S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
Just an observation Parker D - I think you’d make a great diplomat.
St. Ignatius who sat of Jesus' lap Matt. 18:3-4 & Mark 9:36 - how can anyone believe that there was a Great Apostacy after the deaths of the Apostles?
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
Single Mom Monica,
Thanks for your kind thought! I really do wish all the best to you and your family.
A
Arandur
Guest
I brought it up because you seem to equate the writing of Scripture with leadership of the Church.
Even if you want to narrow it down to special revelation (visions, new prophecy–which we see in the OT may well come from a prophet recognized later, not as head of the faith), I don’t think you could discount Paul from that number. After all, he speaks of himself as not lesser than those other “superapostles” in 2 Corinthians; he had the special particular visions on the road to Damascus and when he was “caught up to the third heaven” (a popular passage for Smithians). Also, he talks about himself being given special revelation and commission regarding the nature of the Body of Christ.
Still, I have not seen evidence that “leading apostles” took over headship of the Church by default, based on seniority or descending rank among the Twelve. You noted Andrew, but he had not had much mention (not as Peter, nor even as James and John) save for being recognized in Acts as bishop of the Church in Jerusalem.
Without getting too deep into your other conversation yet, IIRC, “a time, and times, and the dividing of times” was a formula consistently used to mean three and a half years, also used as an equivalent to that 1260 (days) that crops up rather frequently. I have seen such symbols much abused and not with consistency among Smithians; even Smith himself changed the wording in Revelations in one instance to be 1260 “years” when the same number is referred to by a the times expression later to clearly show that “days” is proper, in 3.5 years. And I have seen that applied as if it were an evidence to when the BoM was to be brought forth, working backward on this assumption of yours that the references refer to a departure of the Church from the earth.
Also, as I’m sure others will be quick to point out here,
would be to ignore straightforward words, promises, prayers, and parables of Christ to the contrary of your view. As well, you there are none that say the Bride “would not remain on the earth.” Your mistaken interpretation applies that meaning, apparently to “wilderness” or hardship (not having kings,etc–which OT passage was clearly remedied by Christ’s Incarnation and Salvation). Yet you don’t seem to explain what this “place” is beyond earth that qualifies as “wilderness” or hardship; does this add another level to the Mormon supernatural? The pre-mortal existence, Hell, Heavens 1-3, plus Wilderness?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Arandur,
Hi. In answer to your question about the wilderness, I would say that it appears that wherever that place was, it was going to be out of the influence of the serpent or the beast, so it could either be the spirit world or it could be wherever John was going to be on the earth, in remote places unknown to the people around Jerusalem.
I realize there are different interpretations including of time sequences for understanding the book of Revelation and the book of Daniel. I really think the intent by God through the Holy Spirit prompting those kinds of visions was that people would seek the Holy Spirit to understand the meanings by personal revelation. But that would involve also studying the entire Bible and putting together the patterns that are clearly there about God’s purposes with the house of Israel, the latter days, and how the guidance of the Holy Spirit works.
A
Arandur
Guest
Hardly the work of a single person, particularly the rude, poor, uneducated masses. I guess God doesn’t really care much about them.
As well, seeking “personal revelation” (interpretation) is, effectively, the fastest way to disunity, contradictory doctrines, and the confusion of truth. The Scriptures clearly say this, and history even more clearly proves it. It’s experientially self-evident.
A
Anna_Scott
Guest
ParkerD:
It’s 1:15 a.m.; so I’ll just ask one question tonight:
If you believe that John never died, and John still walks the earth; does that mean John was exalted as a God? So far, your descriptions make him sound immortal.
Anna
P
ParkerD
Guest
Anna,
I can see why that question would come up. I didn’t explain that even though John’s body had been changed such that the powers of the earth and the powers of the adversary could have no effect on him, he was not resurrected and would still need to “die” eventually, after his mission which he had asked to be able to serve is completed and Christ has returned to the earth. Then, I would expect that he will die in the sense of being “changed in the twinkling of an eye” from a “translated body”, to what we would call “death”, to a resurrected body. An explanation of that is found in 3 Nephi 28:8. Also, children born during the Millenium who live a righteous life will also be “changed in the twinkling of an eye” after they have lived to a normal old age, and will be “caught up” rather than the need to be buried and be resurrected later.
