Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:
TOm: I do not doubt what you say. However, you are the ONLY member of the LDS faith I have EVER spoken with who has stated this!!! EVERY other LDS I have ever spoken with has stated that God progressed and is still progressing. Why the huge difference in beliefs?

I have seldom heard a layman off the internet explain the Trinity in a properly orthodox way. Either the description leans toward modalism or toward tri-theism.

In addition to this, I suggest that the CoJCoLDS for about 100 years emphasized differences in our beliefs from that of other Christians. They did this in isolation in Utah and they did this against the folks they thought evil who killed their prophet. LDS scholarship and understanding is developing beyond this.

In addition to this, I say that the oneness of God stands beside the threeness of God. I say that there could be some truths associated with the Snow couplet, but President Hinckley has said he does not know much about this and I think it imprudent that I publicly speculate upon it. I would also not be a “fatal flaw” were LDS to decide that there was no truth in the Snow couplet. It seems most likely past prophets have taught error whether this was an error or not, I cannot say definitively.

For a very well reasoned treating of LDS beliefs concerning this I continue to recommend (it is on the Norte Dame website how cool is that):

http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

tkdnick:
Could you give examples?

I can. But I suggest they are not particularly important. Catholics should be allowed to define what the charism of infallibility is and is not. Here is a very solid one and two lesser ones.

Pope Honorius embraced what became incorrect Christology. Here is a very pro-Catholic treatment of this:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Since I used a plural when I said Popes, it can be argued that Pope Leo I taught that Mary was not sinless.

Also, John XXII said that the beautific vision must wait until last judgment. I think he retracted this on his death bed.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

If this is the case, does your church not have an awful lot of false teachers??? And if I can add another question…when was the last time your church “sustained” something and had it added to the standard works? Another aside…what is your belief on the book Gospel Principles?

1978 would be the last addition to the standard works I believe.
Doctrine develops and past ideas are sometimes rejected and sometimes developed. I am claiming that the Snow couplet is not well understood. There is a unity of God and an eternal unchanging nature of God.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

So do you hold this eventhough the KJV was translated based on imperfect manuscripts and the tranlators acknowledged that they made mistakes?

Flameburn is defending the language of the Douay-Rhiems and the KJV of the Bible. His arguments and those he linked are virtually identical to the position of the CoJCoLDS on why old English is used.

I suspect neither he nor I will defend the inerrancy of the KJV of the Bible.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

Both of these are pretty long. I will have to wait until a later time to look through them, but I will read them. Thanks!

However, you didn’t really answer my question…Why are you the only LDS I have ever spoken with who believes God is eternal and unchanging? I’m not speaking just of LDS over the internet, but also my numerous LDS friends. Not a single one of them has ever agreed with me when I have said that God is eternal and unchanging.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

Did this statement follow the proper LDS “canonization” process? Was this statement “sustained” by the faithful?

No.

But as I suggested, it was an excellent summary of the common consent doctrine taught in the D&C.

Also, I am an active faithful LDS so I am better able to assign meaning to the words of past LDS than are those who reject those past LDS leaders.

Next, it is only reasonable to let a LDS define LDS beliefs rather than others. I am just trying to back up my definition with the words of a LDS prophet.

Lastly (if we assume the words of HBL do not come from scripture), to say that all the words of a Prophet are doctrinal would make HBL’s words doctrine, which would make HBL’s words not doctrine.

To say that HBLs words were false would prove that not all prophet’s words are truth (proving the point I was making).

To say that HBLs words were true would result in a truth that was not binding doctrine. This is the only option assuming HBLs words are not backed-up by scripture. (which I suggest they are).

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

No.

Sorry. My statement was just a little sardonic.

Lastly, to say that all the words of a Prophet are doctrinal would make HBL’s words doctrine, which would make HBL’s words not doctrine.

Huh? That confuses me!

Oh, I am unfamiliar with HBL. I am assuming he is a prophet of your church. Who is he?

