What do Mormons believe will happen to Hinkley?

[why_me]

Why does it leave you dubious? The poster never started from the position of the 2nd anointing being relevant to his leaving. He merely shared the story at the request of others on that board. He makes no statement that this should be a reason why someone should leave. And even if he did why would that make you dubious? Is it impossible for a person to have more than one reason to leave the LDS faith? Or for those reason to not have the same weight in their opinion? I can not vouch for the poster, for all I know he could be full of manure to the point his eyes are brown. However it does not contradict the information that you have said is available, nor does it have anything that I would consider out of the ordinary, no metaphysical shift in reality, or miraculous event. So on the face there is nothing that would make me believe he was lying. As for checking up on the veracity of the poster I’ll leave that up to someone who has access to records I don’t. I take it at face value for I have no reason not to.

I see no request of others as rather a sharing of information for others to read. Let me put it this way. I would have no problem with his story if he left because of the second anointing. Fine, no problem. But to go into detail of the practice, and then at the end claim that true science turned him against the church was just a little dubious to me. Also, no one can verify his story. And that would be the second problem.

And like he said the information told could be had from the internet. That was also dubious since the statement could be meant to ward off protential critics of his story. It is always better to take the first shot to ward off possible attacks.

But that being said, I see no problem with the second anointing if the lds church is still doing it. To each his or her own is my opinion.

 

[why_me]

Um, no. Bzzzzzzt. Sorry, you lose on that one.

How about chimps or neanderthals?

 

[Prince_Hal]

The successor to the Presidency of the LDS church is the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, though that still needs ratification by the Quorum. It would be a major surprise if it wasn’t, but certainly not impossible. So, this would make Thomas S. Monson the next “prophet and president”. Boyd K. Packer (currently acting President of the quorum) would become President of the quorum.

Mormons believe that President Hinckley is likely to be teaching the Mormon gospel to those spirits in the “spirit prison”. This is a place between this world and Heaven, where people wait for judgement and assignment to a kingdom of Heaven. It is where the thief on the cross that acknowledged Christ went - paradise.

I have listened to Hickley many times, and sat in conferences a heard him speak personnally. He was witty, and very likeable. He was energetic and a great PR man. I believe he was genuine. But like many LDS leaders he often said things that beggared belief. For example in the last LDS conference he said that he had read the Nicene creed several time and could not understand it and believed that there were few who did. Mmm. I think these were just words for the LDS faithful who will never question the president’s statements and will never check up on the creed itself.

On a darker side, I believe that the LDS church is overseen by an evil spirit. Consequently I believe that someone in the LDS hierarchy knows this. If Hinckley knew this then his current state is not to be envied. If he did not, then he was hoodwinked by that spirit like many others have been - including mysel for over 20 years, but praise God no more.

I hope this helps,

Hal.

 

[talter]

True science would claim that we all came from monkeys and that god does not exist. They site scientific evidence to support their claim. Do you believe in true science or only in selective true science?

Actually true science does not say we descended from monkeys. True science actually can only prove micro evolution not macro evolution. Also the church does not say that evolution does not exist. It only states that God created the world and all withing it not how he brought that creation about. So to answer your question yes I believe in true science and yes I am selective about the science as it must be well founded which micro evolution is and macro evolution is not.

 

[talter]

Grrr. Please ignore the above post. I now return you to the previously hijacked thread.

 

[Lehl]

I have an incredibly ironic, somewhat amusing tale to relate here.

My Catholic-convert husband was having a heated discussion with his Mormon bishop father last night–literally an hour before they learned that Hinckley had died.

His father apparently was scoffing at the Catholic Church for electing new popes. He felt that this practice was “uninspired” and further proof that the church was man-made, etc.

Of course my husband could not believe his ears–that is EXACTLY what Mormons do when they need a new president. They are unanimously VOTED on and sustained. It is actually worse, because there is clearly an order of succession. We already KNOW that Thomas S. Monson will be the next president due to their UNINSPIRED line of succession.

That shut him up!

