Views on Mormonism?

[mtolympus]

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

Marriages must be performed by the proper authority (power of God) to be binding in heaven, and these must be performed before the time of the resurrection. The Sadducees who did not believe in the resurrection did not understand this. The final judgement will be at the time of the resurrection.

“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.” (John 5:28-29)

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.

When we die our spirit will go to paradise where we will remain until the time of the resurrection. When the resurrection occurs our spirit will be re-united with our physical body. Obviously this has not occured yet since we have not seen many bodies that are in the graves “coming forth.” Both Jesus and the thief on the cross went to paradise on the day Christ died on the cross. Christ was not resurrected until the third day.

“And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43)

 

[jediliz]

where did this Angel Moroni that allegedly brought the plates, come from? Only THREE Angels are given names in the bible: Gabriel, Michael and Raphael. There was NO Moroni.

There was NO baptism, for the dead in the early Church. Name the exact bible passage that actually says they baptized DEAD PEOPLE!

 

[mtolympus]

Hi, Bz5,

But, look at the Protestant churchs that have caved in on divorce, contraception, abortion, homosexuality. In many ways this has been the obvious change going on in religion - and, my guess is the Mormons will ultimately follow these abominations,too.

Don’t get your hopes up. It will never happen!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mtolympus,

Actually, my understanding is a bit different …

Obviously this has not occured yet since we have not seen many bodies that are in the graves “coming forth.” Both Jesus and the thief on the cross went to paradise on the day Christ died on the cross. Christ was not resurrected until the third day.

“And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.” (Luke 23:42-43)

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say… along with the references.

631 Jesus "descended into the lower parts of the earth. He who descended is he who also ascended far above all the heavens."476 The Apostles’ Creed confesses in the same article Christ’s descent into hell and his Resurrection from the dead on the third day, because in his Passover it was precisely out of the depths of death that he made life spring forth:

Christ, that Morning Star, who came back from the dead, and shed his peaceful light on all mankind, your Son who lives and reigns for ever and ever. Amen.477

Paragraph 1. Christ Descended into Hell

632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was “raised from the dead” presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ’s descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, “hell” - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into “Abraham’s bosom”:481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham’s bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfilment. This is the last phase of Jesus’ messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ’s redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, “the Author of life”, by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds “the keys of Death and Hades”, so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487

Today a great silence reigns on earth, a great silence and a great stillness. A great silence because the King is asleep. The earth trembled and is still because God has fallen asleep in the flesh and he has raised up all who have slept ever since the world began. . . He has gone to search for Adam, our first father, as for a lost sheep. Greatly desiring to visit those who live in darkness and in the shadow of death, he has gone to free from sorrow Adam in his bonds and Eve, captive with him - He who is both their God and the son of Eve. . . "I am your God, who for your sake have become your son. . . I order you, O sleeper, to awake. I did not create you to be a prisoner in hell. Rise from the dead, for I am the life of the dead."488

IN BRIEF

636 By the expression “He descended into hell”, the Apostles’ Creed confesses that Jesus did really die and through his death for us conquered death and the devil “who has the power of death” (Heb 2:14).

637 In his human soul united to his divine person, the dead Christ went down to the realm of the dead. He opened heaven’s gates for the just who had gone before him.

476 Eph 4:9-10.
477 Roman Missal, Easter Vigil 18, Exsultet.
478 Acts 3:15; Rom 8:11; 1 Cor 15:20; cf. Heb 13:20.
479 Cf. 1 Pet 3:18-19.
480 Cf. Phil 2:10; Acts 2:24; Rev 1:18; Eph 4:9; Pss 6:6; 88:11-13.
481 Cf. Ps 89:49; 1 Sam 28:19; Ezek 32:17-32; Lk 16:22-26.
482 Roman Catechism I, 6, 3.
483 Cf. Council of Rome (745): DS 587; Benedict XII, Cum dudum (1341): DS 1011; Clement VI, Super quibusdam (1351): DS 1077; Council of Toledo IV (625): DS 485; Mt 27:52-53.
484 1 Pet 4:6.
485 Jn 5:25; cf. Mt 12:40; Rom 10:7; Eph 4:9.
486 Heb 2:14-15; cf. Acts 3:15.
487 Rev 1:18; Phil 2:10.
488 Ancient Homily for Holy Saturday: PG 43, 440A, 452C; LH, Holy Saturday, OR.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mtolympus,

Truly it is not a hope. But, surely even the most neutral of casual observers to this thread would notice the stated variations in Mormon doctrine that have caused no end to confusion.