So no, John is not a “god” although he experiences joy through having the understanding that he has and through observing the changes in people’s lives as they embrace the teachings of Jesus and no longer desire the things of the world but instead desire the things of heaven. He doesn’t sorrow for the sins of the world, and sees that his vision from so long ago is really happening and the power of the adversary is gradually being overcome on the earth through righteousness and the Holy Spirit taking effect in people’s lives.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Arandur,Hardly the work of a single person, particularly the rude, poor, uneducated masses. I guess God doesn’t really care much about them.
As well, seeking “personal revelation” (interpretation) is, effectively, the fastest way to disunity, contradictory doctrines, and the confusion of truth. The Scriptures clearly say this, and history even more clearly proves it. It’s experientially self-evident.
No, actually–God really does care very much “about them.” I think He is wonderfully pleased as they take an interest in the Bible, read it, and find the whisperings of the Holy Spirit in their own hearts bringing questions to their mind and then prayerfully asking those questions, whether out loud or in their heart, and being “led as calves to the stall” and gaining “here a little, and there a little,” and “line upon line, precept upon precept.”
“Personal revelation” is different than “personal interpretation”. It is getting knowledge from the same source from whence the revelation came in the first place–from God. It is getting knowledge directly from the Holy Spirit, which is what Christ promised when He said “I will not leave you comfortless.”
I’m sure some of the early church leaders (not the apostles, but some who joined the church and saw disunity begin to happen) also felt that allowing the idea of the Holy Spirit guiding each person individually would lead to division rather than to unity, but that would be because they didn’t trust others enough or didn’t really trust the Holy Spirit enough. The apostles sought to overcome the disunity they saw coming as more and more people joined the church and some supposed leaders asserted their own leadership and stopped really following the apostles and really seeking to follow the Holy Spirit in how they taught others. (One can observe this in how Paul and Peter sought to correct them or sought to urge the people not to listen to them.) But the goal was always both unity and personal direction by the Holy Spirit, with no intermediary meaning that no leader stands between a person getting guidance directly from God.
This is ultimately how much God trusts mankind, and how much mankind should be able to trust each other even despite differences of opinion–that everyone who is seeking God’s influence in their lives can learn to live together in unity as they apply Christ’s teachings about love and compassion and forgiveness and being guided by the Holy Spirit; and then they begin to build Zion from inside out rather than having it imposed upon them by a few leaders who teach them act out of fear rather than basing their teachings on really promoting the idea of having faith and learning to make changes in their own personal lives through direct communication from God.
A
Arandur
Guest
This is such a modernist view. You missed my point. For most of human history, the vast majority of people were effectively illiterate. They also had very little access to anything written, just because it was impractical and impossible to mass produce and make available written things. So God provides a path without reading. As Scripture tells us, faith comes by hearing. And the Church teaches and preaches; that is its role. You have set up a system possible only in the modern age. It is thus obviously not God’s system.
As I have pointed out many times in previous discussions, I of course hold a very important and necessary place for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not the ONLY form of knowing truth, however. It must be considered along with many other factors to ensure proper understanding, for every message received from God our limited minds and hearts must try to comprehend, and we can easily distort or get wrong the meaning if we attempt to do so relying on ourselves. That would be, in pride, to rely on our own foolishness.
You don’t get it. Your church functions in many, many ways exactly the same as any other church, even the Catholic one. Yours has not spread nearly as fast, has suffered many divisions, and even Mormon members can’t agree on much, using your supposed method to truth and unity (I have been a part of many discussions, several on MADB, illustrating this point, making the observation that Mormons have a really difficult time agreeing on doctrines in unity).
