Why are Catholics so interested in the LDS faith?

[majick275]

the LDS church has never repudiated the doctrine of plural marriage. (as evidenced by section 132 remaining canonized scripture) Church members are INSTRUCTED not to practice polygamy under penalty of excommunication. (with living partners at least) Doctrinally it is understood that during the “millenium” this practice will be restored and all of those who were supposed to live it but could not will get that corrected. In the afterlife all Men who reach the highest level of celestial exaltation will have plural wives. No other men will be allowed to be married, their wives will be given to others. (if those women were worthy). Single people (including those whose marriages were voided by this principle)who manage to qualify for the celestial kingdom will be servants (ministering angels). everyone else either goes to terrestrial, telestial or outer darkness. (in all of those places there no marriages) of course it gets a little interesting when you factor in that worthy sealed people maintain there family relationships…except that we are all brothers and sisters…so how does that work with great grandpa? he’s still great grandpa but also brother?

 

[LDSGuy]

isn’t the way that we use “brothers” and “sisters” the same as when Catholics teach that the Bible uses “brothers” not to mean literal brothers, but as friend(can’t think of the right word)? I don’t see the problem.

 

[majick275]

LDSGuy:

isn’t the way that we use “brothers” and “sisters” the same as when Catholics teach that the Bible uses “brothers” not to mean literal brothers, but as friend(can’t think of the right word)? I don’t see the problem.

No you misunderstand my meaning. (or I misspoke) LDS doctrine states that all of “us” are literal children of heavenly father and thus literally brothers and sisters. The use of that term in church is meant to reinforce that but seems to be “used” by most much as you describe.(it’s certainly not a problem) I was trying to speak about the afterlife though in my post. what happens when you are sealed to your father and he to his father and so on for a few generations but once your back up there with your pre-existence memories restored you see them as your brother as well. Not so much a complaint as a curiosity. what are your thoughts?

 

[Katzpur]

edmondhall:

Were there disagreements in the early church and were councils needed to settle them? Yes. Does it then follow that satan vaquished the Church, resulting in a total apostasy? Obviously not.

The councils may have settled the disagreements, edmonhall, but not necessarily by inspired means, and not by the establishment of correct doctrines. If false doctrines were allowed to corrupt the Church Jesus Christ established, (as I obviously believe was the case) then yes, it would follow that Satan vanquished the Church.

The logic of the LDS reasoning here just twists back on itself (in my judgment). If satan prevailed against the church once before (unbeknownst to the church, btw), then how can you be confident that satan has not caused an apostasy in the LDS church (unbeknownst to you)? I mean, either God can protect His church (as He said He would in Matthew) or He can’t. If it’s the latter–God can’t protect against apostasy–then how can you be so sure that those splinter groups in Missouri aren’t right when they call you apostates?

The splinter groups in Missouri and elsewhere have about as much legitimacy in calling us apostate and the Protestants have in calling you apostate. In my opinion, there are only two possibilities for the “one true Church,” and those would be Catholicism or Mormonism. You are right. God can protect His Church, but I don’t believe that the verses in Matthew are saying what you believe they are. When He restored it, He made a point of saying that it would never again be taken from the earth.

I’m not clear about your point regarding Linus (asking why God didn’t reveal the prophecies in Revelations to Linus). Perhaps you’re thinking that the Pope is like the prophet of the LDS church–the leader is supposed to receive revelations?

Well, it would certainly stand to reason. Who other than the Pope may speak ex cathedra? If God wanted to reveal something as important as Revelation to His Church, I find it unthinkable that He would bypass the sole individual who supposedly speaks for that Church in favor of someone who was in exile and may never live to pass that Relelation on.

