YHWH: Jesus to Mormons, the Father to other Christians

[Allweather]

You are the one who is proposing this theory, and therefore it is up to you to prove your point, not for me to disprove it—and as far as I am concerned, you have not proved your point. The only thing that you have done is to point to some superficial similarities between the two religions; which is not sufficient to prove that one religion has been derived from the other. I have also shown you more fundamental dissimilarities between the two; and also more fundamental similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism. If your line of reasoning was valid, you would have to conclude that Mormonism is derived from Catholicism, not Protestantism. The truth is of course that it is derived from neither.

I am not interested in pursuing this discussion with you any further beyond this point. I don’t know of any other reputable LDS scholar (in the Church or out of the Church) that has proposed your theory, or tried to demonstrate it with sound scholarly research. If you genuinely believe that you have something new and innovative to offer to the world of scholarship on this subject, my suggestion to you would be to do your research, and write a paper on it, and publish it in a journal that publishes LDS related material. Alternatively, you could send your paper to some reputable LDS scholars and ask them to send you a critique of it. My own personal studies, however, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and he received his doctrines and religion directly by revelation from God without any human intervention, and therefore there is no possibility that it could have been derived from Protestantism, or for that matter from any other religion.

zerinus

You’re STILL not addressing the question. I swear, Z, you do dance. You’d rather write two large paragraphs avoiding the question than simply to tell us why you think it is that Protestants and Mormons have such similar ideas when it comes to “knowing” what is true or not.

Wouldn’t you say that the BITB is more than just a superficial similarity?

To tell the truth, I feel flattered that I’ve managed to force you back into your I Testify shell. I mean, I’m certain that you’re a lot more qualified in theology, especially Mormon theology, than I am. I’m just a lunker here. Maybe I bore you. Yet, you wrote all those words, quoted above, in avoidance of the question. Couldn’t you have simply answered it directly in fewer words? That is, if you had an answer?

 

[zerinus]

You’re STILL not addressing the question. I swear, Z, you do dance. You’d rather write two large paragraphs avoiding the question than simply to tell us why you think it is that Protestants and Mormons have such similar ideas when it comes to “knowing” what is true or not.

Wouldn’t you say that the BITB is more than just a superficial similarity?

To tell the truth, I feel flattered that I’ve managed to force you back into your I Testify shell. I mean, I’m certain that you’re a lot more qualified in theology, especially Mormon theology, than I am. I’m just a lunker here. Maybe I bore you. Yet, you wrote all those words, quoted above, in avoidance of the question. Couldn’t you have simply answered it directly in fewer words? That is, if you had an answer?

You are wasting your time, and run the risk of appearing rather silly. Your answer has already been given, and will not be given again.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

You are the one who is proposing this theory, and therefore it is up to you to prove your point, not for me to disprove it—and as far as I am concerned, you have not proved your point. The only thing that you have done is to point to some superficial similarities between the two religions; which is not sufficient to prove that one religion has been derived from the other. I have also shown you more fundamental dissimilarities between the two; and also more fundamental similarities between Mormonism and Catholicism. If your line of reasoning was valid, you would have to conclude that Mormonism is derived from Catholicism, not Protestantism. The truth is of course that it is derived from neither.

I am not interested in pursuing this discussion with you any further beyond this point. I don’t know of any other reputable LDS scholar (in the Church or out of the Church) that has proposed your theory, or tried to demonstrate it with sound scholarly research. If you genuinely believe that you have something new and innovative to offer to the world of scholarship on this subject, my suggestion to you would be to do your research, and write a paper on it, and publish it in a journal that publishes LDS related material. Alternatively, you could send your paper to some reputable LDS scholars and ask them to send you a critique of it. My own personal studies, however, leads me to the inescapable conclusion that Joseph Smith was a true prophet, and he received his doctrines and religion directly by revelation from God without any human intervention, and therefore there is no possibility that it could have been derived from Protestantism, or for that matter from any other religion.