While Hosemonkey expressed this thought in different terms, the conclusion we have drawn is quite the same: getting a definitive answer on a doctrine is difficult at best. Additionally, when one views the requirement for plural marriage as necessary to avoid damnation (per J. Smith) and then when statehood is in the balance, this divine ordinance is effectively voided - is it any wonder that there is more than one skeptical view to this entire process.

More recently we have the view that the unborn child is a gift of God - yet, elective abortion is acceptable in one document and MAY result in one being put out of the Church in another document.

God bless

Don’t get your hopes up. It will never happen!

 

[jenetlen]

While I’ve been a Catholic my entire life, half my family is LDS and I was married to a Mormon for 7 years. I didn’t have any extreme difficulties in understanding the faith and all that happened due to my marriage was that I became a stronger believing Catholic who was able to respect my wife’s faith.

Unfortunately, my ‘not converting’ was a deal breaker for my wife even though I was told it wouldn’t be in the beginning of my marriage. Oh well.

I think its a best example…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Jediliz,

It looks like Moroni had been working so hard in North America, he just never got the recognition that the other 3 angels received in the Bible. I mean, writing on gold tablets does take time and effort!

Actually, there was a baptism for the dead … and St. Pauls does write about it… you can find it right here: 1Cor 15:28-29.

28When everything is subjected to him, then the Son himself will [also] be subjected to the one who subjected everything to him, so that God may be all in all.29Otherwise, what will people accomplish by having themselves baptized for the dead?* If the dead are not raised at all, then why are they having themselves baptized for them?
And, even the most casual reading of this scripture verse will tell the reader that it was soundly condemned!

Truly, this is just one more example where the Holy Bible says one thing and this novel by Joseph Smith says something quite different. If we are to follow Christ - then it is clear that there is only one text that faithfull reports what Christ said and did and that is the Bible. And, we understand what the Bible tells us through the Chruch founded by Christ on Peter - with the current successor being Benedict XVI

God bless

where did this Angel Moroni that allegedly brought the plates, come from? Only THREE Angels are given names in the bible: Gabriel, Michael and Raphael. There was NO Moroni.

There was NO baptism, for the dead in the early Church. Name the exact bible passage that actually says they baptized DEAD PEOPLE!

 

[bz5]

I’m not so sure it’s positively condemned, but when you read the chapter up to that point, it’s obvious that the whole thing is stressing the truth of the resurrection. The brief mention of baptizing and dead in the same verse is not clear. To me, it seems obvious that people could have been baptizing new converts in the name of dead Christians, much as we name our kids after saints. He also says “they,” not “we,” do it. In any case, this one brief mention does not seem to justify the elaborate efforts the LDS go to, especially when other teachings are so very clear and repeated - “Eat my body and drink my blood,” for instance. We see in John 6 a clear apostasy.

 

[KathleenGee]

Insightful posts…

 

[Tony888]

Tqualey,
I’m reposting this for you to comment,
Where is the confustion on the LDS position?
I think allyou can say is there is a possible divergence with the RCC position in the case of rape/incest, with guidance from the Church
You can never say it is an elective decision.

Regarding Abortion

Matthew 7:18-20*

“A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.* Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.* Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”*

For the LDS you can call the fruit:

• Focus on abstinence before marriage
• Focus on adoption when abstinence doesn’t work
• Focus on valuing life and the family
• Teaching any participation in elective abortion is a grave sin

I’m happy with those fruits
We should not get into a p***ing contest on whether the RCC takes a strong stance all around. That is a pointless exercise.

