fatima

I appreciate this, and recognize that the LDS Church, like the Catholic Church is subject to laws.  Throughout its 2000 year history, I wonder if some events involving the CC that we see through 21st century eyes were really a result of the time and place of said event.

Amen!

I am not LDS, and I really don't understand what a "prompting" is, but I am guessing by this thread that it is the idea that God is somehow speaking directly to you about something.  Once again, not knowing LDS doctrine, I would say this: if a prompting is in some way out-of-line with some other element of faith, it probably isn't from God.  Example: (remember that I am Catholic) if I thought I had a 'prompting' to have an abortion, that would clearly violate known doctrine, so it wouldn't be a prompting from God.  
In the situation with your mother, the prompting sounds like some manner of seeing into the future ( I suspect all Christianity frowns upon it, as the future is only God's to know).  Maybe a more obvious example would be if LDS had a prompting to share details of the Temple with a non-LDS, that would clearly violate LDS doctrine, so it cannot be from God.
It's hard, hard, hard to deal with aging parents.  My prayers are with you.

I am not LDS, and I really don't understand what a "prompting" is, but I am guessing by this thread that it is the idea that God is somehow speaking directly to you about something.  Once again, not knowing LDS doctrine, I would say this: if a prompting is in some way out-of-line with some other element of faith, it probably isn't from God.  Example: (remember that I am Catholic) if I thought I had a 'prompting' to have an abortion, that would clearly violate known doctrine, so it wouldn't be a prompting from God.  
In the situation with your mother, the prompting sounds like some manner of seeing into the future ( I suspect all Christianity frowns upon it, as the future is only God's to know).  Maybe a more obvious example would be if LDS had a prompting to share details of the Temple with a non-LDS, that would clearly violate LDS doctrine, so it cannot be from God.
It's hard, hard, hard to deal with aging parents.  My prayers are with you.

It is my understanding that when Joseph Smith spoke to God,  God told him that all the churches were an abomination (or something like that)  Is there anything in Smith's writing that outlines what the offensive doctrines or practices were?  As a Catholic, I am more interested in what specific Catholic practices were condemned.
Or, perhaps God didn't go over specifics of any denomination, but rather just told Smith was to do from that point forward?

I did not criticize, I observed.  
This IS an LDS beliefs board, so I don't expect LDS posters to agree with Catholic teaching on points x, y and z.  However, that inter-faith respect we all claim to want has to have a place on an LDS board and a Catholic board.
I have absolutely no dispute with the LDS requirements for entering the Temple.  While I disagree with LDS theology, I love and respect any individual who seeks the Will of God and does His Will as they honestly believe it to be.

I did not criticize, I observed.  
This IS an LDS beliefs board, so I don't expect LDS posters to agree with Catholic teaching on points x, y and z.  However, that inter-faith respect we all claim to want has to have a place on an LDS board and a Catholic board.
I have absolutely no dispute with the LDS requirements for entering the Temple.  While I disagree with LDS theology, I love and respect any individual who seeks the Will of God and does His Will as they honestly believe it to be.

The comparison I was trying to make was participation in the most sacred experience in each of our respective faiths: the Eucharist and the Temple.  Whether one of us calls it a sacrament or an ordinance was not my point.  Catholic should be examining themselves before presenting themselves to receive Jesus in the Eucharist, LDS (from what I understand) cannot go into the Temple under certain circumstances.  I am not comparing Catholic Communion to LDS Communion.

I've always felt that the priest standing in for Christ and offering those beautiful words of absolution are meant as an assurance to me, the penitent.
It is Jesus Himself that says, "I absolve you from your sin", through the priest.  It is for our benefit, our peace of mind that Our Lord offers us the gift of the Sacrament of Confession.  

I think, and I could be wrong on this point, but I think that a Catholic priest is only in persona Christi at the Consecration of the Eucharist and in the Confessional.  He is not in persona Christi at all times.

That is definitely news to me.  I have heard speculation that they might be in Purgatory until the end of time, but no definitive statements at all.

Perhaps there is difficulty understanding because the way LDS view God and the way Catholic Christians (and perhaps other branches of traditional Christianity) view God not as a man who has been exalted, but as a being entirely separate and unique.  Beyond our comprehension and not a being that was once like us (although He became like us in all things but sin), and not a being like unto which we will one day become.  He does not deal in 'what ifs' or hypotheticals.  
He is Creator and we are creatures.  He IS, He WAS and He always WILL BE.  The great I AM.  
God knowing what a person will do is not because He 'sees the future' in a linear fashion, as though it has not happened yet.  He knows what we will choose because there is something to know, which is only possible to know because we were created, not contingent on when we were created.  If we hadn't been created there would be nothing that had happened for Him to know.
When a man and a woman get married, they do not (as a rule) decide not to have children because of what that child might do.  We love our spouses and that love is brought forth in new life. That same great love, even more,  is why God created us.  I might be able to assume one of my children might commit one sin or another over the course of their lives, but I don't know which sin they will commit until it' has happened.  And how do I know it happened?  Because it has happened.  For God, iit is all present before Him at all times.  He doesn't know what didn't happen because there is nothing to know.  I can't know my daughter will steal a car if she never does it.  God doesn't know what didn't happen because it didn't happen.
 
