Views on Mormonism?

[Telstar]

Kathleen,
Why didn’t the Pope rewrite CCC 460 to be less confusing,
unless it actually says what he wants it to say .; )

Why are you so ashamed of your own doctrine?

No offense, but how long were you Catholic, Tony? Do you really believe that the Pope wrote the Catechism? I think you were most likely a CINO (Catholic in name only) that was never really taught very much about your Faith, at all. Or, you just never paid attention in your Catechism classes, if you even went to them. That’s a real shame, but it would explain your complete lack of understanding of anything about the Catholic Church. It seems you’ve learned more about it from Mormons than you ever did from Catholics.

If you had paid attention, you wouldn’t have that much of a problem understanding the meaning of CCC 460. It also might make more sense if you read the whole section before and after it, in context (including all of the footnotes), instead of proof-texting as you typically seem to be doing. But, I really doubt that you found that on your own. Most likely you heard it during a lesson about how to convince your Catholic family members that Mormonism is “just like Catholicism, only better”, in hopes that they’d follow along with you. Are you really sure you were ever Catholic?

 

[KathleenGee]

Only until the recent encroachment of Mormonism misusing our beliefs, is there a need for clarification of this passage…our instructor studied in Rome and was under the then archbishop, who is now head of orthodoxy at the Vatican.

So the CCC 460 is being compromised and misrepresented by Mormonism to promote their contrary belief system…and this is unethical.

 

[Telstar]

Only until the recent encroachment of Mormonism misusing our beliefs, is there a need for clarification of this passage…our instructor studied in Rome and was under the then archbishop, who is now head of orthodoxy at the Vatican.

So the CCC 460 is being compromised and misrepresented by Mormonism to promote their contrary belief system…and this is unethical.

It’s sad that the Catholic Church has to adjust the manner of teaching its own beliefs because of the misrepresentations of those long held beliefs by those that would misconstrue its intended meaning, that has been understood and in place for centuries, to bolster their own claims of a similarity with their own heresies. The early Church Fathers would be appalled at the very thought of it.

 

[bz5]

Secondly, I have always been impressed with the missionaries that dress up neatly and go from door to door spreading what they consider to be the truth. Would that there was more of this missionary spirit evident in the Catholic Church.

God bless

I absolutely agree with the above. I’ve always thought the vast majority of people who join do so because they’re looking for a wholesome life, a nice community, not because of theological beliefs. The culture sending so many young men (and women in charitable capacities) forth is admirable.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mtolympus,

Let me complement you on the work you did to get Prop 8 passed. Working together for the common good and defending marriage as God intended was righteous work. God bless you and all who took an active part in moving this forward.

How the government and courts have responded to the honest will of the people is truly disgusting - and these officials will have much to answer for in their effort to have their own way. Truly I have been shocked at how this raw power grab has played out to date.

God bless

I am always glad to hear from those in this forum who agree we can and should work together in these matters. While going door to door to get support for Prop. 8 in California I always loved it when a came across a multi-generation household of Spanish speaking Catholics and even though I don’t speak Spanish, I knew I could count on their support.

 

[bz5]

Thirdly, I personally appreciate that position taken by the LDS organization concerning the sacredness of life and the principle that marriage is between one man and one woman. These basic Christian beliefs have been under enormous attack from those who would destroy them. The Mormons have, to the best of my knowledge, stood quite firm on these matters and supported others in this effort.

God bless

While I think the majority of individual members would be against abortion, I don’t believe it’s the official position of the church. It used to be, but now there are exceptions for incest, rape, the health or life of the mother, and severe defects in the unborn baby. The dad and mom must consult each other, the bishop or brach president,and pray about it, but still, that’s a stark difference from the Catholic position. If what I described is true, I find it disturbing that the absolute prohibition against the taking of human life didn’t last longer than the prohibition against certain drinks

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

This comment of your is truly off the wall!

KathleenGee and Telstar have hit the nail squarely on the head in their response.

It may be good to take a look at what actually preceeded this item you seem to enjoy misunderstanding.**

458 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 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 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."81 **
Now, here are the footnotes that have been referenced:
72 1 Jn 4:9.
73 Jn 3:16.
74 Mt 11:29; Jn 14:6.
75 Mk 9:7; cf. Dt 6:4-5.
76 Jn 15:12.
77 Cf. Mk 8:34.
78 2 Pt 1:4.
79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.
80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.
81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

God bless

Kathleen,
Why didn’t the Pope rewrite CCC 460 to be less confusing,
unless it actually says what he wants it to say .; )

Why are you so ashamed of your own doctrine?