Yet you blame all other churches but your own for being led by men with different motivations, teaching people to “act out of fear.” You really appear to not have studied the history of Christianity very well, to make such baseless accusations; you appear unfamiliar with the ECFs, early Christian writings, and conciliar writings, much less later ones. Such accusations illustrate near total ignorance or prejudiced rejection of the Catholic Church.
You appear not to have considered much at all that Church which has the most significant claim, the only one that claims direct connection back to Christ and His 12 Apostles. Such a claim rightly must be investigated first, with the most consideration given to it, before any others so much further removed.
You bring theory and opinion of how you think things should work. I bring evidence and proof of the fruits of such an approach. All you can do is try to refute my evidence and arguments. As long as you cannot, they stand in disproof of your theory and opinion. That’s simply how reason works to help find truth.
G
greggy53
Guest
What evidence do you have that the early Church teachings are different than what they are now.? We have ample evidence that the Catholic Church is fundamentally the same now as it was in St Ignatius lifetime. What is your evidence that it was changed? We know you don’t like it, and don’t accept it, but why? Where is your evidence ?
You don’t have to tell Catholics about Biblical truths we have been learning them ever since Jesus established the Church. There are many, many traditions, and stories surrounding the various saints. Wonderful stories that demonstrate what Christianity is all about. Many of them are parables. Many others are also recorded and accepted miracles. All of them edify the one true Church of Jesus.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Arandur,This is such a modernist view. You missed my point. For most of human history, the vast majority of people were effectively illiterate. They also had very little access to anything written, just because it was impractical and impossible to mass produce and make available written things. So God provides a path without reading. As Scripture tells us, faith comes by hearing. And the Church teaches and preaches; that is its role. You have set up a system possible only in the modern age. It is thus obviously not God’s system.
As I have pointed out many times in previous discussions, I of course hold a very important and necessary place for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is not the ONLY form of knowing truth, however. It must be considered along with many other factors to ensure proper understanding, for every message received from God our limited minds and hearts must try to comprehend, and we can easily distort or get wrong the meaning if we attempt to do so relying on ourselves. That would be, in pride, to rely on our own foolishness.
You don’t get it. Your church functions in many, many ways exactly the same as any other church, even the Catholic one. Yours has not spread nearly as fast, has suffered many divisions, and even Mormon members can’t agree on much, using your supposed method to truth and unity (I have been a part of many discussions, several on MADB, illustrating this point, making the observation that Mormons have a really difficult time agreeing on doctrines in unity).
Yet you blame all other churches but your own for being led by men with different motivations, teaching people to “act out of fear.” You really appear to not have studied the history of Christianity very well, to make such baseless accusations; you appear unfamiliar with the ECFs, early Christian writings, and conciliar writings, much less later ones. Such accusations illustrate near total ignorance or prejudiced rejection of the Catholic Church.
You appear not to have considered much at all that Church which has the most significant claim, the only one that claims direct connection back to Christ and His 12 Apostles. Such a claim rightly must be investigated first, with the most consideration given to it, before any others so much further removed.
You bring theory and opinion of how you think things should work. I bring evidence and proof of the fruits of such an approach. All you can do is try to refute my evidence and arguments. As long as you cannot, they stand in disproof of your theory and opinion. That’s simply how reason works to help find truth.
Your point about people being illiterate seems to make the assumption that that was either God’s fault, or that because they were illiterate God was being unfair to allow for the need to be taught by prophets and teachers who themselves would have the word of God through inspired writings and teach from those writings as well as teach by the Holy Spirit.
I think God has a longer time span of looking at people’s hearts and their choices than just this present world, so the question of illiteracy becomes irrelevant. God taught Adam and Eve both language and writing skills. The fact that their posterity at some point lost some of those skills, would not be God’s fault but humankind’s fault.
I have read enough of both the opinions of people such as yourself on this website, and writings cited in the Catholic encyclopedia or sources people have posted as relevant to certain discussions, that there is not even the tiniest question in my mind that such opinions and such writings include misunderstandings that are absolutely not in accordance with Biblical truths. But I certainly haven’t read every piece of Catholic writing there is, nor every piece of other religious attempts to find and define “truth” as seen by every person seeking to figure it out, whether they were being sincere or not.