zerinus

aah if only Mormons would go through these same steps before proclaiming to the world their “testimony”. Face it amgid, you did no “studies”. You just tell yourself it’s true and wave off all contradictory evidence as “anti-mormon” lies, regardless of teh fact that most proof of mormon doctrine being false comes from LDS prophets and Apostles themselves. (the rest being irrefutable scientific fact). Even Joseph Smith didn’t make such wild claims as you do here. He at least acknowledged some human intervention and a significant amount of protestant “trail blazing” to prepare his way. He credited Martin Luther, Johannes Gutenberg, Those that produced the KJV of the Bible. He made extensive use Sidney Rigdon’s background as a baptist and cambelite preacher. He admitted to the influence of the Methodists and Presbyterians on his own theology. These are things that he claimed influenced his ideas on how to run a church and even generated many of the questions that he asked that resulted in sections of the D&C being written. What about Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, Martin Harris and his other friends and family that helped him found his church? LDS church history is full of human intervention and “borrowed” ideas. Look at the timeline of his becoming a freemason, establishing a lodge and then starting the Temple endowment.

As far as the claim to be a true prophet, how is that any different than the claims Of Mohamed, Ellen White, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Sun Myung Moon, Charles Taze Russel, Ann Lee or Benny Hinn for that matter?

Anyone can claim to be a prophet and start a religion. Many have done so far more successfully than Joseph Smith. A true prophet can substantiate their claims in accordance with the Bible. Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, scientific fact, common sense and a loving God all show us that Joseph Smith IS a fraud. LDS scriptures are man made like their doctrines and “revelations”. Their own prophet doesn’t even claim to speak with God. He just gets thoughts and impressions that he believes are instructions from God. A true objective study of all the facts about Mormonism (verifiable facts from LDS sources) shows that it cannot be true. Spiritual confirmation of this is readily available form the Bible. Do this and THEN pray to God to reveal HIS truth and you will know that he had nothing to do with founding the Mormon church nor does he lead it now. It is nothing more than the clever philosophies of men mingled with scripture so that “secret combinations” can get gain.

Turn away from false Gods in the image of Man and worship the ONE true God who created us.

 

[Allweather]

What does “BITB” mean???

Nan

Burning in the Bosom.

I got it from this forum. Before that, I’d always called it the Warm Fuzzie. I don’t know for sure whether BITB is a specifically Mormon term. I think it is.

 

[Allweather]

aah if only Mormons would go through these same steps before proclaiming to the world their “testimony”. Face it amgid, you did no “studies”. You just tell yourself it’s true and wave off all contradictory evidence as “anti-mormon” lies, regardless of teh fact that most proof of mormon doctrine being false comes from LDS prophets and Apostles themselves. (the rest being irrefutable scientific fact). Even Joseph Smith didn’t make such wild claims as you do here. He at least acknowledged some human intervention and a significant amount of protestant “trail blazing” to prepare his way. He credited Martin Luther, Johannes Gutenberg, Those that produced the KJV of the Bible. He made extensive use Sidney Rigdon’s background as a baptist and cambelite preacher. He admitted to the influence of the Methodists and Presbyterians on his own theology. These are things that he claimed influenced his ideas on how to run a church and even generated many of the questions that he asked that resulted in sections of the D&C being written. What about Oliver Cowdery, Emma Smith, Martin Harris and his other friends and family that helped him found his church? LDS church history is full of human intervention and “borrowed” ideas. Look at the timeline of his becoming a freemason, establishing a lodge and then starting the Temple endowment.

Thanks, Majik. I wish I could lay it out as clearly as you do. I just don’t know enough about Mormonism… but I’m learning, thanks to you guys. The whole thing about Mormonism being a byproduct of Protestantism just seems so obvious to me, on the order of “the sky is blue, the water is wet.” I have noticed that Mormons don’t like being called Protestant, and get all wiggly about it. Yet, they can’t refute the specific items that you present here so well.

 

[majick275]

Mormons need to present their church as so unique that it required God to come to earth in person to call Joseph Smith. He had to be taught and ordained by angels because Mormon doctrine requires that the “Great Apostasy” be so complete that there was no hope of salvaging any existing church. THAT is why they resent being tagged as protestant or even protestant derived. The whole concept of Joseph Smith as a “restorationist” prophet only works if the doctrine is so unique that it couldn’t have been developed or derived form anything existing. It had to be “revealed” and the finger of corruption pointed firmly at existing churches as having so perverted the “true” gospel that no one can see the Mormon church being a complete restoration of the original church that Christ established on earth (from the time of Adam BTW) without the help of the Mormon scriptures. (of course even the BoM doesn’t show anything resembling the current LDS church)

 

[zerinus]

I have noticed that Mormons don’t like being called Protestant, and get all wiggly about it. Yet, they can’t refute the specific items that you present here so well.