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

The Book of Mormon is designed to convert using Christian principles such as the Christian belief in only one Creator, Trinity, no line of gods. …Progression towards Godhood, to become a God as God is, is not hidden in Utah. …“Rich, this is what we believe” … He just said this in a way that demands respect of His faith. …

I do not think you have seen me equivocate on the deification of humans. I believe this is Biblical, historical, and even Catholic Christianity. There are clearly differences, but, “men can become gods.” Catholics and LDS must find a way to right this with the unity of God.

catholic-rcia:
A line of Gods is their teachings, it is their ultimate goal. What Satan offered us in the garden was a good thing for them, this is their thinking. When it comes down to it, God lied, Satan told the truth. This quest is the complete opposite of Christianity.

That would be a ridiculous way to characterize LDS beliefs. What do you make of CCC#460. I have seen Protestants damn Catholics for this. No amount of explanation would appease these anti-Catholics. Quite simply, Catholics embraced multiple God, Satan’s plan, and …

I would suggest it is unwise to follow in the footsteps of anti-Catholics.

catholic-rcia:

It is our sin as Catholics as well to want Glory other than Gods. Which one of us can fully refuse what the devil offers us daily? We have others to look to in these choices, the Saints, but mostly to the only one whom can make such divine choices, Jesus. Jesus as man did not look for equality of God His Father. He was perfect in this sense because he was of God, and He was God. But we are human / Creature, we need a Savior in these matters.

We can only admire this in Jesus, and come to know that through Him we will be set free from the promises of this world.

A promise from a serpent in a garden that brought us death because of the wrong choices.

Nobody, Catholic or LDS is immune from pride. You are the apostolic church with a continuous history. You partake of the actual body and blood of Christ every mass.

LDS are the restoration of ancient Christianity. Jesus Christ and God the Father so loved us that they appeared to bring us the gospel. The most correct view on earth today.

We both believe that, “men may become gods.”

We both believe that it is grace through faith and works that save us. We are prideful in that we do not think it appropriate to be lazy and non-committed. Those who are lazy and non-committed are not walking the path that likely leads to salvation. Easy-believism is a false teaching of some protestants.

We both believe we are God’s church.

How do I know that it is your pride that deceives you into the Catholic Church? Oh wait, I do not claim to know this.

How do you know that it is my pride that deceives me into the CoJCoLDS?

AND a question I asked you earlier. You who claim that when “think of the Jewish faith in God I am at peace.” What is it about MY beliefs that makes you not at peace?

catholic-rcia:

We all have choices, and the intellect to make the right ones.

Does not the Catholic Church believe there are some who are “invincibly ignorant?” Surely this commonly refers to those who have never had contact with the gospel. But the CoJCoLDS teaches all will have a “fair and just opportunity” to accept the gospel, and this will be delivered in accordance with the individual needs of the recipient.

It is impossible for you or I to demonstrate that it is mine or your pride that prevents us from seeing the truth or mine or your ignorance that prevents us from seeing the truth. Fortunately for me, I do not try to do this.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

However, you didn’t really answer my question…Why are you the only LDS I have ever spoken with who believes God is eternal and unchanging? I’m not speaking just of LDS over the internet, but also my numerous LDS friends. Not a single one of them has ever agreed with me when I have said that God is eternal and unchanging.

I believe that all LDS must find room for D&C 20 in their world view. I am generally opposed to non-LDS trying to teach LDS what they should believe with respect to the LDS gospel, but I have suggested to LDS that they must find a place from D&C 20 in their understanding.

Perhaps Mormon Fool with have something to say about his beliefs regarding the former manhood of God. But President Hinckley said that we do not know very much about that. I believe this to be true. I believe President Hinckley and Irenaeus have cautioned about speculation on this subject and one linked too it by many critics.