But I am familiar with the Holy Spirit, and because of that I have no problem saying that just because you have found divided opinions about certain subjects discussed by Mormons, does not mean they don’t have the Holy Spirit. It can mean that they haven’t really sincerely sought the Holy Spirit’s guidance about a certain particular topic, or that the Holy Spirit has not given an answer and they are merely giving an opinion. Mormons can have different opinions about religious topics as well as other topics of conversation, but ultimately if they are seeking the Spirit in their life they will not bring contention and divisiveness into their treatment of people, even strangers, and if they do they have followed their own weaknesses (which we all have) and have not followed the teachings of the Savior.
As to question of a “fear-based” approach to leading people to Christ, why would Catholics be so adamant that God cannot possibly have a plan that allows for people to be taught and be able to have repentance working in their life in the spirit world, if it weren’t that they have some notion that God set up a “pass/fail” system that applies only to this life?
P
ParkerD
Guest
Greggy,
I am very reluctant to answer the questions from your first paragraph here. I feel like if you are reading the Bible in your personal life and seeking to apply its teachings, then that is a good thing and I wish you every happiness through doing that.
As a simple way of generally answering about changes introduced, one could look at whether each individual member is encouraged to seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their own life and to really trust that guidance as they seek to “be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father in Heaven is perfect.” One could also read the book of Revelation and note what it says about seeking signs from purported miracles.
One could also think about whether a religion is seeking to impose spirituality on people (by baptizing an infant, for example) and to have outward pageantry that mimics spirituality, or whether it is seeking to help people have inner spirituality and inner spiritual peace through making covenants with Jesus Christ and then keeping those covenants and improving their lives day by day, including serving others with unselfishness and forgiving hearts.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
LDS claims about a supposed “Great Apostasy” are baseless. Those claims are based on an historical assertion that the original church was Mormon in character and fell away. The burden of proof is on Mormons to use historical evidence to document the process by which the “Apostasy” occurred. At a minimum, this requires demonstrating first, that the primitive church was organized similarly to the modern LDS church and practiced the same “essential Mormon ordinances” that Mormons practice today and that were supposedly “restored” by Joseph Smith. This would include, at a minimum, uncovering evidence that the primitive, 1st century church had temples and conducted such rites as temple marriage and the endowment and believed in and practiced polygamy. The entire Mormon argument about an Apostasy rests on the assumption that essential beliefs and ordinances were changed. This, in turn, must be proven using ONLY historical evidence from the time. ** Individual Mormon’s personal testimonies, the words of Joseph Smith, the teachings of the church in Salt Lake City, statements in the Book of Mormon, etc. are completely irrelevant and pointless to the conversation since we Catholics don’t accept any of that as valid evidence. ** To the Mormons here who believe an Apostasy occurred, where in the New Testament or in the writings of the early church fathers (ECFs) are Mormon temple practices described? Where are the apostolic or ECF writings that mention “eternal marriage” and the “endowment”? Where is Mormon church organization (First Presidency, Quorum of Twelve, etc. etc.) clearly in evidence in the first 100 years after Jesus’ resurrection? Please provide citations from the New Testament and the writings of the early church fathers (Ignatius, Clement, Justin, Ireaneus, Tertullian, etc.) that clearly describe LDS temple practices and the beliefs that underpin them? Can you show us original greek words in those documents that scholars today would translate as “temple marriage”, “endowment”, “polygamy”, etc., and find those terms used by the author in such a way in the original documents as to show approval of these doctrines and practices by the apostles themselves, either recorded in the New Testament or as described by those ECFs who had direct contact with the apostles and were appointed to their bishoprics by them (namely Clement and Ignatius)?