 

[Telstar]

I have a question for all Mormons out there. I’ve seen it mentioned that in Mormonism, Jesus is believed to have only been ‘chosen’ (voted in) to be the Savior because He was the ‘firstborn’ son out of all of the billions and billions of other ‘sons’ and daughters of God in the ‘preexistence’, and because He said that He would do the Father’s will and give Him all the glory. Somehow this made Him the *only *‘perfect’ man that would ever take on human flesh, unlike anyone else.

If that’s all true, then how is it possible that there was only one ‘perfect’ child of your ‘eternal father’, out of all of those countless billions that would eventually be born? Surely there had to have been others that might have been perfect as well. Isn’t your ‘eternal father’ capable of having any more perfect children? If he is truly God, then why aren’t all of his children perfect? Is there something wrong with him that he could never have any other perfect offspring? If we look at all earthly families, the oldest child is not always the ‘most perfect’ child born into the family. Sometimes, they might even be just the opposite. The order of their birth certainly has nothing to do with their relative ‘goodness’. If the family of your ‘eternal father’ is just like any other family on earth, how is this supposed to be a true depiction of reality?

 

[pablope]

PuerCuriosus,

Some Latter-day Saints take a couple of statements of Joseph Smith and Lorenzo Snow and use those statements to support a belief that is somewhat like the second statement in your first sentence, but others take the full teaching of Joseph Smith in what is called his “King Follett Discourse” and consider that Heavenly Father “lived on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did” and thus was perfect when He lived on an earth, just as Jesus Christ was perfect when He lived on this earth before He was resurrected, and that both were also perfect in their pre-mortal lives. So that would of course have a significantly different meaning than what your friends speculated.

Latter-day Saints believe “I AM” is Jehovah, who is God the Son, Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah whom the Jewish leaders rejected when He lived on earth.

Latter-day Saints believe both God the Father and Jesus Christ are “Alpha and Omega”.

NiI think it is clear from Latter-day Saint teachings that those who do share in becoming “one” with Jesus Christ will continue to worship Heavenly Father, and will never reach a point of not needing and wanting and expecting to worship Him, so that’s where my thoughts go when thinking about the kinds of things your last few comments explored. I look at the concept of having “spirit children” as that they will worship Heavenly Father just as we do on this earth, but it isn’t a settled doctrine one way or the other how those relationships will be, and we don’t know enough about it to do more than speculate.

Have a good day.

More whitwashing, Parker? We here have seen that the God you worship is different from the traditional Christian God…post after post after post.

 

[pablope]

I thought these last few threads were about becoming gods.

Here is a quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

**460 **The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:“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.” “For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.” “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.”

Well, I must admit, that I have learned something here. I never knew the CCC said anything like this???

Does this mean the Catholic Church is in agreement with the LDS on this matter?

No…because the Catholic understanding is different than the LDS concept of becoming a god…who rules their own planets.

 

[pablope]

Kathleen,
Why didn’t the Pope rewrite CCC 460 to be less confusing,
unless it actually says what he wants it to say .; )

Why are you so ashamed of your own doctrine?

Re-write?

Or made clear? And as opposed to the LDS changing their doctrines to make it palatable?

 

[mwok]

Continuation to Telstar:

Being omnipotent would mean being able to “create from nothing”, but that doesn’t mean Heavenly Father and the Savior would do that just to show that They could. They use wisdom in what They do, not some kind of show-Their-power demonstration.

Since they are “Alpha and Omega”, I wonder who they were showing their power of creation to?

 

[mwok]

Kathleen,
Why didn’t the Pope rewrite CCC 460 to be less confusing,
unless it actually says what he wants it to say .; )

Why are you so ashamed of your own doctrine?

Because in its correct context it makes the case for what we actually believe.

 

[mtolympus]

Christ was quite clear that there would be NO marriage in heaven. Period. He chided the Sadduces for their lack of knowledge of both Scripture and of the Power of God - and it may be well to think about what He said.

God bless

Hi tqualey,
Interesting conversation, sorry I am about 15 pages behind.

If you note the scripture (Matt. 22:29-30) in the Bible it says “In the resurrection” which will occur at the time of final Judgement. This does not mean there will be no marraige in heaven, but only that all marriage will take place before the resurrection and final judgement. Also, the the Sadduces did not understand that unless these marraiges were performed by “the power of God” (priesthood) they would not be in effect in heaven.

 

[mwok]

Hi tqualey,
Interesting conversation, sorry I am about 15 pages behind.