And the first link is another LDS who recognizes the need to embrace D&C 20 (attempting to show that I do not stand alone as the ONLY LDS). The second link is to answer your other question.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:
Sorry. My statement was just a little sardonic.

Huh? That confuses me!

Oh, I am unfamiliar with HBL. I am assuming he is a prophet of your church. Who is he?

HBL is Harold B. Lee. He was a prophet and he was the author of the statement we were talking about.

I am just suggesting that even if HBL’s words were not backed up by scripture, logic would demand that they were true but not binding doctrine.

Charity, TOm

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

I believe that all LDS must find room for D&C 20 in their world view. I am generally opposed to non-LDS trying to teach LDS what they should believe with respect to the LDS gospel, but I have suggested to LDS that they must find a place from D&C 20 in their understanding.

Perhaps Mormon Fool with have something to say about his beliefs regarding the former manhood of God. But President Hinckley said that we do not know very much about that. I believe this to be true. I believe President Hinckley and Irenaeus have cautioned about speculation on this subject and one linked too it by many critics.

And the first link is another LDS who recognizes the need to embrace D&C 20 (attempting to show that I do not stand alone as the ONLY LDS). The second link is to answer your other question.

TOm: You still haven’t answered my question. Why are you the only LDS I have communicated with who believes God is eternal and unchanging? Is it because the others were poorly catechized (to use a Catholic term)? Is it because they choose to believe statements made that are not binding? Why do all the other LDS I have talked with believe God was a man and has progressed from that point on? I cannot speak for the person’s views in the article you posted because I have not yet read it. I am only speaking from my personal experience with several LDS members. None of them have held a belief similar to yours or apparently the person who wrote the article you posted.

I am not trying to interpret your beliefs, or tell you how you should interpret anything the LDS prophets say, or explain how you should believe the LDS gospel. I just want to know why I have never encountered another LDS who holds God to be eternal and unchanging.

 

[TOmNossor]

tkdnick:

TOm: You still haven’t answered my question. Why are you the only LDS I have communicated with who believes God is eternal and unchanging? Is it because the others were poorly catechized (to use a Catholic term)? Is it because they choose to believe statements made that are not binding? Why do all the other LDS I have talked with believe God was a man and has progressed from that point on? I cannot speak for the person’s views in the article you posted because I have not yet read it. I am only speaking from my personal experience with several LDS members. None of them have held a belief similar to yours or apparently the person who wrote the article you posted.

I am not trying to interpret your beliefs, or tell you how you should interpret anything the LDS prophets say, or explain how you should believe the LDS gospel. I just want to know why I have never encountered another LDS who holds God to be eternal and unchanging.

I believe there are a few reasons for your observation.

To be catechized within the CoJCoLDS in my opinion is to become orthopraxic not uniformly orthodox in all things. So I would not assign that as the reason. I believe after 4 years there will be a great deal of orthodoxy developed, but it will not be perfect. In a few weeks we will discuss D&C 20 in Sunday School, I will pay close attention and very possibly invite everyone to have room for this truth.

I believe the CoJCoLDS has emphasized our differences with non-LDS Christianity for a very long time. This has been done largely to show how different we are from those folks who killed Joseph Smith (IMO, but some pride prolly is/was involved too). I believe there is truth in the King Follet Discourse and in the Lorenzo Snow couplet. I just believe that as a church we have emphasized the less orthodox (with respect to Christianity) components of the Snow couplet while neglecting the more orthodox (with respect to Christianity) components of our beliefs (such as the things MLChance mentioned). I believe we are in the process of developing a more balanced approach. The current prophet has said that we do not know very much about the God was a man component of the couplet. If the prophet does not know very much about it, I would suggest that other LDS should be a little cautious with what they claim to know.

So the reason you have not encountered LDS who quote D&C 20 is because this has been underemphasized for a long time. We will be discussing it during lesson 9 which should happen in March or so. Included in the teachers guide under optional teaching #2 “Our relationship with God” is point c. “He is infinite, eternal, and unchangeable.” I am sure some teachers will cover this. Some will skip it. Some will answer as I would. And some will answer differently.