I have also noticed that Mormons don’t like to be called Catholics either; or for that matter Jews, Moslems, or Hindus. Mormons, in fact, don’t like to be called anything other than, well, Mormons. Surprise, surprise!

zerinus

 

[Karin]

I have also noticed that Mormons don’t like to be called Catholics either; or for that matter Jews, Moslems, or Hindus. Mormons, in fact, don’t like to be called anything other than, well, Mormons. Surprise, surprise!

zerinus

lets not forget that they dont like to be called Christians either …

 

[rmcmullan]

I think I got left out here? On the old BITB, that’s the Holy Ghost, right? I would think all Christian religions, even the non-Trinitarian ones would accept that. Am I to understand that this was an invention of Calvin ? I thought it was kind of like Apple and the GUI desktop–they didn’t create it although they are often believed to because they popularized it. If you tell me that Catholics don’t buy into that, then I’m going to have to ask you what the role of the Holy Ghost is? At least that way, we’re back to the original thread topic. Kind of. And then we’ll have to go through the whole faith hope and charity thing. Wow.

 

[zerinus]

Z, thanks for the life-after-death theology. That’s interesting.

Something similar was advanced for possible inclusion in the New Testament during the 4th century, the book we now know as the Apocryphal Apocalypse of Peter. In it, some of the dead who are condemned at the Last Judgment are released from hell after a time of purging.

I wasn’t talking about releasing those who are damned from hell after the Last Judgment. That is something that takes place after the general resurrection. The “hell” I was referring to signifies a place of punishment in the spirit world before the general resurrection. Hell can refer to any place of punishment after death, including one in the spirit world before the resurrection. The ancient Christian creeds all say that Jesus “descended into hell” after His crucifixion, before His resurrection. Peter informs us that following His death on the cross, Jesus “went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water” (1 Peter 3:19-20). Those “spirits” who were “in prison” in the sprit world, to whom Jesus went and “preached,” were obviously not in a happy place, otherwise their condition would not have been described as a “prison”. They were in a place of punishment. But Peter says Jesus want and preached to them. That is what the ancient creeds mean when they say that Jesus “descended into hell” after his death. He went there to preach deliverance to those people, who had been suffering in that place since the days of Noah, until they had paid the price of their sins, and were now ready to be delivered from it. That is what those scriptural passages from the Doctrine and Covenants which I had quoted mean. The word “hell” refers to the place of punishment in the spirit world where the wicked are sent after death to be punished for their sins, where they will be given the opportunity to repent and accept the gospel, before the final judgement takes place, which is after the resurrection, after which comes the final state of the wicked as well as the righteous.

The Apocalypse of John was one of the last books to be accepted into the Canon of the New Testament. For some decades, the Early Church Fathers debated whether any apocalypse should be included at all, or which of the two it should be, before finally settling on John’s over Peter’s.

I don’t know too much about that. I would need documentary evidence to make a decision.

The part of Peter’s that led the Fathers to set it aside was, in fact, the release of the condemned from Hell. Purification of the Elect was one thing, not-so-eternal damnation for the damned was something else entirely.

See above.

It’s not quite the same as Mormon theology as you quoted it, but it’s as close as Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox Christians seem to get.

How come? I thought Protestants did not believe in Purgatory?

zerinus

Continued . . ./

 

[zerinus]

/. . . Continued

Z, No slur intended, just a commonality in perspective noted that perhaps makes ordinary Protestants more receptive than Catholics to the invitation of the missionaries: Please take this book, read it, pray over it, and “ask if God if these things are not true…He will manifest the truth of it to you by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

I agree that there is a commonality of belief. The greatest commonality of belief that we have with the Protestants is that we both accept that the Catholic Church is no longer true! The Catholic Church has a great hold on the minds of its members which makes it difficult for them to convert. The Protestants have already broken loose from that, therefore they are easier to convert. So I agree that there is a commonality of belief; but it is not the one that you are thinking.