 

[majick275]

Katzpur:

The councils may have settled the disagreements, edmonhall, but not necessarily by inspired means, and not by the establishment of correct doctrines. If false doctrines were allowed to corrupt the Church Jesus Christ established, (as I obviously believe was the case) then yes, it would follow that Satan vanquished the Church.

this is something that Catholics do not accept. We believe Jesus when he says “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”. I personally believe that it would be wrong for joseph Smith to accomplish something that Jesus could not. I do not see false doctrines in the Catholic church.

The splinter groups in Missouri and elsewhere have about as much legitimacy in calling us apostate and the Protestants have in calling you apostate. In my opinion, there are only two possibilities for the “one true Church,” and those would be Catholicism or Mormonism.

I can agree with that. (although an academic case could be made for Judaism)

You are right. God can protect His Church, but I don’t believe that the verses in Matthew are saying what you believe they are.

Well there is room for discussion here. I would be interested in your interpretation of this scripture.

When He restored it, He made a point of saying that it would never again be taken from the earth.

That assumes you believe in the restoration and are willing to take Joseph Smiths word. He made a number of statements that even the LDS church disavows today. How do you know which of JS teachings are true revelation?

Well, it would certainly stand to reason. Who other than the Pope may speak ex cathedra?

I’m not sure that prophecy requires “ex cathedra”. Papal infallibility doesn’t work the same way as LDS prophecy.

If God wanted to reveal something as important as Revelation to His Church, I find it unthinkable that He would bypass the sole individual who supposedly speaks for that Church in favor of someone who was in exile and may never live to pass that Relelation on.

you don’t seem to have a problem with Him entrusting the Catholic church to preserve this revelation in the canon.

I think you will find Joel 2:28 of benefit (amongst other scriptures) as an example.

And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions

You see revelation can come to whoever needs it as God wills. Obviously John’s revelation was passed on. I would be very skeptical of LDS claims that John was THE “prophet” of the Primitive “LDS” church simply from what history tells us about when the book of revelations was written and by whom as well as who else from the Apostolic age was living contemporary to that. Your post is certainly thought provoking.

 

[Katzpur]

Majick,

You’ve done it again! You have put quotes around an entire discussion, attributing both sides of the conversation to me. Would you please go back and edit your post. I can’t even begin to comment on it when you don’t even isolate my words from yours.

 

[ben_dy]

BJ Colbert:

Even your fellow Catholics in this thread know LDS do not practice polygamy. That is basic knowledge, and is readily available in LDS material.

BJ,

As I understand it, it is not lawful for ‘orthodox’ LDS members practice plural marriage ‘for time’ (and at the present time) but that the practice is a certainty - indeed one of the very reasons for ‘living’ - in the celestial kingdom.

Granted I have only read of this belief as stated by prophets after 1890 and the latest quotation I found was from 2002 statement (and the only verification I have is from a book published in 2005 by an ex-Mormon) so there may have been some new revelation since then of which I’m unaware.

Ben

 

[Katzpur]

ben_dy:

BJ,

As I understand it, it is not lawful for ‘orthodox’ LDS members practice plural marriage ‘for time’ (and at the present time) but that the practice is a certainty - indeed one of the very reasons for ‘living’ - in the celestial kingdom.

It is both unlawful and grounds for excommunication for any Latter-day Saint man to have more than one wife. We believe that, while the principle is eternal, the practice is not. In other words, we do believe that plural marriages will exist in Heaven. No one today should be living this law.

 

[majick275]

Katzpur:

Majick,

You’ve done it again! You have put quotes around an entire discussion, attributing both sides of the conversation to me. Would you please go back and edit your post. I can’t even begin to comment on it when you don’t even isolate my words from yours.

I think it obvious who said what. You obviously know what you said so you could easily respond.

 

[LDSGuy]

majick275:

No you misunderstand my meaning. (or I misspoke) LDS doctrine states that all of “us” are literal children of heavenly father and thus literally brothers and sisters. The use of that term in church is meant to reinforce that but seems to be “used” by most much as you describe.(it’s certainly not a problem) I was trying to speak about the afterlife though in my post. what happens when you are sealed to your father and he to his father and so on for a few generations but once your back up there with your pre-existence memories restored you see them as your brother as well. Not so much a complaint as a curiosity. what are your thoughts?