I suggest that it will take a while before many LDS adopt a more reserved stance with respect to the first part of Snow’s couplet.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

"While I have heard the Snow couplet quite regularly it is almost exclusively quoted by non-LDS. "

Funny that this couplet which is “almost exclusively quoted” by “gentiles”, was originally written by Eliza Snow, the fifth President, “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” of the COJCOLDS.

When did you guys change your collective mind? Can you just drop the teachings of your previous “prophets” when they become politically incorrect, or oppose the new Mormon effort to be seen as just another Christian denomination?

Boppy,

I appreciate your attempts to better understand complex issues in mormon belief. I would like to contribute to this end by clarifying a few points you raise. First Elisa Snow was not the 5th LDS president, that honor belongs to her brother Lorenzo Snow. It is LS that originally brought the couplet to our attention. For some background info on the couplet see the article in a church magazine below that discusses whether it is doctrine or not.

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1982.htm/ensign%20february%201982.htm/i%20have%20a%20question.htm

The conclusion of that article was that the couplet can be considered “acceptable doctrine” while admitting right off the top that it is not “official doctrine”. If I can define some terms: “official doctrine” is pronouncements that come over the signature of the First Presidency. “Canonized doctrine” is the highest level of doctrine and it is “official doctrine” as I have defined it, with the added distinction of being in the LDS scriptures. Part of the scripturization process uses the common consent principle where members of the church vote to make a doctrine binding.

In BYUBOY’s thread I went at length explaining how mormons do not hold their prophets or scriptures to be inerrant. By revelation we can always update our understanding of truth and God’s will. We have no hard and fast rules on how to weigh statements by general authorities past and present that are not “official doctrine”. But there are some principles that can be used. I like TOm’s principle that he is a better position to interpret mormon teachings then critics. Another principle I defended on the other thread was that the current prophets teachings trump past teachings. What is being repeatedly emphasized and taught today is more important than, say, the Journal of Discourses. Other principles and case studies could be discussed, but I have a feeling I am already boring everyone.

Later,

fool

 

[mormon_fool]

mlchance:

Interesting. Seems reasonable. There are also these to consider:

Some other things to consider:

Doctrine and Covenants 19:

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.
10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless cpunishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore—
11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.
12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.
What does this have to do with anything? Well it shows what is meant by eternity. Eternity is not an infinite amount of time, rather it a period of time associated with God. During this eternity God has remained unchangeable. What happened before “the beginning” is anyone’s speculation. Just some food for thought. Ideas of this type are frequently discussed on the FAIR boards. I suggest going there if you want a range of views on this topic. For instance:
fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=6448&st=15

 

[oat_soda]

why mormons don’t drink wine and caffene:

*As a consequence of the early brethren using tobacco in their meetings, the Prophet was led to ponder upon the matter; consequently he inquired of the Lord concerning it. *scriptures.lds.org/dc/89

5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine• or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.
7 And, again, strong• drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.
10 And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs• God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—
11 Every herb in the season thereof, and every fruit in the season thereof; all these to be used with prudence and thanksgiving•.
12 Yea, flesh• also of beasts• and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly;

this is WACKY. i can’t believe people actually thought he was talking to God. “hot drinks not for the body or belly” -what the hell does that mean!!!

and what’s with all of these “yea” and “verily”. it’s so stupid. this guy was totally nuts. who talks like this?? obviously he’s trying to sound biblical. “every herb in the season thereof” -give me a break!!

no wine, caffene, or beer… terrible.

 

[mormon_fool]

oat soda:

more wacky mormon facts. how can you say drinking caffene is wrong but until 1978 not let blacks become priests??

Wow these are to unrelated things. One of them is not even a fact. . To clarify mormons aren’t supposed to drink coffee or tea. Some mormons might conclude that caffeine is an addictive stimulant to be avoided, but I just live by the letter of the law.

