fatima

I'm truly fascinated by your answer. Divorce is allowed by both Catholic and LDS, so I'm not sure I understand why that was a contradiction for you in your journey to LDS. How does Premortal Existence resolve abortion as an inherent evil? I won't bother discussing the Apostolic Authority, because while I disagree (obviously), you are a studied and prayerful person; I have no interest in challenging you.

And you've answered another piece of the puzzle for me. As a Catholic, I am working on all of my own issues through the Sacraments and my spiritual director, and my part in helping my marriage to be all God plans. I am trying, with His Grace, to examine my own contributions to where we are after all of these years. I didn't think your eternal blessings would be separated from your spouses. What LDS 'heaven' is like might be the right question to ask. I guess I assumed that since you are with your spouse eternally, and that you still live as a married couple, that heaven was very much like earth, although obviously something must be different.

May I ask what convinced you of a Great Apostasy? What about the LDS position on divorce and abortion did you find problematic?

I think I may be understanding. Sealed for eternity assumes both parties want that? Each spouse in a marriage will be allowed, after death, to decide if they want to remain sealed to the other? As Vort said, and all the rest that has been said here re: our personal growth in holiness, how we treat our spouses and the promises we made is 100% in keeping with what I believe as a Catholic. I'm very interested (not conversion interested) in LDS theology. I respect a lot of aspects of the LDS faith, so your church's teaching on the subject came up in my mind as I was mulling over this issue.

Hello, Anatess! What a great response! For clarification-I am a practicing Catholic and I am not actually trying to get out of my marriage. Like I said, it's not abusive or anything, but I was curious about LDS theology on the topic. It is my belief that being happy comes from being holy, and doing God's Will, as you have said, in service to my spouse. I get to try to love him as God loves him, in spite of my feelings on the subject.

Yes, I'm the same one who asked on CAF, but no LDS answered me, only Catholics, so I figured I'd come here. I think my question is being misunderstood (or I'm not the brightest crayon in the box). Do LDS have to spend eternity with a spouse that hasn't been the greatest? If one spouse isn't really to strive to live by the LDS tenets, while the other one is?

Is there any way out of an LDS marriage? For instance-I'm a Catholic in a tough marriage. Not abusive or anything, but not thoughtful, considerate, cherished. More rude, impatient, must-do-things-his-way sort of marriage. Quite frankly, there are days when I look forward to 'til death do us part'. In an LDS marriage, if there is no really solid ground for divorce (or the Catholic equivalent of annulment) is a spouse stuck for eternity in tolerable, although not particularly happy, marriage?

The Toleration Act was an act of the State of Maryland as it was being established. It had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the Catholic Church proper. What I am talking about is its doctrines, those unchangeable teachings that have remained fast for 2000+ years. We are not discussing dissenters, personal opinions, or the errors that are committed by clergy and laity. With all due respect to the LDS church, which I believe is certainly more pro-life than many so-called Christian churches, the LDS doctrine is not categorically pro-life. There are circumstances in which an LDS woman, after recommended prayer and counseling, is 'allowed' (for lack of a better term) to seek an abortion. I have followed the LDS church for years, and in every discussion I have read or been part of, that has been confirmed. It is not always and absolutely considered a sin. In the CC, it is always, always a grave evil, a mortal sin. Let me finish by saying that a woman's guilt for that sin is an entirely separate discussion, and is God's alone to determine. Objectively, always a mortal sin. Culpability depends and is for God alone.

It probably falls under the same reasoning that Jesus dined with Matthew, the tax collector. He has come to call the unrighteous, not the righteous. (that said, we are all unrighteous in the eyes of God)

I think it's fair to say that the entire nation knows darn well where the Catholic Church stands on human life. She is, in fact, the only church who does not waiver on the sanctity of human life regardless of the circumstances of conception. She is the only church whose doctrine will never, ever counsel a member to pray about an abortion and come to a decision. Speaking on abortion or homosexuality in America causes the majority of people to shut down. I suspect he is trying to meet those who have fallen away from the church where they are at. Perhaps if their hearts are softened, they will hear the rest of the message. Preaching to the choir isn't going to change the hearts of those now lost.