If you can’t do this, then you have NOTHING. You have zero evidence whatsoever that original teachings and practices were changed other than your own personal opinion. And please don’t use the cop-out argument that there are “lost manuscripts” that contain these teachings or that “wicked priests” removed “plain and precious truths” from the Bible, as it states in the Book of Mormon. As I said above, the Book of Mormon is not evidence of the apostasy. And neither is your testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. You don’t have any evidence that there are missing manuscripts or redacted passages that contain the “lost teachings of Mormonism” as found in the primitive church. Please bring us something concrete from the New Testament of the writings of the early church fathers that mentions temples, endowments, eternal marriage, and polygamy or you have nothing and are just wasting everyone’s time – including your own. Until you bring that kind of evidence to the table, then belief in a Great Apostasy will always remain an irrational act, the same as if someone went about preaching that there are little green men who live on the moon, which incidentally is made of cheese.
NS
If you can’t do this, then you have NOTHING. You have zero evidence whatsoever that original teachings and practices were changed other than your own personal opinion. And please don’t use the cop-out argument that there are “lost manuscripts” that contain these teachings or that “wicked priests” removed “plain and precious truths” from the Bible, as it states in the Book of Mormon. As I said above, the Book of Mormon is not evidence of the apostasy. And neither is your testimony that the Book of Mormon is true. You don’t have any evidence that there are missing manuscripts or redacted passages that contain the “lost teachings of Mormonism” as found in the primitive church. Please bring us something concrete from the New Testament of the writings of the early church fathers that mentions temples, endowments, eternal marriage, and polygamy or you have nothing and are just wasting everyone’s time – including your own. Until you bring that kind of evidence to the table, then belief in a Great Apostasy will always remain an irrational act, the same as if someone went about preaching that there are little green men who live on the moon, which incidentally is made of cheese.
NS
A
Arandur
Guest
So you’re saying God’s remedy for illiteracy was the teaching of prophets and teachers guided by the Holy Spirit? Yes, that is the Catholic answer! That’s the role of the Magisterium (which means “teacher” most basically) of the Church.
Haven’t seen where God did or did not teach Adam and Eve writing. It doesn’t much matter.
God spread His WORD (which is spoken, not text) throughout Salvation History primarily not through writing. Even the texts of the OT are understood by most to have been written only as far back as 1500BC, which even for the young-earthers doesn’t go back that far. Literacy and learnedness has never been essential to God’s plan. In fact, He speaks warnings about/to the learned more than He praises them, and never declares it essential.
Wow. That sounds like prejudice bordering on bigotry. That sounds like quite serious close-mindedness, not openness to the pursuit of truth.
You’re equivocating. I was referring directly to the teachings of the Church from the earliest Christian writings onwards as a response to your accusations, encouraging you to educate yourself before making such accusations because these teachings run quite contrary to them.
Of course if everyone followed the Spirit perfectly we’d all be in unity. The problem is human failings. The solutions are in the many other tools God gave us beyond our own personal interpretations of the Spirit to help us understand Him.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teachings (as well as most other Christian and Jewish beliefs) about salvation and life after death. God certainly has a plan, both in this world and in the next. His perfect judgment, justice, and mercy relate to what experiences we had on earth. The unbaptized, those who never encountered Christ’s teachings or to the extent it was transmitted imperfectly, all the many reasons for imperfect communion with God, are not held against us but factor into His perfect judgment. I’m also often rather surprised that Smithians react as they do to Purgatory when your own levels of heaven are really just a major expansion of the concept. The Church Penitant (in Purgatory) are all destined for Heaven, but merely undergo that perfection required to be in God’s full presence. They are tested in that fire, purified as gold, having already shown a spirit accepting of Him and His love but needing to “wash up before dinner,” to shed the last imperfections and obstacles before entering His presence, before which no sin can be.