As for the Blacks and the priesthood ban, this is a rather complicated subject that a generates a variety of opinions. A recent opinion I read recently is from Armand Mauss, questions 8 and 9:

timesandseasons.org/archives/000734.html

Basically the leaders of the church before '78 interpretted the scriptures and previous precedent in a certain way. Past understanding was updated by the revelation in 1978.

The scripture you cite can be interpretted in a manner that is not as racial as it initially seems, ripped out of context. Not wanting to encourage this thread further off topic let me just post a link to a current discussion on another board.

fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=6486&st=0
Later,
fool

 

[tkdnick]

mormon fool:

…I went at length explaining how mormons do not hold their prophets or scriptures to be inerrant.

Are you SERIOUS??? You don’t hold your scriptures to be inerrant??? How can you claim to believe them then? How can you believe something that you don’t claim to be the truth?

Another principle I defended on the other thread was that the current prophets teachings trump past teachings.

Even teachings found in the Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP? What the prophet says now trumps all of that?

Just for hypothetical play…What would you do if President Hinckley (sorry if I misspelled) came out tomorrow and said he received revelation from God that the LDS church is not the true church and JS was wrong? What would that mean for you?

 

[oat_soda]

in makes absolutely no theologic sense that God would tell joe that people shouldn’t drink “hot drinks”. it’s retarted. your missing out, Jesus drank wine!

mormon fool, here is a good website the refutes everything about mormonism. i encourage you to take a serious look at it. irr.org/mit/
what’s of particular interest is an article which shows that the DNA of indians is totally different then hebrew DNA proving the BOM false. irr.org/mit/Lamanites-DNA-Book-of-Mormon.html

There is no credible evidence that a small band of migrating Israelites populated the Americas with millions of people, generated an iron-age culture, built many buildings, and fought massive wars with thousands of casualties. To the contrary, for nearly 100 years archaeologists, biologists and linguists have presented evidence that: “physical similarities, cultural and linguistic ties and archeological and molecular data all indicate a Siberian/Asiatic origin for Native Americans, not a Hebrew one.”4.

 

[catholic-rcia]

**

**Tom, ****Regarding **[460](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/460.htm’) It’s not the same, it’s not what you are thinking. Not at all.

To be pulled into the Trinity, to share in what Christ has always shared. To be in the presence of God. What it means Tom, is that the Created will become One with God. We will be one with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit just as Jesus has always been one with the father. We are Made / Created in His Image, Image meaning in His power. We were made to live in His Grace, as He is. But we chose to become “g”ods of our own making. Judging gods, taking Gods place. This is why we have so many problems in this world. This is death. When we get back to His Grace, His life we will be as Him, but we will never be Him. Remember “Trinity” This is where you error. We are the breathed, not the breath.

We will then see God face to face, God to God. But still One God! For Him to give this gift to us, His creation is a very wonderful thing. Words can never express this. He made us out of nothing and gave us himself.

Regarding [460](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/460.htm’) Read carefully

WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?

456 With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.”

[457](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/457.htm’) The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins”:70

Sick, our nature demanded to be healed; fallen, to be raised up; dead, to rise again. We had lost the possession of the good; it was necessary for it to be given back to us. Closed in the darkness, it was necessary to bring us the light; captives, we awaited a Savior; prisoners, help; slaves, a liberator. Are these things minor or insignificant? Did they not move God to descend to human nature and visit it, since humanity was in so miserable and unhappy a state?71

[458](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/458.htm’) The Word became flesh so that thus we might know God’s love: "In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world,** so that we might live through him**."72 "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."73

[459](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/459.htm’) The Word became flesh* to be our model* of holiness: “Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me.” "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me."74 On the mountain of the Transfiguration, the Father commands: "Listen to him!"75 Jesus is the model for the Beatitudes and the norm of the new law: "Love one another as I have loved you."76 This love implies an effective offering of oneself, after his example.77

[460](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/460.htm’) The Word became flesh to make us “***partakers ***of the divine nature”:78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.- end

(Little “g” always a little “g”) It comes down to accepting the Trinity into your life. This is Catholic, this is Christian.

