Jason_J

Members
  • Posts

    474
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jason_J

  1. So what happens to all the billions of people throughout the ages that have never heard about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice, and therefore never had the chance to accept Him? What happens to them? And what is the basis for your belief in what happens to them?
  2. Oh LOL I didn't even click the link, haha. I thought it was just a link to sign up for Facebook.
  3. I just added a link to my Mormon.org profile on my Facebook.
  4. I'd say probably more like a monsignor. Meeting an apostle would be more like a cardinal. And of course meeting the Prophet/President is like meeting the Pope. Last week we had our Young Single Adult Regional Conference, and two apostles were there (apparently they were also checking out the mormon.org billboard in Times Square they just put up).
  5. Awesome, I'm in NYC and look forward to seeing these ads around the city.
  6. By "Christians of today" I assume you mean Evangelicals? The belief in deification is found in both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church(es), though particularly more emphasized in the Eastern Churches (both Eastern Catholic and Eastern Orthodox).
  7. But this isn't the context...it's a paragraph from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Can you please provide the surrounding context for the Aquinas quote?
  8. So I was thinking about my experience doing baptisms for the dead a couple weeks ago, and I think I might call the temple to see when there's a group going that I may join (since my ward is doing Endowments for May, then baptisms in June). Anyway, so after I was finished, I put back on my clothes, and sat and watched the others. Now, I felt a little awkward wearing my shoes in the temple, when we were just wearing white socks and the temple workers wear slippers (right?). Of course it seems that that's okay, since others also sat with me after they were done. So it's okay to be wearing your "normal" clothes while you're just sitting in the temple after you finish the ordinance work (I don't know how to really say what I'm trying to say, but I assume you get it, haha)? Also, the foyer area behind the recommend desk of the temple has chairs, so I assume they aren't there just for decoration and we can sit there and pray/read the scriptures they have? I also noticed some people online have mentioned a chapel area of the temple. Do all temples have this? Thanks!
  9. That's wonderful. I can't wait until I am able to be endowed. I love the concept of entering into the presence of God into the temple, since it reminds me of the Shekinah in the OT tabernacle and temples. I was also reading the dedicatory prayer of the Manhattan Temple, and I loved this part- "We offer them to Thee with faith and thanksgiving. Wilt Thou accept of them and cause Thy Holy Spirit to dwell here. We pray that within these hallowed walls there may be found peace and an environment of communion with Thee. May this temple be a place of quiet refuge in the midst of this great and noisy metropolis. May all who enter its portals feel they have stepped from the world into a place of Thy divine presence." In browsing other temple dedication prayers, I found similar prayers invoking the presence of the Holy Spirit in the temple, asking the Spirit to dwell there, the temple being the "abode of God", etc.
  10. What is interesting to me is that certain Evangelical churches have as a statement of faith that they believe that the Bible is inerrant "in the original autographs", which reminds me of the LDS view that we believe in the Bible as the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy "We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."
  11. Already done. Also, it is not that we all have a second chance after death, but that those that did not have the opportunity to hear the Gospel in this life will have that chance in the next, as a fair and just God would do. I already showed you what Acts 17:30 actually says: 30 In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. Clearly it says that in the past God overlooked "such ignorance", but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. Nowhere in this verse does it give an exception from repenting for the "ignorant". Also, the "ignorance" that is being referred to in verse 30 (the ignorance that God used to overlook in the past) is not some generic "ignorance", but the context is given in verse 29-"Therefore since we are God’s offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by human design and skill." Also, now you're saying that "everyone has the chance to hear the gospel", yet before, you were saying that God gives an exception for those in the remotest of places. Which is it?
  12. Except of course that "sola scriptura" is found nowhere in the Bible itself.
  13. Here is the portion of what you said that I underlined: "God has given a way for everyone to te ceive or reject Jesus, Everyone will know the gospel before they die, Except for those in the remotest places who may never hear the gospel." You are making an exception to what God has stated for those that live in "the most remotest places who may never hear the gospel". Such an exception is not found in the Bible, and neither Matt 24:14 nor Matt 28:18-20 substantiate the underlined portion of your statement. Also, you had previously quoted Acts 17:30 as saying that God overlooks ignorance, when the actual verse says no such thing (in fact, it says the opposite). Uh, of course I can refer to 1 Corinthians 15:29. Baptism for the dead is being referred to, and the Lord's restored Church is the only Church that still practices baptism for the dead as the ancient Christians did. There's also 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:19, John 5:25, etc. Sorry, we don't believe in your interpretation of the Bible (especially when we see you citing verses that have nothing to do with what we are discussing, or verses that state the opposite of what you claim they say), however we most certainly believe in the Bible.
  14. The verses in question, from Deuteronomy and Revelation, state not to add or take away from "this book". "This book" clearly cannot refer to "The Bible" since "the Bible" was not compiled at the time those books were written. The Bible is a collection of individual books that was compiled years after each individual book was written. So, Latter-day Saints completely agree with what those verses state. We do not add or take away from the Book of Revelation or Deuteronomy. That is what those verses actually mean, since the Bible as "a book" did not exist at the time God revealed those verses. Revelation 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and [from] the things which are written in this book. Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Also, your interpretation would cause quite a problem if Deuteronomy 4:2 meant not to add or take away from "the Bible", since clearly other books were written after Deuteronomy was written, so how could they add these books to "the Bible" if God said not to add to "the Bible"? Clearly that's not what is meant, but it means not to add or take away from the book that the warning is found in, and not "the Bible", since it wasn't even compiled at the times those verses were written (unless you're saying the Bible just fell out of the sky with 66 books).