 

[Dauphin]

Well God willing I hope to be in purgatory that means I made it. Purgatory isn’t a bad place and I’m nearly certain Hitler and Judas aren’t there. I have no idea if Gordon Hinkley is there or not, how God deals with those outside the Catholic Church we don’t know.

Oh, yes we do!

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."

• Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

The most common formulation of this doctrine is extra ecclesiam nulla salus: outside the church, there is no salvation.

 

[BCPoulsen]

Catholics have proven themselves more arrogant and cold hearted than I thought possible.
A good man died yesterday. Have a bit of respect.

 

[RC_Matt]

According to Mormon eschatology, via the second anointing, he is guaranteed the highest (celestial) heaven and will ultimately become a god of his own planet; he and his wives will then populate that planet with their spirit children. According to Catholic eschatology, assuming he did his best to live his life in accordance with Christ’s teachings and his heresy was through no fault of his own (e.g., was raised in Mormonsim and understood nothing else), he is ultimately “saved.”

 

[lukewarm]

Oh, yes we do!

"There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."

• Fourth Lateran Council (1215)

The most common formulation of this doctrine is extra ecclesiam nulla salus: outside the church, there is no salvation.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Don’t presume to know who God saves and who He damns, you aren’t that important.

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Catholics have proven themselves more arrogant and cold hearted than I thought possible.

A good man died yesterday. Have a bit of respect.

Oh, we do.

But he could have done anything, anything of the slightest iota to clean up that pantheology which our mormon friends claim is “True and unApostated Christianity.”

He did nothing.

That offends.

If LDS was a Christian sect or denomination, I would be the first to promote an ecumenical approach. But it is NOT Christian, the baptisms are NOT Christian and the fact that LDS ‘feels’ the BoM and the D&C and Pearl of Great Price are on EQUAL TERMS WITH THE BIBLE OFFENDS THIS CATHOLIC.

I will pray for his soul, as I do for ALL non Christians and well-meaning pagans.

Robert

 

[Lehl]

Catholics have proven themselves more arrogant and cold hearted than I thought possible.
A good man died yesterday. Have a bit of respect.

I think everyone here is truly sorry for the Mormon peoples’ loss of their revered and beloved president.

However, when the legacy of this “prophet” has been growth and Mormon expansion at the obvious cost of leading millions of Catholics and other Christians astray–this is the wrong place to demand respect for Mr. Hinckley.

 

[Dauphin]

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

Don’t presume to know who God saves and who He damns, you aren’t that important.

I presume only to know what the Catholic Church teaches, and that is that there is no salvation outside of Her.

There are three ways to enter into the church: Baptism of water, baptism of desire, and baptism of blood. Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

It is conceivable that Mr. Hinkley received a baptism of desire, which would mean that he was part of the Catholic Church - even in a state of imperfect communion. Again, there is no salvation outside the church. This is a dogma which applies to every single human being.

This is one of the statements of the Second Vatican Council that can easily be interpreted in a way that is contrary to the Catholic faith. However, there is an orthodox interpretation; even though this affirmation is not aimed at those who have not heard the gospel, it still applies to them. They cannot attain salvation through their works, and they cannot have salvation without baptism. Period. These are immutable dogmas of the Church.

It is you who have presumed to impose your own beliefs on the church, by essentially denying this central dogma.

 

[lukewarm]

I presume only to know what the Catholic Church teaches, and that is that there is no salvation outside of Her.

There are three ways to enter into the church: Baptism of water, baptism of desire, and baptism of blood. Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation.

It is conceivable that Mr. Hinkley received a baptism of desire, which would mean that he was part of the Catholic Church - even in a state of imperfect communion. Again, there is no salvation outside the church. This is a dogma which applies to every single human being.

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

It is conceivable that Mr. Hinkley received a baptism of desire, which would mean that he was part of the Catholic Church - even in a state of imperfect communion. Again, there is no salvation outside the church. This is a dogma which applies to every single human being.

When monkeys come … oh, you know the rest.

Hinkley as Prophet taught that the Nicene Creed was NOT part of the teachings of Jesus and a statement on what constitutes Christian belief.