Continued-------

**

 

[catholic-rcia]

"Adopted sons and daughters"
"This is the campaign that is most urgently needed: to help each and every one to Realize fully, perhaps for the first time, the divine dignity that Baptism confers by engrafting us upon Christ Himself "

Our Lord did not come for the sake of those who are well, but for those who are in need. The soul that is lost interest Him far more than the ninety-nine that are just; the venturesome lamb that has fallen into the pit, far more that the flock that has returned dutifully home; the coin that has rolled behind the furniture, far more than the fortune of the cash-box.

His interest is in the prodigals: Mary Magdalene, the women taken in adultery, Zacchaeus the publican, Simon the Pharisee, Barabbas, and His companions on the cross. The preferences of all Christians should be of the same kind. But what integrity this demands, what moral beauty, what sanctity! Some, perhaps, may be tempted to escape the corrosive or weakening effect of such surroundings by avoiding to much contact with the masses, by seeking only the company of their friends, of those who think like them and to whom they feel more readily attracted. It is so much more pleasant to consort with those who are like you, and with whom you have ideals and interest in common.

Such a method is disastrous. If the leaven is to act upon the mass, it must be mingled with it. If it is separate from the mass, it forgets its proper task. It is a leading axiom in Catholic action not to remove good elements from the surroundings in which they exist, but rather to sanctify them so that they may serve to elevate and improve their fellows. In order to act effectively upon one’s surroundings, one must live in those surroundings; and, given the necessary virtue and power of action, the closer the contact, the greater the influence will be.

It is not literally true that is has been said of us: “You are gods,” and that we are to become “sons of God”? Let us give to these expressions their full Christian meaning. First and foremost, the baptized must learn to appreciate the incomparable privileges they have received by the sacrament which, in making them Christians, has brought the Blessed Trinity to dwell in their souls, and given them power to live the divine life, if only they will, and so long as they will. Let us lift up our heads and bear proudly the proud dignity of our Baptism.

How few of the baptized appreciate the essence of all revelations: that God dwells in the man who is in the state of grace? This is the campaign that is most urgently needed: to help each and every one to Realize fully, perhaps for the first time, the divine dignity that Baptism confers by engrafting us upon Christ Himself making us a living member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, communicating to us the very life of the Blessed Trinity, making us partners in the royal priesthood of Christ and His Church, uniting us in a common kinship with all our baptized brethren by this spiritual solidarity, which is the Communion of Saints, consecrating us as living chalices, as living temples to the personal and social worship of the true God. ….Father Raoul Plus, S.J. (1882-1958)

 

[catholic-rcia]

I have to post this again. It’s important when reading CC460

"It is not literally true that is has been said of us: “You are gods,” and that we are to become “sons of God”? Let us give to these expressions their full Christian meaning. First and foremost, the baptized must learn to appreciate the incomparable privileges they have received by the sacrament which, in making them Christians, has brought the Blessed Trinity to dwell in their souls, and given them power to live the divine life, if only they will, and so long as they will. Let us lift up our heads and bear proudly the proud dignity of our Baptism.

How few of the baptized appreciate the essence of all revelations: that God dwells in the man who is in the state of grace? This is the campaign that is most urgently needed: to help each and every one to Realize fully, perhaps for the first time, the divine dignity that Baptism confers by engrafting us upon Christ Himself making us a living member of the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, communicating to us the very life of the Blessed Trinity, making us partners in the royal priesthood of Christ and His Church, uniting us in a common kinship with all our baptized brethren by this spiritual solidarity, which is the Communion of Saints, consecrating us as living chalices, as living temples to the personal and social worship of the true God"
Father Raul