abqfriend

I am not LDS, but your explaining of it makes sense. My religious tradition leaves such decisions ultimately up to God.

I assume you mean the Hebrews or Jews in the first part of your comment. Most of the world of that day knew little of the Hebrew's beliefs. The NT did not come into formal existance till around the year 300 AD or so. There was no NT at the time of Jesus. Source: Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Does the second part of your comment leave out the Buddhist, Hindu, Islam and those that have not heard the Gospel through no fault of their own?-What about them?

Hi I am not LDS. Can you please give the Scripture for Terrestrial and Celestial. If not found in the OT or NT, Please give the Book of Mormon or Doctrine and Covenant references. Thanks -Carol

In the secular world-what you mention is said but true. Many people today do not go on "dates"-- they "hook-up" literally. It is a sad, but an accepted practice in much of our secular society. Such things are looked at as being OK or good. One role of Christians is to point to the Truth-that what is being done is not correct. The word "sin" in our secular society-is something many would consider "old fashioned." Many could care less if we tell them that they "are sinning." We would be told that our religious values are old-fashioned or not in step with modern society or values. Satan/The Devil or what ever you call "evil" or against God-is active in our society as a force of darkness. It was 2000 years ago-and it is today. We-no matter what shade of our light-have the light of Christianity to share with a very dark world. Let us share the Light with love and understanding and hope in helping to bring about a positive change. "Men (and Women) love darkness rather than Light" Let us share the Light! -Carol

Hi-I am a Roman Catholic-what you mention are Positives about the LDS Church. I only wish my church had more of them! 1. It is OK to demand things of your members!-keep it up! -The world is looking for direction and guidance and discipline 2. The Original 12 Apostles were the not a very good group of missionaries-They probably would not pass the test--yet they and their message changed the world. They were mostly young, uneducated, did not go to college-(BYU or Catholic University), knew little of the cultures to which they travelled-they were awful! They many times mis-understood the message given to them by the Savior Himself. In times of trial-they denied the Savior-and ran the other way!----yet they changed the World with their message! 3. High Ideals-in a world of no ideals or mediocre ones at best-Please continue to teach high ideals! Do not "dumb down" your message to a hurting world. Churches that do that-mine is not one of them either-wither on the vine and -fall off! 4. Non Perfect Members--There is Non Righteous no not one! We all have faults and sometimes do a miserable job at things-The original 12 Apostles are sometimes good examples of that too! Our church is full of imperfect members too! 5. Members have exclusive social Lives--in a world full of trash, sin and a messed up media-you have values. Family Night being one-I wish my own church had and required a Family Night. It is true that the more we associate with members of our own faith-we know less of people of no faith. This was even more so at the time of the 1st Century-when there were almost no Christians-but those that were Christians fellowshiped together. People of like mind-or same beliefs need each other to strengthen each other in the faith. I wish every Church/Ward had at the exit of their parking Lots-a big sign which read: "You are Now Entering the Mission Field." -So rejoice in your Positives!---the World is Waiting! -Carol

Here is my own view-which may not be my official Catholic Church's answer. I believe that such decisions are left up to God. I cannot see a God of Justice and Love condemning anyone who came before the Savior or through no fault of their own has not heard of -Jesus. I know the LDS Church has an ordinance of Baptism for the Dead-which may answer part of that question for them-quote me if I miss understand this doctrine. This may be why ancestry is important especially for members of the LDS. I cannot fault them for this-as Baptism for the Dead is at least mentioned in the NT book of Corinthians. Paul mentions it when writing to the Corinthian Church. Perhaps a member of the LDS Church can explain these passages: ( I am studying the Book of Mormon) In Alma 34:35 we read: "For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked" 2 Nephi 9:15-16: "And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end." Here is a Catholic explanation from an un-official Catholic Web site: Jesus makes a clear distinction between those who are sons of the kingdom (that is, those who have knowledge of and accepted of the faith) and those who are not. He includes in the kingdom of heaven many of those who are not. Jesus graces us with His incarnation, and His presence is known through His Body, the Church. The Church carries on the work of Christ here on earth. Those to whom the Church has not preached the Good News will be judged by God in a manner known to God and tempered with His mercy. Source: CUF.org :: Catholics United for the Faith -Carol