If Hinkley had a ‘baptism of desire,’ it might have been (in his religion’s view of the afterlife) a nice planet, beautiful wives and millions of ‘spirit children.’ Every Prophet in mormonism gets to be his own ‘god.’

‘Baptism of desire?’ Pshaw!

Robert

 

[Dauphin]

When monkeys come … oh, you know the rest.

Hinkley as Prophet taught that the Nicene Creed was NOT part of the teachings of Jesus and a statement on what constitutes Christian belief.

If Hinkley had a ‘baptism of desire,’ it might have been (in his religion’s view of the afterlife) a nice planet, beautiful wives and millions of ‘spirit children.’ Every Prophet in mormonism gets to be his own ‘god.’

‘Baptism of desire?’ Pshaw!

Robert

We can’t know whether he repented before death. We cannot know the state of his soul.

 

[Dauphin]

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

You’re presenting this statement in a heretical context, as if it denies that there is no salvation outside the church. It does not.

It says only that the affirmation is not aimed at (though it still applies to) those who do not know the gospel, and implies that baptism can be attained in a non-normative way (either baptism of desire or baptism of blood)

This is one of those statements of the Second Vatican Council that is far too often used to deny the Catholic faith, and to break from it. It is essential to find an orthodox interpretation, and not to presume that we no longer hold the faith of the apostles. We do!

The orthodox interpretation is that those who have not heard the gospel can attain a baptism of desire, uniting them, though imperfectly, to the Catholic Church and subjecting them, though indirectly, to the Roman Pontiff.

The Second Vatican Council was a pastoral council, nothing more. It did not change a single article of the Catholic faith - it only presented it in a new way.

 

[lukewarm]

You’re presenting this statement in a heretical context, as if it denies that there is no salvation outside the church. It does not.

It says only that the affirmation is not aimed at (though it still applies to) those who do not know the gospel, and implies that baptism can be attained in a non-normative way (either baptism of desire or baptism of blood)

This is one of those statements of the Second Vatican Council that is far too often used to deny the Catholic faith, and to break from it. It is essential to find an orthodox interpretation, and not to presume that we no longer hold the faith of the apostles. We do!

The orthodox interpretation is that those who have not heard the gospel can attain a baptism of desire, uniting them, though imperfectly, to the Catholic Church and subjecting them, though indirectly, to the Roman Pontiff.

The Second Vatican Council was a pastoral council, nothing more. It did not change a single article of the Catholic faith - it only presented it in a new way.

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337”

So there’s no salvation ouside the Catholic Church yet the Catholic Church teaches that those outside the Catholic Church can be saved. I’m not a mental gymnist, I read things in black and white, and clearly the Church has taken a different direction and now believes those that do not reside in the Catholic Church* can* possibly be saved. You can put a philosphical spin on it so it meshes with your orthodox traditionalist view if you want but it is how it reads.

 

[Dauphin]

“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337”

So there’s no salvation ouside the Catholic Church yet the Catholic Church teaches that those outside the Catholic Church can be saved. I’m not a mental gymnist, I read things in black and white, and clearly the Church has taken a different direction and now believes those that do not reside in the Catholic Church* can* possibly be saved. You can put a philosphical spin on it so it meshes with your orthodox traditionalist view if you want but it is how it reads.

If the Church now teaches that those outside of it can be saved, it is in direct contradiction of Catholic dogma, and the gates of hell have prevailed against Her.

If you wish to believe that, it is entirely your choice.

For my part, I refuse to endorse an interpretation of the Second Vatican Council which breaks from the eternal teaching of the Church. I believe in the words of St. Thomas Aquinas:

"Hold firmly that your faith is identical with that of the ancients. Deny that and you dissolve the unity of the church."

If we don’t believe today precisely what the Church has always believed, then there’s no reason to be Catholic.

 

[lukewarm]

If the Church now teaches that those outside of it can be saved, it is in direct contradiction of Catholic dogma, and the gates of hell have prevailed against Her.

If you wish to believe that, it is entirely your choice.

"“Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -** those too may achieve eternal salvation**.337”

I understand simple English, and the Catechism clearly states that those who do not know His Church may achieve eternal salvation. Tough to get clearer than that.