Where is the fear in that? Granted, in the Middle Ages there were abuses where Purgatory was taught by many with poor understanding to be a place of punishment. It is not, although the language in Scripture pertaining to it (testing in fire and so forth) can sound like it is painful. But only as separation and the process of repentance and acceptance of truth can be painful. Yet what is there to fear in Purgatory, when you are destined for God’s presence, except for those faults that you might find hard to let go, overcome, and that might keep you from more swiftly/easily entering God’s presence? (not that Purgatory requires time, since beyond the mortal world time is uncertain if existant at all)
A
Arandur
Guest
You don’t think the Catholic Church strongly leads and teaches everyone to do that? Again you make accusations in ignorance or prejudice. The Church is absolutely wonderful and beautiful in this task and so much more.
To what are you referring? Miracles (which I don’t think you’ll deny happen) are not what faith is based on. They are merely outward signs that are evidences of faith and in support of faith. The Church doesn’t place much importance on them at all, safe for the miracles of the Sacraments and Christ’s own life (primarily His birth and resurrection).
You also misunderstand baptism or its precedents. Households brought to the Lord in the identity of a people include their progeny. A circumsized Jew has not had his free will violated (“imposed on”) any more than his will was abrogated by the happenstance of whom he was born to. The faith of his parents and their part in the people of God is a gift to him that he was brought into but can obviously reject.
Wow, you accuse the Church of this when you have your Temple rituals? What is with you? Again, you must not have even begun to explore the rich meaning associated with the Liturgies and all the sacred rituals of the Church.
You don’t think the Catholic Church does this?
G
greggy53
Guest
Reluctant, or unable? I did not question your faith. You made the statement that changes were made indicating that the Catholic Church does not teach what the early Church taught. So, I asked for your evidence that this took place. This is not a question of faith but cold hard fact.
What you are saying here is that you think the Catholic Church does not teach it’s members what it should be teaching based on how you interpret the scriptures. And because your personal interpretation of scripture does not agree with the Catholic Church the Catholic Church cannot be teaching what the early or true Church did. You are employing the use of scripture and the private interpretation thereof to justify your position. The problem with that is that scripture warns us not to use private interpretation. Warns us not to rely on our own understanding.
2nd Peter1:20 “Understanding this first, that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation.”
In truth one can come up with a scripture or scriptures to justify any position they want.
Your personal interpretation therefore cannot be used as an argument, or as evidence
The theological justification for infant baptism was well documented by the early Church. Again, you would have to show me evidence that the early Christian Church did not baptize infants. Nothing in scripture prohibits it, and the Church has demonstrated ample scriptural evidence for it. Every denomination employs some form of what could be called “pageantry” As LDS you have your ceremonies and the like I’m sure of that… Don’t go poking your finger at others who have theirs.
G
greggy53
Guest
It’s amazing how 2000 years of documented Christian history can be dismissed by LDS and others as fraudulent, and when a 19th century con artist comes along with his own version of the Gospel the same people buy it hook line and sinker.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Greggy,
Baptism was in each and every case described in the Bible, done by one with authority to a believer who understood that they were individually making a covenant, and the baptism was done by immersion and was followed by the gift of the Holy Ghost soon thereafter, which provided the recipient with the opportunity for individual communication from God and for the kind of personal revelation that is not “private interpretation,” but just like “holy men of God spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” a person such as yourself can understand the message of the prophets by using the gift of the Holy Ghost and being inspired by the scriptures.
But if one mistrusts that process or mistrusts that the Holy Ghost can really be involved in guiding people in their lives, then I guess we differ profoundly on what the New Testament teaches so amply and so well.
Baptism was in each and every case described in the Bible, done by one with authority to a believer who understood that they were individually making a covenant, and the baptism was done by immersion and was followed by the gift of the Holy Ghost soon thereafter, which provided the recipient with the opportunity for individual communication from God and for the kind of personal revelation that is not “private interpretation,” but just like “holy men of God spake as they were moved upon by the Holy Ghost,” a person such as yourself can understand the message of the prophets by using the gift of the Holy Ghost and being inspired by the scriptures.