From a daily Mass-going Catholic mother-of-many, this is a great forum. A few of my very good friends are LDS, and we are very careful to support each other in our faith lives, with no attempts at arguing doctrine or theology. Thought I don't post much, I come here a few times a week to read up on LDS theology and life. You will find Anatess, in particular, an extraordinary poster. I encourage you to read anything she writes.

Well, every act that a man commits that is sinful is an immoral act. And since every man sins, then no man, Catholic or LDS can claim Apostolic Authority. Indeed the Catholic Church has preserved the gospel through the dark days, and continues to, because that preservation is the work of God, not of man. There has been no total apostasy, so Apostolic Authority remains today where it was deposited 2014 years ago.

Am I missing something here? You seem to be saying in the above post (couple with another, but I don't know how to multi-quote) that you reject the Catholic Church's claim to authority, and think Catholics should too, because an immoral person cannot legitimately claim Apostolic Authority. Yet, all men are sinners, including the LDS founder, who may or may not have committed sins against purity. It seems to me one can make a case for Catholic men and LDS men who may have used their positions for immoral behavior; negating in your mind the claim to AA by either of them. Catholics, however, believe that while a bad guy can do all kinds of bad things with his position, the doctrines will never change; that is what is protected by the Holy Spirit. The CC will never teach that Jesus is not Truly Present in the Eucharist, that the Blessed Virgin was not a Perpetual Virgin and that she was not Assumed into Heaven, body and soul. That is what is protected. A pope may actually have his own opinion on the subject that isn't in line with the doctrines, but he will never be able to declare an erroneous teaching. Teachings in the CC do not change by continued or new revelation. The CC may be silent on a subject before it makes a declaration (the Assumption of the BVM wasn't declared until the last century), but it will never teach something as true "for a time", or some such thing.

I know. Bad guys in the LDS church claim to have apostolic authority; it could be argued that Joseph Smith used his authority to indulge in impurity. However, if you accept that God uses the weak then Joseph Smith's sins play no part in his claim to authority, and neither to a pope's sins disqualify him as the instrument of God.

Isn't it rather undisputed that Joseph Smith, too, was a rather questionable character, at best? I'm no LDS historian, but I spend a fair amount of time reading about the LDS faith traditions, ordinances and history, and I've heard acknowledgements of the sins/errors of some leaders/prophets/presidents. As another poster pointed out, this simply can show the power of God through human weakness, and the unchanging doctrines in Catholicism, in spite of the sinful men, is compelling to me. To think the pope cannot sin is to put him on par with God, and that can never be a good thing.

I didn't mean to imply that you shouldn't, my apologies if it comes across the wrong way. Anatess has it all nailed, and I must say I am thoroughly impressed with how she explains the Catholic faith, in this thread and others, with facts on the Catholic doctrines and practices. I don't think many people who have left one faith for another are able to maintain level of Christian charity. I would also echo that Lenten observances done just out of habit, cultural tradition, or for some other motive (weight loss comes to mind) is not what the Catholic Church teaches. We are to more fully imitate Jesus Christ, and as He offered Himself for our sakes, we can also offer up our sufferings for His sake.

I was really curious when I saw this thread was started by an LDS, because my LDS friends have told me just that. So, may I ask, Wingnut and Quin, why you are observing Lent?

In the first place, while a pope traditionally serves until his death, there isn't anything that resembles a requirement for such. Secondly, the only doctrine the Catholic Church has with respect to the pope is that he will not promulgate doctrinal error from the Chair of Peter. Lastly, what an incredible act of humility to step down! No doubt through steeping himself in the deepest prayer could he have taken such action that rocked the Catholic world!

The sin that active homosexuals commit is the same sin that is being committed throughout the world in the heterosexual community. The sin of sex outside of marriage, and for purely recreational purposes. When birth control became part of marriage, the marital union was separated from its procreative purpose and became, over time, primarily recreational. Pre- and extramarital sex followed. Then abortion. Sex today is primarily about recreation and only periodically, if the couple determines it's the right time, is sex about procreation. I don't see how any of us who purport to be Christians should be surprised at what has happened. If the heterosexual community can have sex with someone other than a spouse with impunity, why in the world shouldn't a gay man or woman? If a heterosexual person can have multiple partners throughout their lives, with or without some civil or religious ceremony that calls it a marriage, why shouldn't the homosexual community? We all need to look in the mirror to see why we are where we are as a culture. JMHO.

