to you, it’s your job to accommodate yourself to God.

This sort of “make God in our own image” is, I believe, an outgrowth of the Mormon heresy of God as an exalted man. As long as anyone clings to that heresy, they are stuck.

The issue is do I accept what prophets of God say or what men make up. I’m going with the former.

I agree we should not try to make God adjust to us.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The issue is do I accept what prophets of God say or what men make up. I’m going with the former.

I agree we should not try to make God adjust to us.

And if these so-called prophets are making things up? Then what?

These “prophets of God” advocate a religion that is in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To accept “what the prophets of God say”, which I presume to refer to Mormon prophets, then you reject the Bible and all of Christianity on a fundamental level. Quite a pickle for a group that purports to follow Jesus.

 

[teancum79]

The problem here is that Mormons always equate God’s foreknowledge with with God’s specific will. They assume that because God knew Adam & Eve would sin, that God planned it and made it happen.

I think this grows from their limited view of God - that God is not omniscient and therefore cannot know everything that is going to happen, and their idea that God is morally ambivalent and could give A&E conflicting commandments to trap them into sin.

Paul

We do believe that God is omniscient. Our view of God is far from limited (IE that Christ could not be anywhere that was not special)

God is not morally ambivalent. Where do you get your bad info?

 

[Paul_G]

Why not? Sex between man and wife is not a sinful thing. It is a beautiful thing. The idea that sinfulness had to exist for people to have the ability to make children is an extremely bizarre one to me. It’s just yet another Mormon belief that makes me feel bad and wrong, like I am reading the worst kind of blasphemy.

This is an interesting point to be sure. I think it may be possible that physically Adam and Eve may have been capable of producing offspring. However I’m not sure that they knew that they had this capacity, as they were in a state of innocence perhaps being much like little children. That aside, the fact of the matter is that Eve did not bare any children until after they left the garden.

I find it curious that God made it impossible for them to eat of the three of life when the tree of knowledge was placed smack in the middle of the garden, if God did not want them to eat of it, I think he would have placed it in a less enticing and conspicuous place. I’m sure anyone reading here would not place their cleaners in the middle of the kitchen floor for their toddlers to investigate.

So you may be right, they might have able to have children before they disobeyed God – I don’t know for sure. The facts, however lead me to believe that this knowledge, at any rate, was not given to them until they had eaten that which was forbidden, giving them knowledge, for example, that they were naked. This suggests to me that they may have also been lacking in other fundamental information about their bodies.

Paul

 

[teancum79]

And if these so-called prophets are making things up? Then what?

These “prophets of God” advocate a religion that is in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. To accept “what the prophets of God say”, which I presume to refer to Mormon prophets, then you reject the Bible and all of Christianity on a fundamental level. Quite a pickle for a group that purports to follow Jesus.

We are following the Bible quite fully. It is the ideas of men who pretend to be acting in Christ name without his authority that we reject. Thats no pickle its the way to eternal life.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

So you may be right, they might have able to have children before they disobeyed God – I don’t know for sure. The facts, however lead me to believe that this knowledge, at any rate, was not given to them until they had eaten that which was forbidden, giving them knowledge, for example, that they were naked. This suggests to me that they may have also been lacking in other fundamental information about their bodies.

Paul

Being naked is not evil or bad. The knowledge that they were naked means the concept of lust and dominance entered their hearts and minds. Instead of seeing eachother as humans with equal dignity they lusted, lust is about self gratification at the expense of another, and that is not what God intended with true self sacrificing/giving love. The main reason why clothes were introduced by God was to ward off the temptation for lustful glances.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We are following the Bible quite fully.

I dont mean to be mean here, but this is a claim I often see from LDS which I consider dishonest. The LDS consider the Bible to be corrupt and inferior to the Book of Mormon. The position of the Church regarding the Bible is that it contains the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (A of F 8). Joseph Smith taught that “many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (HC 1: 245; 6: 57.) The Church reveres and respects the Bible, but recognizes that it is not a complete nor entirely accurate record, and affirms also that the Lord has given additional revelation through his prophets in the last days that sustains, supports, and verifies the biblical account of God’s dealings with mankind.
scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55
This is another issue which Catholics dont accept

 

[teancum79]

I dont mean to be mean here, but this is a claim I often see from LDS which I consider dishonest. The LDS consider the Bible to be corrupt and inferior to the Book of Mormon. The position of the Church regarding the Bible is that it contains the word of God as far as it is translated correctly (A of F 8). Joseph Smith taught that “many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.” He also said that the Bible was correct as “it came from the pen of the original writers,” but that “ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors.” (HC 1: 245; 6: 57.) The Church reveres and respects the Bible, but recognizes that it is not a complete nor entirely accurate record, and affirms also that the Lord has given additional revelation through his prophets in the last days that sustains, supports, and verifies the biblical account of God’s dealings with mankind.
scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/b/55
This is another issue which Catholics dont accept

We know about the errors, but accept the good and follow it. Its a whole lot more honest than claiming it to be perfect and ignoring half of what is written.

 

[RebeccaJ]

We know about the errors.

Do list these known errors, please.

 

[teancum79]

right starting a new thread.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

We know about the errors, but accept the good and follow it. Its a whole lot more honest than claiming it to be perfect and ignoring half of what is written.

Your original claim was “we follow the Bible quite fully”. There are many passages the LDS say are corrupted and some passages in which they even change/add verses to the Bible.

 

[ralphinal]

Being naked is not evil or bad. The knowledge that they were naked means the concept of lust and dominance entered their hearts and minds. Instead of seeing eachother as humans with equal dignity they lusted, lust is about self gratification at the expense of another, and that is not what God intended with true self sacrificing/giving love. The main reason why clothes were introduced by God was to ward off the temptation for lustful glances.

Here is the south, there are two terms for it. Naked, meanign without clothes, and nekked, meaning without clothes and up to no good. They were naked before they ate the fruit, and nekked afterwards.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Here is the south, there are two terms for it. Naked, meanign without clothes, and nekked, meaning without clothes and up to no good. They were naked before they ate the fruit, and nekked afterwards.

LOL!

I heard that in some parts of the South they think that loading the dishwasher means getting the wife drunk.