Regarding the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and Protestants in general:
Many, many evangelicals have told me that they are certain of a truth because they have prayed over it in faith and sincerity and have felt the Holy Spirit speaking to them. They even select the congregations they join - or leave - based on prayerfully listening for the voice of the Holy Spirit to tell them that a given church is proclaiming the Word of God accurately. Unfortunately, what many of them are actually doing is superimposing their own will over God’s will, finding or forming congregations based on their own biases.

That is news to me. I have debated with Protestants quite a lot; and nothing bugs them more than our belief that one can pray about something and gain a spiritual testimony that it is true.

The problem happens when a pastor of this-denomination-over-here and a pastor of that-denomination-over-there pray over the same scripture and “hear” totally contradictory messages from the Holy Spirit. Then they turn around and start issuing declarations about who is going to heaven and to hell, based on the scripture interpretation truths they think the Holy Spirit has given to them. Most can’t even come to a consensus within their own denominations

I suppose you could be right about that. I wouldn’t know!

That’s a very big reason why I am a Catholic!

I agree with you that it is better to be a Catholic than a Protestant. I think that it is even better still by far to be a Mormon that either Catholic or Protestant!

Merry Christmas again. May your families prosper.

Marry Christmas and happy New Year to you too.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

I agree that there is a commonality of belief. The greatest commonality of belief that we have with the Protestants is that we both accept that the Catholic Church is no longer true! The Catholic Church has a great hold on the minds of its members which makes it difficult for them to convert. The Protestants have already broken loose from that, therefore they are easier to convert. So I agree that there is a commonality of belief; but it is not the one that you are thinking.zerinus

There you go again, Z, making my case for me.

I think you put it rightly when you say “The Protestants have already broken loose from that, therefore they are easier to convert.” Therein lies the core of what I’m saying: That Protestantism is what enabled Mormonism, as well as all the other dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of cults and sects. Don’t forget, Mormonism was born during a period of religious ferment in the U.S. and England. Lots of churches were being founded by false prophets. LDS is only one, and only one of the few that survived relatively intact. Mormonism is a sect within a sect within a sect… all Protestant. Just another variation among many. And lest anyone think that Mormons are SO Protestant that they have Protestant friends, think again. The fundamentalists spend an awful lot of time thinking of ways to convert Mormons out of their peculiar heresies.

Looks like we’re making progress, though, Z. You are admitting that “there is a commonlity of belief” and not just one, but several, because you go on to say “The greatest commonality…” Yes, we are getting there.

 

[zerinus]

There you go again, Z, making my case for me.

I think you put it rightly when you say “The Protestants have already broken loose from that, therefore they are easier to convert.” Therein lies the core of what I’m saying: That Protestantism is what enabled Mormonism, as well as all the other dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of cults and sects. Don’t forget, Mormonism was born during a period of religious ferment in the U.S. and England. Lots of churches were being founded by false prophets. LDS is only one, and only one of the few that survived relatively intact. Mormonism is a sect within a sect within a sect… all Protestant. Just another variation among many. And lest anyone think that Mormons are SO Protestant that they have Protestant friends, think again. The fundamentalists spend an awful lot of time thinking of ways to convert Mormons out of their peculiar heresies.

Looks like we’re making progress, though, Z. You are admitting that “there is a commonlity of belief” and not just one, but several, because you go on to say “The greatest commonality…” Yes, we are getting there.

You are entitled to your opinions; but I respectfully disagree.

zerinus

 

[rmcmullan]

I don’t know exactly how the Catholic doctrine of Purgatory plays out in the context of Catholic theology. But I can tell you that we have something similar, although I am not sure how close it comes to the Catholic theology of Purgatory. We believe that those who have not had the opportunity to accept the gospel in this life will have that opportunity given them in the spirit world. LDS doctrine also teaches that those who had committed serious sins in this life, or those who have had the opportunity to repent of their sins and accept the gospel in this life, but refused to do so, will be punished for their sins in the spirit world; but after they have been punished and purified thereby, they will have the opportunity to repent and accept the gospel:

D&C 138:

57 I beheld that the faithful elders of this dispensation, when they depart from mortal life, continue their labors in the preaching of the gospel of repentance and redemption, through the sacrifice of the Only Begotten Son of God, among those who are in darkness and under the bondage of sin in the great world of the spirits of the dead.

