Saintmichaeldefendthem1

I wonder if any study has been done as to how many people were saved after picking up a chick trak left on top of the paper towel dispenser in the men's room. Can you imagine? "Look, a pamphlet somebody left, I wonder what it says. I'm a sinner? This Jesus guy died for me? I'm going to go to hell if I don't repent? Woe is me, I am undone! Chick Trak Jesus, please save me!"

None. I've seen Mormon missionaries that were thrilled at the number of lives they touch going door to door. I've seen Catholics as happy as can be as they serve food to the homeless. I've seen Evangelicals on top of the world as they lead their best friend to Christ. "Yea", Jesus says, "rather happy are those who hear the word of God and do it." (Lk 11:28) Happiness is achieved by getting outside ourselves and escaping the bonds of spiritual lethargy by reaching out to others in the name of Christ. My own happiest moments bear out this truth.

I especially like this paragraph from your citation: Reformation teaching talks about being positionally righteous or having imputed righteousness with little or no import affixed to measuring up on a corporal level. The Catholic Church teaches holiness as something that can be achieved in this life, not perfection, but being centered in perfect harmony with the will of God. Such cloisters as convents and monastaries are expressions of this, not that there is anything unholy about marriage, but rather how it becomes possible to remove all distractions, abstain from the pleasures of this life, and attain the supreme knowledge of Christ by pressing in with unmitigated abandon. Whether or not we are, as Martin Luther put it, "snow covered dung" we ought to strive for holiness, running the race as if to win it.

What a funny thread! I'm amused because right now my wife is in her 1st trimester with our 3rd child and the funny thing is, the quirks of pregnancy always hit her like it's the first time ever. Our 8 year old walks right up to momma's only slightly expanded belly and puts his ear up and says, "I don't hear any kicking". When she was pregnant with our 3 year old, he used to love hearing his little brother kick inside. I pulled up internet pictures and showed him how tiny the baby is right now in the 1st trimester, looking more like a fish than a person. But yes, as a learned husband I'm already preparing for her 3rd trimester by installing a brand new hand-held shower head in the shower and buying several oversized pillows because she has such a hard time finding comfortable sleeping positions in the later stages. I've been through this 2 times before and I think we both get better at it each time.

Yes, I understood Anatess's post but I don't agree there is a parallel between JS and the Pope in any way. Context is everything. When Joseph Smith speaks in a pedagogical manner using words like "yea", he's teaching. These weren't off the cuff remarks nor was it quotidian conversation. What we're actually seeing here is a philosophical freelancer with no check on his flights of theological fancy. He had a number of devoted followers that hung on his every word and he was refuted by nobody, nor taken to task to demonstrate his claims in the Bible. You may, many decades later, dismiss his teaching as thoughtlessly ejaculated opinions, but the Mormons of his day most certainly did not.

Actually Jesus was FULLY human and FULLY God, not a hybrid of the two.

Enter Sandman fer sure. I don't know what that says about me. I'm afraid to psychoanalize myself that deeply. I'm afraid it's just the BEAST under my bed... in my closet.. in my head!!

I actually think you're going about this the right way, with reluctance. The problems don't start until you fall head-over-heels in love with a girl and then your brain shuts off. People in love tend to ignore red flags and the more practical questions that should be asked when considering a life partner. This is how disasterous mistakes are made. 1. Don't be desperate. You have plenty of time to observe before you act. Use that time. 2. Draw clear lines. Don't be ambiguous or send mixed messages. If you're interest at this point is just to be a friend, make sure you state that clearly. 3. Listen to your faith. There is a reason that clear taboos and imperatives have been established by your religion, to protect you from disaster. The feckless fool is the one who thinks they know better than those who have already travelled this road. 4. Be ready to lose a friend. Friendship is a two way economy of give and take. It requires mutual respect and compatible goals. Losing a friend is more profitable than being mired in a one sided friendship. Learn to keep and treasure friendships that build you up as you build others up and dispense with friendships where the other always takes and never gives. I hope this helps.

I'm more in the camp that balks at the notion that Jesus lost anything in regard to omniscience. His question "Who touched me?" is not unlike God's question to Adam in the garden, "Where are you?" These aren't questions born out of a lack of knowing, but rather questions that compell a confession. Jesus prophesied near events, such as Peter's denial of Him, and far events such as the destruction of the temple with detail. I think it's clear that Jesus had supernatural knowledge, not only of the future, but what lay in the hearts of men and what people discussed among themselves in secret. I'm quite certain Jesus knew exactly who touched him and even orchestrated the opportunity for this woman to be healed.