I am Catholic, but I can at least agree with you and the focus of Love as being the center of Salvation. As far as the family unit, my Church views marriage as a Sacrament-so we consider it very important. My Church is also very anti-divorce and one of the strongest advocates of family values and pro-life in the Christian faith tradition. Pro-Life Pro-Family Marriage as a Sacred Act (Sacrament) Anti-Divorce -pretty strong on family values. -Carol-wife of 33 years here and counting.

Here is an interesting link on Sheol and possible meaning in the past and how that evolved into our NT version of "hell." " By examination of the Hebrew Scriptures it will be found that its radical or primary meaning is, The place or state of the dead" "These passages show the Hebrew usage of the word sheol, which is the original of the word "grave" and "hell" in all the examples cited. It is plain that it has here no reference to a place of endless torment after death. The patriarch would scarcely say, "I will go down to an endless hell to my son mourning." He did not believe his son was in any such place. Job would not very likely pray to God to hide him in a place of endless torment, in order to be delivered from his troubles." "It is plain, then, from these citations, that the word sheol, "hell," makes nothing for the doctrine of future unending punishment as a part of the Law penalties. It is never used by Moses or the Prophets in the sense of a place of torment after death; and in no way conflicts with the statement already proved, that the Law of Moses deals wholly in temporal rewards and punishments." Source: The Origin and History of the Doctrine of Endless Punishment -something to think about. -Carol -

I am an Catholic-here is my take on the question. It is not my official church position-just me an ordinary Catholic Christian First Hell-the belief in "hell" is a developed concept-you will find few references to it in the OT for any of the possible words used for it mentioned below. Each of those have subtle different meanings. Many Jews of today and yesterday-according to a survey- do not believe in an afterlife. Source: Jewish Beliefs on the Afterlife - ReligionFacts Here is another source with a little different view on the idea: WikiAnswers - What type of afterlife do Jewish people believe in Those that do-they leave such a decision of their final destiny up to God as they understand God in their faith tradition. If you read the OT in it's entirity-you will find that many Hebrews/Jews believed in nothing after our death-or they left such a question up to God. Many used the term dust as their final state. Hell or it's equivalent is mentioned in the NT as is mentioned. Different sub-sets of Judaism believed different things-hence some heated discussions with Jesus and later his followers. Many religious do not have a hell, some-do not have a Heaven or Heavens. I see Hell as being eternally seperated from God-Whom I equate with Love. That would be hell enough for me. So what about those that believe in Islam, Budda or are Hindu's to name just a few. What about those -through no fault of their own have never heard the Gospel? and who's Gospel? The Gospel of the LDS, Catholic, Lutheran, Jehovah Witness, Baptist, Etc. We all have shades of different meanings on what is the Gospel is. There are so many churches and denominations and sub-denominations and they all interpret things a bit differently. Some have different sacred texts than the other. So-my answer is-to leave such questions and the destiny of someone ultimately to a loving and just God. So-do we stop preaching our particular brand of our message-as we understand it-no we do not, but we should remember who our hearers may be and the best sermon is sometimes preached with few or no words. It is preached with our actions to a hurting world. You may get a different answer from a Catholic theologian. I am just an ordinary Catholic Christian here. -Carol

I think our respective church bodies can agree to disagree on this subject and others. So what next?-how do we move forward in reaching out to a hurting world and understanding each other? Do we cast stones-or do we embrace? The Initial Post of this thread-invited members of this board to join a new web site founded by a member of this web site and a member of the LDS Church. I encourage every member of this web site to join that ecumenical web site. It can become a place to learn about each other's beliefs and grow in our knowledge of each other as individuals. We cannot change our church bodies history-but we can move forward as individuals: Here is the link again: http://www.ctr1.org/