You all are way over my head. However, I would like to be sure to clarify that Purgatory is not a destination for the soul, like I believe the lower kingdoms (?) are in LDS theology. It sounds to me like George is saying that the soul enjoys the Beatific Vision while in Purgatory, but I didn't think that way the case. It is my understanding that the soul knows it will and it has the benefits of seeing all things as God sees them, and is happy to suffer/be purged of whatever imperfections remain. Once the soul has been "purged" of it's attachment to sin, that soul then joins in the fullness of the Beatific Vision. But I'm no theologian.

Didn't "apostle", in the Bible, specifically mean a man who walked with Christ and was with Him from the start? Was that not the criteria when they were replacing Judas? I'm not a scholar, but I've always understood it to be that "revelation" ended, but that doesn't mean that the depth of our understanding of what had been revealed ended; for instance, the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Mother. Perhaps it wasn't considered because there was no reason to consider it, but it was not declared "doctrine" until the 1800's. Maybe most people believed that she was immaculately conceived, but didn't have the words to articulate it. Through prayer and study of the Scriptures, the Church understood and formally declared her Immaculate Conception as a matter of faith for all Catholics. May I ask how "revelation" happens for your president? Is it that God actually speaks to him, or is it a more deliberate and methodical study and prayer that bring him to one conclusion or another? Also, is he limited on what is "infallible" (in Catholic speak)? For instance, the pope is limited to matters of faith and morals. Is the president only speaking as prophet in limited circumstances?

I think a prayer can be repetitious without being "vain". The whole point of the Rosary and Stations is so that one can meditate of the Life of Christ during those prayers. As with anything, if you are not properly disposed and sincerely seeking God, no amount of repetition will have meaning. Revelations tells us of the repetitive prayers of the angels at the throne of God, non-stop singing, "Holy, holy, holy...".

Your last statement, I could not agree more! I am firmly a Catholic, without a doubt in my mind. However, I am curious about other theologies. The LDS have a respect from me many other faiths do not, simply because of the humility in recognizing they do NOT know it all. As we believe the Holy Father is protected from error in matters of faith and morals, you also believe about your president/prophet. (I don't know if those two terms are interchangable) Obedience is a great virtue, IMO. So, follow up...based on what you are saying (and I understand that you said you may not know the answer) LDS do not believe that we had bodies in the spiritual realm? I guess this is confusing me. Were we matter that God formed into intelligences? Again, I thought LDS taught that we are literal, and by that I mean biological/physical, children of God. If He has a body, then I assumed LDS would say that His Children would have a body. Can you help separate my understanding of "spiritual brothers and sisters" from literal? Parsing that out in my mind isn't working.

I'm not sure I understand LDS beliefs, so please correct me if I'm wrong here, either in the question or the presuppositions that led to it. We are all "spirit children" of God in the spiritual 'realm'. However, I understand that LDS believe God has a physical body, so #1- can someone explain that? Do we have physical bodies in the spirit world, too? #2- if we are all literal children of God, does that mean we are marrying and parenting our literal brothers and sisters in this world? If not, please set me straight. #3-if yes, are we brothers and sisters again when we return to the spirit world, or are we still husbands and wives? Which is what I thought the "sealing" for eternity was about.

That which I bolded jumped out at me. One of my daily prayers is the following, perhaps it will help you: O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me. From the desire of being esteemed, Deliver me, Jesus. From the desire of being loved... From the desire of being extolled ... From the desire of being honored ... From the desire of being praised ... From the desire of being preferred to others... From the desire of being consulted ... From the desire of being approved ... From the fear of being humiliated ... From the fear of being despised... From the fear of suffering rebukes ... From the fear of being calumniated ... From the fear of being forgotten ... From the fear of being ridiculed ... From the fear of being wronged ... From the fear of being suspected ... That others may be loved more than I, Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it. That others may be esteemed more than I ... That, in the opinion of the world, others may increase and I may decrease ... That others may be chosen and I set aside ... That others may be praised and I unnoticed ... That others may be preferred to me in everything... That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…