  15. The underlined is not in the Bible. Members of the Lord's Church believe that God has provided a way for all to accept or reject the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ. If they did not have the opportunity to do so in this life, they will have the opportunity to accept Jesus Christ in the next. Acts 17:30 doesn't say what you are saying it says. Nor does the context of the chapter support your interpretation.
  16. No it doesn't. Acts 17:30 KJV 30And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent Acts 17:30 NIV In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.
  17. Yep, we "make" the veil thin in our temple rites ...clearly you haven't learned anything from what actual Mormons say about our own beliefs. We don't "make" the veil thin. There is a difference between the veil being thin and making it thin. Also, we Mormons believe that a person retains their free will, the ability to choose, in the afterlife. If your daughter doesn't want to accept the baptism, she doesn't have to. If she does, then she can. How evil, we Mormons thinking people can choose for themselves in the afterlife! But believe as you must if that is the only way to critique our beliefs, or more precisely, what you think we believe.
  18. That is irrelevant. The point is about letting the deceased rest. You criticize LDS practice for not letting the deceased rest. I showed that if this is your argument, then I can also say that Catholic practice does not let the deceased rest since they are constantly petitioning them. This is very simple. Also, your caricature is amusing, since it is no different than when someone converts to the Catholic faith, they have to forsake the "false" beliefs they held previously. The LDS practice of proxy baptism is no different than someone accepting or rejecting baptism in this life.
  19. Unfortunately that is illogical and irrational. But I understand that you must say this since it's only "poorly catechized" people that leave the Catholic Church. Yes, I've heard this before, I used to be one of the people that said it. My "Catholic credentials" show that I am quite familiar with Catholic teaching (having studied it at the collegiate level as well), and was a Mormon critic just like you for years (anyone familiar with me on Mormondialogue.org will tell you this). Sorry, I have done no warping of Catholic teaching, and I understand that you must say what you said. In fact, I have repeatedly referenced the Catechism, official Vatican publications, and works by Catholic apologists on this website and others to show the bases for my arguments. But what we do see in this thread, as well as the other that I participated in with you, is that you continually misrepresent what I have actually said (for example, claiming that I said that Catholics believe that praying to/through saints 'makes' the veil thin, when anyone can read my posts in this thread and see I said no such thing) to defend your own beliefs. It's okay, I know you must say that. I have the fulness of the Gospel now, and I am thankful for that.
  20. And I'm sure that the deceased would like a rest from all this petitioning for their intercession...see how this works? Anyway, I've already showed how your arguments can apply against your own church (and have been applied by anti-Catholics for decades), so I'm done.
  21. And I base my conclusion on what I've read on Catholic sites, books, articles, attending a Catholic university, and most importantly, what I experienced as a very active Catholic for 23 years. So if you see occult in Mormonism for the reasons you listed, than the Catholic Church is also engaging in occult activities (which I obviously don't believe, but I am showing how your logic applies to your own church, and this is the very accusation I've seen lobbed against Catholicism by anti-Catholics multiple times). Have a good day.
  22. Since I do not want to derail this thread further, this will be my last post on this issue. Obviously there is a difference between the veil being thin in the temple and us making the veil thin, which is what you asserted. Clearly we are not teaching what you said. I am well aware of the Catholic teaching, and I have not said that you are making the veil thin through your prayers to/through deceased persons. What I have said is that your criticism of LDS experiences with persons that have accepted proxy baptisms in our temples is misplaced. Firstly, we do not "seek" interactions with the deceased, nor is that the purpose of our proxy ordinances in our temples. If they happen, they happen, however that is not the purpose for our proxy temple rites. Secondly, you said that we should let the dead rest in peace, which was amusing to me since the Catholic Church says that you can petition them for their prayers, and they can intercede on your behalf. Apparitions of Mary are also popular in the Catholic Church, among other apparitions, and Catholics "seem to like" these visitations (you had previously stated that Mormons "seem to like" the visitations of souls that accept proxy ordinances). So, it is very amusing to me for someone to criticize LDS experiences by saying that we don't let the dead rest in peace and that we seem to like visitations of souls, when that person is the member of a church that claims that we can petition the deceased for their intercession, and a church where members seem to like apparitions of Mary and others. And again, I never said that prayers to deceased saints makes the veil thin. Please reread what I have actually written.
  23. It is no more "thin" than in the Catholic Church where you can actually speak to them through prayer, petition for their intercession, apparitions of Mary and other deceased persons, etc. Sorry, the same criticisms you are directing against the restored Church have been directed at the Catholic Church (I've seen these arguments against Catholics many times).
  24. I'm sorry, but this is very amusing to me coming from a member of a Church which seems to like apparitions of Mary and other deceased persons...or a Church which doesn't let the dead rest in peace when they are constantly petitioning them for their intercession. I hope you see how this can work both ways. We don't "seek" after having visitations of spirits. The stories you may have heard are of people doing the proxy work for the deceased, and having some sort of experience where their presence is felt, a voice, etc. They weren't seeking for this, it just happens. See above. No one is trying to have a physical interaction with the dead. We are not trying to have any interaction with the dead (nor do we pray to/through them). Instead, we are offering these ordinances to them by proxy, and they have the opportunity to accept or reject them. If there is some sort of spiritual manifestation or experience that occurs, it is not because we sought for that to happen, as you are asserting.