You are indeed correct that in the early church there were major discussions and disagreements in councils on the relationship between Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The early Christian Church after much discussion among the leaders of that time defined the doctrine that is now called Trinity. This became a benchmark for the next 1700 years of what church group fell into the understanding of the term Christian. Despite the passage of history and the less than stellar example of some Catholic popes and religious leaders of Reformation era churches, the doctrine of Trinity as agreed upon by the early church is still the official dividing line between Christian and non-Christian as defined by the churches of the time. This view is shared by not just Catholic or Orthodox, but by most Reformation Era churches including Lutheran, Presbyterian, Anglican, Methodist and more recently-most Baptist. The Reformation Era churches and their successors accepted the decisions and ramifications of the early church councils. This statement of faith with the focus on the understanding of Trinity-was put into a formal statement of faith or creed-called the Nicene Creed-after the Council of Nicea. This statement of faith is said by many church groups within their worship services or liturgy. It is learned and studied in their classes of religious instruction just as your Articles of Faith may be learned in yours. With regard to sacraments: The Catholic Church does not recognize LDS Sacraments but- Likewise -the LDS Church also does not recognize Catholic Sacraments -if you are I were to convert to each others church-both of us would need to be baptized again. Both of us would need to receive the Holy Ghost again with the laying on of hands. Both Churches believe in Apostolic Succession Both Churches believe in a male priesthood. There are obvious differences between them. Outside of the "official" pronouncements of our respective Church bodies-what is important to me-as just your average Catholic Christian is what people have in their hearts. How their faith journey affects them. Do they live their faith? That is why I am here-to learn of the LDS Church, It's doctrines and teachings and to read and learn is Sacred Texts including the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. I think our respective official Church bodies can agree to disagree-We Catholics are called Apostates and You- LDS are called Heretics-neither word helps bring people together. I do not know if we can change history-but we can move forward as individuals getting to know each other as fellow believers in a God of 3 parts-or The Godhead as you define it or The Trinity as I define it. Let us not let such things keep us from learning of each other and working together in reaching out to a hurting world for the good of the kingdom of God. -Carol

Hi from Carol -I am just your average "pew" Catholic here. I am not a theologian. You are correct in stating that the Catholic Church defined "true church as being the Roman and Orthodox Catholic Churches. -this has to do with Apostolic Succession more than anything. It is in defining the Catholic view of the word "church." Many churches other than the Roman Catholic Church- say similar about themselves-that they are the" True Church." We are not unique in that. You are incorrect to say that the Catholic church called other Christian Churches as heretical. -there is no reference to that in the official documents of the church -which I attach as a source and quote part of the document itself. Here is the official document that you make reference to: Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church Here is one small part of that document: It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them. -so this hardly makes other Christian churches as heretical. The document goes on to further explain: related to Reformation era churches: "According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense" Again-the document is referring to the word Church and not Christian-there is a difference. To be a Church-in the Catholic sense of the understanding of the word-involves Apostolic Succession and Holy Orders or Priesthood as the Catholic Church defines it--which the Catholic Church believes it has. Churches that do not have this are not considered as a "church" in the Catholic understanding of the word "Church." So the emphasis is on defining the word Church and not Christian. The document speaks for itself. -Carol

Fornication and adultery are part of a larger topic of sexual sins which can become a sexual addictions. Sexual addictions involve physical, emotional and chemical components as most addictions also do. Besides obvious repentance by the person-the church needs to reach out to those obsessed/addicted to fornication/adultery-and in our Internet society---pornography in all it's subtle forms available. I see nothing different that the Roman Brothels and the worship of the sex goddess Artemis/Diana of Ephesus than today's obsession by many with all things sexual. In the Gospel-Jesus said that looking at a woman with lust was as sinful as committing that sin itself--both can enslave the person. So-let the Church help those involved in sexual perversions/addictions of all kinds. Rather than verbally stoning a person-extend the olive branch of a loving community in helping that person overcome their addictive potential. Sexual Sins-in my opinion are destroying many church members of various denominations from within. We need to extend the olive branch of help. We are either a condemning community or a caring one-let's be a caring one. Indeed the person needs to repent-or turn away from such things-but sometimes that person needs the help of a compassionate Christian community. -Carol