I find this mostly similar to the Catholic views on the words “brother”/“brethren”/etc, though not entirely. Yes we are all children of God, and therefore we are all brothers and sisters. It’s an interesting belief, and I find it a unifying belief.

 

[majick275]

LDSGuy,
I would agree with your statement on it being a unifying belief. The temporal part of this (that which is openly practiced) does have benefit.

I find the LDS extension of this through the Temple sealing process somewhat problematic in that the longer family lineages could a little confusing as to roles. Nothing “Disturbing” here just confusing. (to me at least)

 

[Katzpur]

majick275:

I think it obvious who said what. You obviously know what you said so you could easily respond.

It is for me and it is for you. Other posters, however, could find it quite confusing. Also, when I go in to quote you, only your final comments show up. All of what you have previously quoted both of us as having said is gone. Other posters don’t seem to have this trouble. I don’t know why it’s so hard for you to figure out.

 

[edmondhall]

God can protect His Church, but I don’t believe that the verses in Matthew are saying what you believe they are. When He restored it, He made a point of saying that it would never again be taken from the earth

1.Thanks for taking the time to respond. How do LDS interpret Matthew 16:18?

1. We know that Christ is the head of the church (Ephesians 5: 23) “as Christ also is the head of the church, He himself being the Savior of the body”. A total apostasy, with Satan overcoming the church, would certainly seem to imply that Christ, as the head of the church, was defeated. Do LDS believe this?
2. As you can imagine, it’s hardly convincing to say that Jesus did not protect His church the first time around but now He has made a point of saying it won’t happen again. Other than an LDS scripture that you’re referring to, is there any reason someone would believe this? For instance, is there anything in the NT (second time I’ve posed this question, I think) where there is a direct prophecy that the church will be completely overturned and uttterly lost? End time prophecies suggest battles and imposters, no doubt, but ‘total apostasy’?

 

[ben_dy]

LDSGuy:

I find this mostly similar to the Catholic views on the words “brother”/“brethren”/etc, though not entirely. Yes we are all children of God, and therefore we are all brothers and sisters. It’s an interesting belief, and I find it a unifying belief.

Well, as I understand it, that’s not quite the whole story according to LDS doctrine. To use the terms in the real sense we are really brothers and sisters - that it we have the same Heavenly Father and may or may not have the same Heavenly Mother (for Heavenly Father has many wives) and are born as ‘spirit children’ on the planet Kolob (which is the only planet that supplies the spirit children for this world and then, as people reproduce here on this world we make the interplanetary journey from Kolob so that our spirits may be given a ‘real’ body such as Heavenly Father and Mother have. So - according to LDS theology - we are truly brothers and sisters in that we share one father but our father has many wives so we may not share the same mother.

And the interesting thing, of course, is that this is going on all over the universe - once you become a god you get your own worlds, your own wives, populate your world with spirit children who make intergalactic journeys to their father’s other planet, ad infinitum.

If you could, as the once-popular LDS hymn suggests, ‘hie to Kolob’…

**If You Could Hie to KOLOB

If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward with the speed of light to fly**,
D’ye think that you could ever, through all eternity,
Find out the generation where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning, where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation where Gods and matter end?
Methinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space’,”
Nor seen the outside curtains, where nothing has a place.

The works of God continue, and worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; there is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; there is no end to race.**

…you’d probably be able to get a better grasp on the whole brother-sister thing. I’m not sure if the “Heaven’s Gate” folks who killed themselves in were trying to ‘Hie to Kolob’ aboard the Hale-Bopp comet (or the UFO accompanying it) or not - they may have been ‘hieing’ for the other planet, Oliblish, mentioned in LDS scripture or maybe to another planet that’s not mentioned at all.