But if one mistrusts that process or mistrusts that the Holy Ghost can really be involved in guiding people in their lives, then I guess we differ profoundly on what the New Testament teaches so amply and so well.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Arandur,So you’re saying God’s remedy for illiteracy was the teaching of prophets and teachers guided by the Holy Spirit? Yes, that is the Catholic answer! That’s the role of the Magisterium (which means “teacher” most basically) of the Church.
Haven’t seen where God did or did not teach Adam and Eve writing. It doesn’t much matter.
God spread His WORD (which is spoken, not text) throughout Salvation History primarily not through writing. Even the texts of the OT are understood by most to have been written only as far back as 1500BC, which even for the young-earthers doesn’t go back that far. Literacy and learnedness has never been essential to God’s plan. In fact, He speaks warnings about/to the learned more than He praises them, and never declares it essential.
Wow. That sounds like prejudice bordering on bigotry. That sounds like quite serious close-mindedness, not openness to the pursuit of truth.
You’re equivocating. I was referring directly to the teachings of the Church from the earliest Christian writings onwards as a response to your accusations, encouraging you to educate yourself before making such accusations because these teachings run quite contrary to them.
Of course if everyone followed the Spirit perfectly we’d all be in unity. The problem is human failings. The solutions are in the many other tools God gave us beyond our own personal interpretations of the Spirit to help us understand Him.
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Catholic teachings (as well as most other Christian and Jewish beliefs) about salvation and life after death. God certainly has a plan, both in this world and in the next. His perfect judgment, justice, and mercy relate to what experiences we had on earth. The unbaptized, those who never encountered Christ’s teachings or to the extent it was transmitted imperfectly, all the many reasons for imperfect communion with God, are not held against us but factor into His perfect judgment. I’m also often rather surprised that Smithians react as they do to Purgatory when your own levels of heaven are really just a major expansion of the concept. The Church Penitant (in Purgatory) are all destined for Heaven, but merely undergo that perfection required to be in God’s full presence. They are tested in that fire, purified as gold, having already shown a spirit accepting of Him and His love but needing to “wash up before dinner,” to shed the last imperfections and obstacles before entering His presence, before which no sin can be.
Where is the fear in that? Granted, in the Middle Ages there were abuses where Purgatory was taught by many with poor understanding to be a place of punishment. It is not, although the language in Scripture pertaining to it (testing in fire and so forth) can sound like it is painful. But only as separation and the process of repentance and acceptance of truth can be painful. Yet what is there to fear in Purgatory, when you are destined for God’s presence, except for those faults that you might find hard to let go, overcome, and that might keep you from more swiftly/easily entering God’s presence? (not that Purgatory requires time, since beyond the mortal world time is uncertain if existant at all)
I wanted you to know that I have had time to read both of your posts, but do not have time to respond in detail right now due to other things going on.
In the meantime, perhaps you could explain why in nearly 1,900 years your church hasn’t achieved Zion in a broad way, which would be the condition whereby there are no really, really poor among the people who are members of the church and whereby the people have so much love and forgiveness in their hearts that a feeling of community and of well-being and mutual trust within the whole society allows the kind of peace that the Savior promised He would bring into peoples’ lives as they followed Him, both individually and as a collective body of righteous members of the church?
Why, for example, did the pope appeal to governments to help the poor when he should, it seems to me, be appealing to the members of the church to raise their sights and help the poor themselves and bring about a condition where there are no poor among those very members?
C
choy
Guest
the Jews did lose their temple only to rebuild it later on (and get destroyed again much later) but the church of Jesus Christ is not a building but a mystical body where Jesus is the head. how can that church be apostatized then? Jesus likened the church to a bride because a man and a wife when they get married become one flesh, just as Christ becomes one with His church. to apostatize the church means to apostatize Jesus Himself, which i believe all believers are in agreement that it can never happen.
as for the woman in revelation, she didn’t disappear, but only went into hiding. if she does represent the Church, didn’t the early Christians went into hiding to escape Roman persecution? early Christians gathered in catacombs and emerged later when Christianity was more accepted and allowed to freely worship in public
- Status