I am a Catholic-just to let you know and others my background on this post. We do not today have the written Word of God as it was originally written. At best-we have copies and translations of what was written. None of the NT Quotes refer to the NT, as the NT was not written down as the NT and codified or made into a canon of the New Testament till the Council of Nicea held in the 300's. At that point some writings that were considered as the Word of God by some Christians were thrown out or not included in what we now call The Bible. This decision was a council decision. Some of the so-called Gnostic Gospels, such as The Gospel of Thomas and others are examples of this-what was not included in what we now call The Bible NT. The Word of God is indeed inspired by God and the OT passages that you refer to from the words of Jesus indeed point to Him. What is not understood or looked at differently by different denominations or faith traditions is if the Word of God is meant to be taken Word for Word-as in totally literal or in its meaning for us given in more general terms and being divinely inspired in matters of faith. I personally-do not believe in a literal word-for-word interpretation of Sacred Scripture. I believe that Sacred Scripture is divinely inspired in matters of my faith. I look to my Church for an interpretation and guidance of my understanding of the Word of God. Language changes over time-and so do words and their meanings. Many Churches and denominations have teaching authorities-our church it is called (The Teaching Magesterium). Another church may have prophets to help explain and further clarify for the followers of that faith tradition the meaning of Sacred Scripture and the underlying doctrines of their faith as well as provide new revelations on their faith. -Carol

The Board is excellent. We need more members---please take a few minutes to look at it then join. Thanks for starting it. -Carol

I would agree that the more people understand about the LDS Church-misinformation will hopefully fade. This can also be true as seekers of truth learn about other faith traditions as well. We each have a bias toward our own faith traditions. Some of our faith traditions-including my own-Catholic- elevate their own and say others hold less truth. Most faith traditons do that. So-trying to understand a different faith tradition-and most importantly how the different members of that faith tradition live their faith in this world is important. It is not as important for me-a seeker of truth- what a prophet may say or a infallible church council may pronounce. What is important is how I see people of a faith tradition live out their faith in a hurting world. Action speaks louder than words. Action is sometimes the best sermon. Action is sometimes the best missionary or promoter/evangelizer of a faith. -Carol

I think we lost the meaning or request of the initial post-finding common ground with each other. Is there any? -if so-what is it? What common things do we share-and how can we find common ground to move forward in areas upon which we agree? -Carol

I happen to be a Catholic, but I am not a theology major. I do have to agree with this poster that the doctrine of Trinity has been a debated issue in the earlier centuries of Christianity I am here to learn about the LDS faith tradition-and not debate it or to call someone less a Christian than I am or a non-Christian because they may not hold some differentl doctrinal issues as myself. The word Trinity-is indeed not in Sacred Scripture of the Old or New Testament. I do not believe that the word Sacrament is either. Words of a religious nature develop over time to try to define a concept or doctrine. Let's all try to find where we can agree rather than disagree. Perhaps Love Thy Neighbor as Thy Self is a good place to start for everyone including myself. -Carol

Help me if I am reading you wrong-so--Christians-if not LDS Christians-are not prepared for the Bridgegroom--and we-- are somehow different because we are not "valient" enough? Again-where is the need for a Savior-if it is all about what we do-rather than what has been done for us by the love, suffering and atonement of Jesus? I understand the "bride" to be a reference to be understood as The Church Universal. Celestial and Terrestial terms are not understood by most outside the LDS Church. Will Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindu's-also be in the same place as Christians-other than LDS Christians-which I assume-from your discussion-will have achieved a Celestial or existence closer to The Heavenly Father? Again-my question-why the need for Jesus?