LDS theology is at once very complex and very simple and is, of course, always subject to change so I’m no expert.

Ben

 

[amgid]

Brad Haas:

Amgid! I’ve missed you! I see you’ve picked right up here where you left off on CARM. Good times.

Howdy Defensor!

I have missed you too. Good to hear from you. You are using a different screen name here. I got confused.

How is your Mormon girlfriend?

I look forward to hearing more of you here.

amgid

 

[Brad_Haas]

“Defensor Veritatis” was too long of a name to fit here.

My Mormon girlfriend is fine; sweet and beautiful as ever, and still Mormon (but we’re still working on that), thanks for asking.

You’ll be happy to know I finally read the Book of Mormon, so I recognize your name now.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

ben_dy:

Well, as I understand it, that’s not quite the whole story according to LDS doctrine. To use the terms in the real sense we are really brothers and sisters - that it we have the same Heavenly Father and may or may not have the same Heavenly Mother (for Heavenly Father has many wives) and are born as ‘spirit children’ on the planet Kolob (which is the only planet that supplies the spirit children for this world and then, as people reproduce here on this world we make the interplanetary journey from Kolob so that our spirits may be given a ‘real’ body such as Heavenly Father and Mother have. So - according to LDS theology - we are truly brothers and sisters in that we share one father but our father has many wives so we may not share the same mother.

And the interesting thing, of course, is that this is going on all over the universe - once you become a god you get your own worlds, your own wives, populate your world with spirit children who make intergalactic journeys to their father’s other planet, ad infinitum.

If you could, as the once-popular LDS hymn suggests, ‘hie to Kolob’…

If You Could Hie to KOLOB

If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye,
And then continue onward with the speed of light to fly,**
D’ye think that you could ever, through all eternity,
Find out the generation where Gods began to be?

Or see the grand beginning, where space did not extend?
Or view the last creation where Gods and matter end?
Methinks the Spirit whispers, "No man has found ‘pure space’,"
Nor seen the outside curtains, where nothing has a place.

The works of God continue, and worlds and lives abound;
Improvement and progression have one eternal round.
There is no end to matter; there is no end to space;
There is no end to spirit; there is no end to race.

…you’d probably be able to get a better grasp on the whole brother-sister thing. I’m not sure if the “Heaven’s Gate” folks who killed themselves in were trying to ‘Hie to Kolob’ aboard the Hale-Bopp comet (or the UFO accompanying it) or not - they may have been ‘hieing’ for the other planet, Oliblish, mentioned in LDS scripture or maybe to another planet that’s not mentioned at all.

LDS theology is at once very complex and very simple and is, of course, always subject to change so I’m no expert.

Ben

Interesting song, funny that in 63 years of being LDS, this is the first time I ever heard such a song. Where in the world did you get the copy?
One other comment is that we have never believed that God lives on Kolob. It was mentioned in one place in Abraham, I believe, that he lived near a star called Kolob, not that it was a planet that he lived on. What book did you read to find all of this
information that you have quoted above?
Thanks for any clarification you may give me.
BJ

 

[PaulDupre]

BJ,
It’s number 284 in the LDS Hymnal. It was written by William W. Phelps, editor of the Evening and Morning Star, and a close friend of Joseph Smith and Sydney Rigdon.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks said in a 1994 General Conference address: “The singing of hymns is one of the best ways to learn the doctrine of the restored gospel.”

 

[majick275]

well, you learn something every day… I too had never heard of that hymn before. But there it is in the current LDS hymnal…#284.

Of course…hymns aren’t doctrine, Dallin Oaks isn’t the prophet, talk wasn’t canonized, etc. Still though, this is right up there with “Praise to the Man” in my thinking. (Hymns containing false doctrine)

I guess if you sing things to God during a worship service they don’t have to be doctrinally correct?

 

[PaulDupre]

No, it’s just the chorister’s personal opinion.