58 The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,

59 And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.

60 Thus was the vision of the redemption of the dead revealed to me, and I bear record, and I know that this record is true, through the blessing of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, even so. Amen.

LDS doctrine teaches that those who are saved in the Telestial kingdom include those who had committed very serious sins in this life (and not repented of them), who then are cast down into hell where they pay a full price for all their sins, before being redeemed and saved in the Telestial kingdom:

D&C 76:

103 These are they who are liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie.

104 These are they who suffer the wrath of God on earth.

105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.

106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work;

These are the closest things to the LDS equivalent of Catholic Purgatory. I am not sure how “close” that would be!

Everyone sort of got side tracked from this point that Zerinus made and I’d like to hear your reaction. The reason is because I see it pretty much the same as he does. The whole concept certainly sound more like eternal progression than it does saved by grace.

 

[majick275]

I would disagree. It sounds more like purgatory than either.

The Bible is clear that by grace we are saved. IT also teaches though the benefit of good works to allow us to come to God and partake of his grace. (still a gift though)

The idea of some “purification” needing to take place so that we can enter into the presence of God is VERY Catholic. That is purgatory. I believe that the mormon doctrine is actually prpetty close to the Catholic position on this on issue. I don’t think many Mormons understand that very well because it normally isn’t normally taught or emphasized much. BUT multiple Mormon prophets have taught that everyone will pay some penalty for their sins before entering the appropriate kingdom to obtain their eternal reward. I would even submit that this scripture supports that idea:

*D&C 132: 26
26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God. *

I don’t believe this has anything to do with eternal progression as Mormon doctrine has consistently held that there is no progression from one kingdom to the next nor even within a kingdom. Those who enter the Celestial Kingdom but don’t qualify for Godhood become ministering angels FOREVER. Those who didn’t abide by Celestial principles here in this life can NEVER enter in to that kingdom. The BoM is clear on that as is the D&C. “do not procrastinate the day of your salvation…”. “eat, drink and be merry…”

SO Yes I agree that it’s like purgatory (as amgid suggested) and no it’s not eternal progression as rmcmullan suggested in my opinion.

 

[Allweather]

My understanding of Purgatory is that it is NOT hell. According to Catholic teaching, we are judged IMMEDIATELY upon death and dispatched either to heaven or hell according to our relationship with God through Christ. Most souls have some “purging” needed of the effects of their sinful behaviors, and this is accomplished in Purgatory. I’ve been told that only a very few souls actually go immediately into the presence of God, but that most will spend some “time” being cleansed in Purgatory. So, if you die and find yourself in Purgatory, then you should rejoice, because you are on the way to Heaven.

I’m pretty sure this is what Catholic doctrine on Purgatory is, in a nutshell. This doesn’t sound anything at all to me like baptism of the dead, or an opportunity of accepting the Gospel after death. After death, there is no further opportunity to accept Christ. Being in Purgatory is being saved. We are either saved or not. If not, then it’s off to Hell. If saved, then it’s off to heaven, most likely detouring through Purgatory for a spell.

 

[majick275]

well the mormon Hell has very few residents. It is “outer darkness” reserved for “sons of perdition” which basically means those folks who absolutely KNOW the truth and reject it to willingly follow Satan.

The rest “pay the penalty” (purgatory) for their sins and then go to the Kingdom they deserve. (the spirit world of mormonism has paradise and spirit prison. It’s all purgatory but some of the residents are “player coaches” on the “team”)

 

[Nan_S]

I don’t know too much about that. I would need documentary evidence to make a decision.

Regarding the Apocalypse of Peter:
It was mentioned in some of the Early Church Fathers lists of books considered worthy to be read during worship, however it did not have the level of support that the Apocalypse of John received, and ultimately fell into disfavor.