I am not an LDS Member. In reading Matthew 25 of the original post-I always thought that passage meant seperating the believers/Christians from the unbelievers/non-Christians. If we get into heaven-based on our works alone-what good is The Savior? There is no need for the atonement --if it is all about us. I have read in Sacred Scripture that we may be rewarded for our works of love toward others and our faithfulness to God's commandments but Heaven-at least my version of it-is a ultimately-a free gift. I realize LDS may understand this escatology differently. -so-I hope there is common ground between myself-a Catholic Christian and my LDS friends as LDS-Christians. My motivation -in this life-is one of love-giving love to others and reflecting the Love of God to those I meet. Any rewards -I may get---I would call desert! I am sometimes not very good at showing Love-but we have the perfect example in action for us in Jesus and the atoning work of our loving Savior. -Carol

I would think there are only -Christians- and in my opinion LDS members are as Christian as I am, no more and no less. -Carol

Great Post-I would just add-that since the new forum is ecumenical-it needs Chrstians of all faith traditions including Mormons. As this is an LDS web site here-I echo your wish that Latter-Day Saints should be encouraged to join. I hope representatives of all faith traditions join. That would promote good dialog and better understanding of different faith traditions. .

I as a Roman Catholic would be happy to give you direct quotes and web liniks quoting from Justin Martyr writing around AD 155 on an understanding of the Eucharist as well as from Ignatius of Antioch, who died in AD 110 and a disciple of Peter and Paul on the subject. As this is an LDS site, and I am a minority here-my purpose is not to defend the "Catholic" faith. I respect the guidelines of this site and that it's members are largely of the LDS faith tradition. I am here to learn about the LDS church-but my point is that an understanding on the Eucharist/Lord's Supper is one of a difference of how one views The Lord's Supper and what is and what is not a "sacrament" and the term "sacrament." defined. Different religious traditions define them differently based on their religious faith traditions. -Carol

I am a Roman Catholic. The Catholic Church takes the words of Christ as literal as referred to those stated in the Last Supper accounts. Other religious traditions take them figuratively or understand them differently. Such is the diversity of religious traditiions and understanding of Sacred Scripture. The term "sacrament" is viewed differently by many religious traditions. Lutherans have "sacraments" but Lutherans have no priests. Lutherans have both male and female ministers. Roman Catholics and the LDS Church have only male priests. The Anglican/Episcopal Church has both male and female priests. So one can have a sacrament without having a priest-depending on one's view of what a sacrament is-and who can officiate as engaging in such sacraments- depending on the understanding of that religious tradition. You would not find total agreement on your statement that there was no evidence that early Christians believed that it was not the Body and Blood of Christ.- -Carol

J. B. Phillips wrote a small book about 40 years ago-called "Your God is Too Small." It is a classic. It's basic premise is that we try to limit God or put God in a box." "Denominations" or parts of various faith traditions do that. It is not limited to just Christianity. There are "denominations or sub-groups in Judaism and Islam and Buddhism also. I belong to one of the largest "denominations." called the Roman Catholic Church. In my opinion, it trys to do that also-put God in a box-it's box. Each of us comes to a point in life where we feel that (hopefully) the Holy Ghost is guiding us in the direction of "Truth.' That truth may be in one "denomination." or another. Every "denomination" that I know of calls their church the "true church." Most denominations find some "truth" in other "denominations of their same faith tradition-such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Buddhism. We, in our understanding of God may put limits on who belongs to who, but ultimately that decision is God's-or as some call Him, The Heavenly Father. Perhaps our finding the Truth and living the Truth-- is our journey in this life. I am a truth seeker-perhaps you are too-and if you have found it-that is wonderful for you. May our Heavenly Faither Bless each of you in seeking, finding and living the Truth. -Carol