 

[blueadept]

Don’t get your hopes up. It will never happen!

My LDS wife divorced me stating that is was due to our ‘religious differences’ and she was under full guidance of her bishop.

Now I fully understand that a bishop WOULD NOT give such guidance in accordance with the CHI and I really would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during some of their conversations. I believe she remained in good standing with the church during the civil divorce and she is now actively looking for her LDS Temple-worthy husband.

For my position, the RCC still recognizes my marriage and I have no intention, at this point, to apply for an annulment. One of us is right and one of us is wrong in regards to the validity of our vows in regards to marriage. I believe my position is the safer and correct one in continuing to honor those vows regardless of her actions.

You can keep your rose-colored glasses in regards to how the LDS views marriage. My father’s and grandfather’s LDS generation DEFINITELY does not represent the correct intention of the LDS thought of marriage. Most of them have been married 3 times and I have one uncle who has been married 18 times. I realize my family is a poor example but I’m still technically a 6th generation Mormon even though I’ve been a Catholic my entire life.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Tony888,

Two items …

I really do not have the energy to try and go go back to sift through the differences between Mormons presenting divergent teachings. Since you have been paying attention, you know this has been done - to go back and find the specific links… well, I will either leave it up to your memory or defer to your research. But, you know they are there.

The second item is directly from your current post. The decison to terminate a pregnancy that was the result of rape/incest is ALWAYS an elective abortion. Those unfortunates who find they have an ectopic pregnancy - usually find this out in severe pain as the growing embryo bursts the tube. If found before an emergency surgical intervention is performed, it would be considered a therapeutic abortion. It is not possible for the embryo to implant and then live in the fallopian tube.

Actually, I can a lot more than, “… there is a possible divergence with the RCC positiion…” There is a profoundly different position - as day is from night. To argue that an abortion would be allowed because of rape/incest is to be totally ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church. There really is not way to smooth this difference over - If “Thou Shat Not Kill” has any meaning at all it has meaning for the unborn babies within their mothers’ wombs. The teaching of the Catholic Church have always condemned abortion. The same can not be said for the LDS group.

Hey, Hosemoney … I can’t believe that Tony888 needs another reminder… I think the ‘easy mist’ setting you have your nozzel set on just needs to go up another notch…

God bless

Tqualey,
I’m reposting this for you to comment,
Where is the confustion on the LDS position?
I think allyou can say is there is a possible divergence with the RCC position in the case of rape/incest, with guidance from the Church
You can never say it is an elective decision.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Blueadept,

I certain admire the courage you have demonstrated in this post. I am guessing that you have spoken to your local priest about the matter.

God bless

My LDS wife divorced me stating that is was due to our ‘religious differences’ and she was under full guidance of her bishop.

Now I fully understand that a bishop WOULD NOT give such guidance in accordance with the CHI and I really would have liked to have been a fly on the wall during some of their conversations. I believe she remained in good standing with the church during the civil divorce and she is now actively looking for her LDS Temple-worthy husband.

For my position, the RCC still recognizes my marriage and I have no intention, at this point, to apply for an annulment. One of us is right and one of us is wrong in regards to the validity of our vows in regards to marriage. I believe my position is the safer and correct one in continuing to honor those vows regardless of her actions.

You can keep your rose-colored glasses in regards to how the LDS views marriage. My father’s and grandfather’s LDS generation DEFINITELY does not represent the correct intention of the LDS thought of marriage. Most of them have been married 3 times and I have one uncle who has been married 18 times. I realize my family is a poor example but I’m still technically a 6th generation Mormon even though I’ve been a Catholic my entire life.

 

[blueadept]

Hi, Blueadept,

I certain admire the courage you have demonstrated in this post. I am guessing that you have spoken to your local priest about the matter.

God bless

…about the need to honor my vows, laying the foundational work to be a permanent deacon, being the new President of the Legion of Mary and direction he wishes the work to go.