The main criteria used by the Early Church Fathers in determining the content of the New Testament were these:

– Is the book of apostolic origin, that is, written by the apostles themselves (such as the Gospels of Matthew and John) or their scribes (such as the Gospels of Mark and Luke)? This criterion resulted in the non-acceptance of the Epistles of Clement and the Epistle of Barnabas, among other significant works.

– Is the book universally received by the Christian church as authentic scripture, and has it been universally received from the beginning? This criterion resulted in the non-acceptance of the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter. It also resulted in ongoing disputes over other books eventually accepted, including Hebrews and the Apocalypse of John.

The canon of the New Testament was finally codified in 382AD by the Damasan canon in the decree, “Nunc vero de scripturis divinis agendum est quid universalis Catholica recipiat ecclesia, et quid vitare debeat”. However, it took some years before the Damasan canon was completely accepted in Africa and in the east.

The Catholic Encyclopedia goes into much more comprehensive detail about the development of the Canon of the New Testament.

Wikipedia actually has a pretty fair summary of the struggles of the Early Church Fathers in defining the canon of the New Testamant, and mentions the treatment of the Apocalypse of Peter: Biblical Canon.

The Apocalypse of Peter was well known during the 2nd to 4th centuries. Now it exists only in Greek and Ethiopian fragments, not all of which agree with each other.

Two surviving parts of it draw the most attention: First are the exceedingly lurid and graphic descriptions of the punishments allotted to sinners. Second are the prayers to God of Peter and the righteous at the conclusion of the apocalypse. Upon seeing the hideous fates of the damned, the saved plead that the damned might be released from their torment in hell; these prayers are ultimately granted. This is not a release of souls from Purgatory; the still-existing fragments of this work do not seem to suggest that the released ones join God in heavenly glory.

Here is a link to the text and commentary of The Apocalypse of Peter

(There is another book found in the Nag Hammadi library, the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter, which is written in Coptic and is a completely different book than the one supported by the Early Church Fathers.)

Happy reading!
Nan

 

[Nan_S]

My understanding of Purgatory is that it is NOT hell. According to Catholic teaching, we are judged IMMEDIATELY upon death and dispatched either to heaven or hell according to our relationship with God through Christ. Most souls have some “purging” needed of the effects of their sinful behaviors, and this is accomplished in Purgatory.

You’ve got the Catholic position right. We make our choices now. In this teaching Catholics disagree with the Mormons. We don’t get an additional chance to repent after suffering the wrath of God in hell. It’s all the more important, then, that we get our spiritual act together as quickly as possible.

Heb 9:27-28 And just as it is appointed for men to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1013 Death is the end of man’s earthly pilgrimage, of the time of grace and mercy which God offers him so as to work out his earthly life in keeping with the divine plan, and to decide his ultimate destiny. When “the single course of our earthly life” is completed, we shall not return to other earthly lives: “It is appointed for men to die once.” There is no “reincarnation” after death.

1021 Death puts an end to human life as the time open to either accepting or rejecting the divine grace manifested in Christ. The New Testament speaks of judgment primarily in its aspect of the final encounter with Christ in his second coming, but also repeatedly affirms that each will be rewarded immediately after death in accordance with his works and faith. The parable of the poor man Lazarus and the words of Christ on the cross to the good thief, as well as other New Testament texts speak of a final destiny of the soul -a destiny which can be different for some and for others.

1022 Each man receives his eternal retribution in his immortal soul at the very moment of his death, in a particular judgment that refers his life to Christ: either entrance into the blessedness of heaven - through a purification or immediately, - or immediate and everlasting damnation.

For the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Purgatory, see my post #144 on this thread.

Here’s the Catechism on salvation and people outside the catholic (with a small “c” therefore meaning “universal”) Church:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

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.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

(continued…)

 

[Nan_S]

(continued from previous post)

And no, out of respect for the devout participants here, I am NOT going to get into an argument about whether or not Mormons are Christians. When you look at Mormon strong families, conservative values, pious living, and social justice, Mormons have a lot to teach some of the rest of us Christians about how to live as Christ intended us to do.

Ultimately, that is what we will have to answer for at the Last Judgment. In the words of one of the New Testament books that Martin Luther wanted thrown out:

James 2:14-18 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

Nan