I had a whole bunch of other paragraphs, which I have now deleted because there is no way I am making this clear.  I don't have the language skills.
 
 
 
 

I am wondering if someone can give me some insight on the LDS teaching on Eve.  I just read Jewel's post about an image at the SLC temple, and I am surprised at all the praise heaped upon her, and I assume that Adam shares in those praises.  
And if Eve is worthy of some sort of praise (although I cannot imagine why), does Mary, the Mother of Jesus Christ, also receive some sort of...added appreciation for her role in salvation history?

If this man doesn't believe in God, why do you suppose he is being chaste until his marriage?

If this man doesn't believe in God, why do you suppose he is being chaste until his marriage?

If this man doesn't believe in God, why do you suppose he is being chaste until his marriage?

I posted briefly already, but I wanted to re-post to you specifically, because you've laid it out so thoroughly.  
God exists...period.  He is the Supreme Being, the Uncaused Cause, etc.  He created us from nothing to love us and He desires that we return that love to Him.  Not unlike the great love between a married couple that brings forth life (with God's grace) in marriage.  
That said, while God knows all things about His creation, He doesn't know what is going to happen with something He hasn't yet created, because there is nothing to know. 'It" doesn't exist.   My mind is comparing it to my newborn grand-nephew.  Before he was born we didn't know he would have the genes for cystic fibrosis, because there was nothing to know.  Now his parents know and proceed accordingly knowing that each new child of theirs has an x% chance of this disease.  Do/should all married couples cease to have children based on what horrible thing might happen to their children?
And God did not create us as one thing that He expects to somehow become something else, as though a dog is supposed to have some ability to become a cat.  He created us rational beings that can see the world and the love around us.  We can observe and participate in natural law, the order of the universe and know God, and be good people.  However, rational beings can also convince themselves of all sorts of things that are not from God, such as abortion being some sort of good thing.  This is our free will, and our free will and observance of all things good and beautiful in this world should lead us towards the existence of [a] God, even if we don't have the benefit of Him having revealed Himself to us, such as Aristotle did.
 
Anyway, I am getting off topic.  The point is, we are not created as creatures that have no ability to be what God intends.  He created and He saw that 'it was good'.  We are His creation and we were created for goodness.   As an athlete can train his body, a person can train his soul.  It takes discipline and ordering our minds and hearts towards the good, but it is categorically not that God is asking us to be ABC while creating us as XYZ.

I own a business that participates in weddings, and while I haven't yet been approached to provide service to a gay 'wedding', one thought occurred to me that might help me avoid a legal battle if religious freedom is my reasoning...
As a person who has a 'sincerely held religious belief' that gay marriage is wrong/a sin/whatever, I also believe that no matter what the state calls it, in the eyes of God, no marriage actually exists.  God does not suddenly accept these two people as 'married' because the U.S. gov't accepted it.  
If I want to make a political/cultural statement about gay marriage, I would save it for somewhere else.

Thank you.  

I inferred that Vort was saying our Sacrament (the Eucharist) is 'sadistic and evil'.  If are not already aware, Catholics are often accused by certain groups of being 'cannibals', and that we crucify Christ again in our Sacrament, so I thought Vort had these things in mind when he posted.  This usually comes from Evangelicals, but not exclusively.

I inferred that Vort was saying our Sacrament (the Eucharist) is 'sadistic and evil'.  If are not already aware, Catholics are often accused by certain groups of being 'cannibals', and that we crucify Christ again in our Sacrament, so I thought Vort had these things in mind when he posted.  This usually comes from Evangelicals, but not exclusively.

As Anatess pointed out, a Mormon has no reason to study what other religions view as sacred in order to edit their commentary accordingly.  Because language is very fluid, what I think is necessary among those-of-us-who-claim-to-practice Christianity, is to measure everything we say with charity and be excessive in our care towards each other.  Heck, if we cannot show love and respect, why should we expect the rest of the world to do so?
I don't make the distinction between what I can safely mock or insult about the LDS faith, and what I can't.  Meaning I don't think to myself: well, the Temple is off limits, but I'll make fun of the garments/relief society/BoM, whatever.
As for the 'cracker' comments, while it stings a bit, I really don't expect them to refer to the Eucharist as "the Body and Blood of Christ".  I do think 'cracker' as opposed to 'bread' is an effort to reduce it to the lowest possible terms, but that could just be my perception.

As Anatess pointed out, a Mormon has no reason to study what other religions view as sacred in order to edit their commentary accordingly.  Because language is very fluid, what I think is necessary among those-of-us-who-claim-to-practice Christianity, is to measure everything we say with charity and be excessive in our care towards each other.  Heck, if we cannot show love and respect, why should we expect the rest of the world to do so?
I don't make the distinction between what I can safely mock or insult about the LDS faith, and what I can't.  Meaning I don't think to myself: well, the Temple is off limits, but I'll make fun of the garments/relief society/BoM, whatever.
As for the 'cracker' comments, while it stings a bit, I really don't expect them to refer to the Eucharist as "the Body and Blood of Christ".  I do think 'cracker' as opposed to 'bread' is an effort to reduce it to the lowest possible terms, but that could just be my perception.