Nope I don’t talk much with my priest…

 

[bz5]

Hi, Tony888,

The second item is directly from your current post. The decison to terminate a pregnancy that was the result of rape/incest is ALWAYS an elective abortion. Those unfortunates who find they have an ectopic pregnancy - usually find this out in severe pain as the growing embryo bursts the tube. If found before an emergency surgical intervention is performed, it would be considered a therapeutic abortion. It is not possible for the embryo to implant and then live in the fallopian tube.

Actually, I can a lot more than, “… there is a possible divergence with the RCC positiion…” There is a profoundly different position - as day is from night. To argue that an abortion would be allowed because of rape/incest is to be totally ignorant of the teachings of the Catholic Church. There really is not way to smooth this difference over - If “Thou Shat Not Kill” has any meaning at all it has meaning for the unborn babies within their mothers’ wombs. The teaching of the Catholic Church have always condemned abortion. The same can not be said for the LDS group.

God bless

Should we allow exceptions for rape or incest? Not if we’re against abortion because it’s the taking of a human life. We empathize with the victim because it’s true they’re emotionally and maybe physically traumatized, but I’ve read of at least one woman who gave up a baby after being raped who felt much healing because of the life and joy that came with the baby. Besides, if you think it’s okay to let a crime victim get an abortion and another woman not, is your true attitude toward women who are pregnant from their boyfriend, “Well, you’re sort of trampy, so you deserve this?” Nasty!!! (Not speaking to anyone in particular with the ‘you’)

 

[blueadept]

Should we allow exceptions for rape or incest? Not if we’re against abortion because it’s the taking of a human life. We empathize with the victim because it’s true they’re emotionally and maybe physically traumatized, but I’ve read of at least one woman who gave up a baby after being raped who felt much healing because of the life and joy that came with the baby. Besides, if you think it’s okay to let a crime victim get an abortion and another woman not, is your true attitude toward women who are pregnant from their boyfriend, “Well, you’re sort of trampy, so you deserve this?” Nasty!!! (Not speaking to anyone in particular with the ‘you’)

One of my favorite speakers at the LA Religious Education Congress is a child from a rape. She’s rather thankful that her mom gave her up for adoption to a loving family. Her testimony of God in her life and the message she shares is inspiring. Adoption is truly the loving choice especially in the case of rape.

 

[Tony888]

Should we allow exceptions for rape or incest? Not if we’re against abortion because it’s the taking of a human life. We empathize with the victim because it’s true they’re emotionally and maybe physically traumatized, but I’ve read of at least one woman who gave up a baby after being raped who felt much healing because of the life and joy that came with the baby. Besides, if you think it’s okay to let a crime victim get an abortion and another woman not, is your true attitude toward women who are pregnant from their boyfriend, “Well, you’re sort of trampy, so you deserve this?” Nasty!!! (Not speaking to anyone in particular with the ‘you’)

I agree with your prespective and I believe the the LDS system results in a rate of abortion that is equal or better than the Catholic rate (no data though)

At the end of the day, it is all about the actual outcome, not a rule that so many church members choose to ignore.

 

[KathleenGee]

No, it is actually about those who truly profess to be practicing Catholics…

The Church forbids the taking of innocent human life from the unborn to the suffering and the aged.

 

[Tony888]

No, it is actually about those who truly profess to be practicing Catholics…

The Church forbids the taking of innocent human life from the unborn to the suffering and the aged.

If church members are not following church doctrine, something is seriously broken

 

[blueadept]

I agree with your prespective and I believe the the LDS system results in a rate of abortion that is equal or better than the Catholic rate (no data though)

At the end of the day, it is all about the actual outcome, not a rule that so many church members choose to ignore.

IMHO, it’s what you stand up for. I saw an obvious LDS and Catholic representation in regards to supporting Prop 8.

LDS participation at the Walk for Life is negligible at best and most Mormons I’ve talked to are fine with that.