If you note the scripture (Matt. 22:29-30) in the Bible it says “In the resurrection” which will occur at the time of final Judgement. This does not mean there will be no marraige in heaven, but only that all marriage will take place before the resurrection and final judgement. Also, the the Sadduces did not understand that unless these marraiges were performed by “the power of God” (priesthood) they would not be in effect in heaven.

Why have a marriage in heaven when it will only be voided in the resurrection?

Also, who is to say that there will be any recognizable difference in time between death and resurrection? What it sounds like is being alluded to in the Mormon believe is that there is Life: Part I (pre-pre-existence, before God “formed” us); Life: Part II (pre-existence); Life: Part III (life here on Earth); Life: Part IV (celestial glory); Life: Part V(resurrected status); Life: Part VI (godhood)???

It seems that there are some who are rather uncomfortable with the thought of at some point in time not existing.

 

[truthsave]

Hi tqualey,
Interesting conversation, sorry I am about 15 pages behind.

If you note the scripture (Matt. 22:29-30) in the Bible it says “In the resurrection” which will occur at the time of final Judgement. This does not mean there will be no marraige in heaven, but only that all marriage will take place before the resurrection and final judgement. Also, the the Sadduces did not understand that unless these marraiges were performed by “the power of God” (priesthood) they would not be in effect in heaven.

I am sorry I had to answer even though I promissed myself not to do it again.

Where did you get your knowledge from? What you are saying is counsciously saying something impossible to understand the way you did.
Are Angels of God married in heaven then?

"…men live like the angels in Heaven"

What it happened to this sentence said but our Saviour?
Why He said it?
HE said for somebody like you.
Since if it didn’t say it you would have just made a contorted statement, but since our Lord said it you are just willing to change what He said.
And this just for justiofication of what you want to believe.

“You are very wide of the mark,” replied Jesus to them, “for you are ignorant of both the scriptures and the power of God. For in the resurrection there is no such thing as marrying or being given in marriage—men live like the angels in Heaven. And as for the matter of the resurrection of the dead, haven’t you ever read what was once said to you by God himself, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob’? God is not God of the dead but of living men!” When the crowds heard this they were astounded at his teaching.

 

[mwok]

Another thing just occurred to me.

According to Mormon terminology Matthew 22:23-30 does not match the teaching of celestial marriage, because as verse 30 states:

** For at the resurrection men and women do not marry; no, they are like the angels in heaven.**

If Angels in Mormon terminology are merely spirit children who have not yet received bodies (and unmarried), then Christ is clearly stating that we will return to that original state of being unmarried, even in our resurrected state.

 

[Tony888]

Because in its correct context it makes the case for what we actually believe.

mwok, and in a seperate thread, I tried to reference all the releated teachings on the subject. Please feel free to add authoritative sources, to more clearly represent official Catholic doctrine.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mtolympus,

That’s OK … my guess is that most people have a life outside of CAF and respond when they can. Relax. The real focus is on the quality of the response given - not in their quantity.

Hi tqualey,
Interesting conversation, sorry I am about 15 pages behind.

If you note the scripture (Matt. 22:29-30) in the Bible it says “In the resurrection” which will occur at the time of final Judgement. This does not mean there will be no marraige in heaven, but only that all marriage will take place before the resurrection and final judgement. Also, the the Sadduces did not understand that unless these marraiges were performed by “the power of God” (priesthood) they would not be in effect in heaven.

There really were excellent responses given by Truthsave and Mwok. Believe me when I tell you that I have, "…note(d) the scripture (Matt 22:29-30) and find that your interpretation totally voids out what Christ is telling the Sadduces and us.

Here are a couple of references that may be helpful for those interested in the official teaching of the Catholic Church:

catholicdoors.com/misc/marriage/matri.htm - this link gives a comprehensive view of Catholic Church’s view of the Sacrament of Marriage. An understanding of this teaching will provide some genuine insights into God’s plan for man and woman entering into God’s Creative Plan.

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-is-the-basis-for-the-catholic-belief-that-a-marriage-ceases-when-one-of-the-spou - this link goes directly to the heart of the issue raised. All is fulfilled when we are united with God (no, we do not become gods and have our own planet to rule over…) there is no marriage in heaven or anywhere else for that matter when we die.

God bless

 

[KathleenGee]

Tony,

I already told you to continue reading the catechism on Christ…all the passages leading up to the one you draw out or phrases you emphasize. You continue to refuse to study.

Why not draw on the rest of the CCC’s since you are beginning to access it, and begin to share what else you are trying to manipulate using our teachings.

Last night on EWTN, the priests were talking of the Divine life, that we as Catholics give glory to God alone and nothing else. ‘We don’t want to glorify anything else.’