Then Joseph Smith was wrong. This gives rise to the question, what else could he have been wrong about? I've given up trying to get you to defend Joseph Smith's statement in the unambiguous language that he used. Here you seem to be attempting to set a more favorable context for the question to be answered that downplays the radically deviant statement by JS. John Doe thinks I should cite from an LDS doctrine source to back up my claim. I tend to think it's incumbant upon the defenders of the LDS to cite doctrine that clarifies, modifies, or even outright refutes Smith's stark statement.

And I respect that. I respect that more than when somebody starts a thread and then abandons it.

Not only does this help, but I vote it for best riposte.

It is odd isn't it? And I get irritated too when people lecture me on what Catholics believe. I can't testify as to what you believe, but I do know that the LDS church has never categorically rejected this teaching of Joseph Smith, so by default, that belief is still intact. What I think happens is that Mormons get converts from Catholic and evangelical denominations who still hold to certain beliefs they were brought up with and can't imagine that the LDS teaches differently. This is something I gleaned from Mama's Girl's post. Your humorous retort (and yes, I am smiling with you) does not do away with the fact that Joseph Smith taught some outlandish things. And he couldn't be more clear on the issue of progressive godhood.

Your statement is well in line with what Christians believe, but not what Mormons believe. Unfortunately Bytor is engaged in the impossible task of making Joseph Smith's words go away. No matter how it's flowered up, the belief entails God in a diminished state eventually attaining the state he is in today. First to the fact that God, existing outside of time, cannot be subject to the laws of sequence. If time and sequence govern God, then God is not omnipotent. If God were once a mortal man then God is not omnipresent. And if God had to progress in knowledge then he is not omnicient. And finally, if God's plan progresses and is not predetermined from the foundation of the world, then God is not sovereign.

I'm sorry but you're wrong. You should better aquaint yourself with your own faith.

You may not like it, but it's a sharp contrast from orthodox Christian belief. God does not progress. "From everlasting to everlasting, you are God." (Ps 90:2) Not only has God been God from eternity past, but so has Jesus who is "the same, yesterday, today, and forever." The belief that God started as a man and progressed to godhood is in error. The same for Jesus.

On the surface, Mormons believe in the Trinity and baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's when you delve deeper into how they define the Trinity that marked deviations from Christian orthodoxy emerge. To them God is a progression, not an eternal state of being. Heaveny Father was once a man and became God. With a heavenly mother, he had children, one of which was Jesus and the other Lucifer. Jesus attained the exalted state of godhood, Lucifer did not. Mormons also believe that we too can achieve godhood in eternity. Obviously I disagree, but I was hoping one of the LDS members on this board would go further into detail on the issue of the Trinity. I apologize if I've misstated any Mormon belief and invite you to correct me where I'm wrong. But given the variances in details, the LDS church believes in a very different Trinity than the one historically and traditionally upheld by the Catholic Church. The fact that Jesus is the Son of God and God Incarnate when he was crucified for sins, regardless of how Jesus attained that state is important, in my opinion, in my search for common ground with Mormons. They believe with us that Jesus died for our sins so that we may go to heaven. How important the deviations are is subject to varying opinions, some strongly held. My opinion is that it's not so important.

I agree with this. It's far more common than people realize. When MSNBC ran their "To Catch A Predator" series with Chris Hansen, they set up sting operations that attracted men for miles around to line up for sex with (what they think was) a 13 year old girl they were chatting up on the internet. And we're talking about men including law enforcement, teachers, youth leaders, and even parents with children the same age as the girl they wanted to have sex with. At least these men knew they were doing wrong. But to cloak child sexual abuse under the guise of religious sanctity is sickening. Such a person is taking a very sick act and trying to convince himself and others that it's right.

Now this part of it seems similar to Purgatory where a person is prepared for heaven through a process that rids them of imperfection. There is pain and torment involved in the sense that we are being purged of our most cherished sins. It's similar to how, in this life, when we give up something, a habit we are attached to, it's painful, but there's joy in surrendering it. The same process is brought to finality in Purgatory so that we are impeccable, not only in the record of our sin, but in the love of it. I was actually referring to the last part "in this age or the age to come" which indicates clearly that not all mercy transactions happen during life. As a Catholic, I do believe in death bed confessions. However I'm troubled by the teaching that someone wholly indispensed toward repentence in this life is afforded yet another chance in the afterlife when the stakes are all gain or all loss. In the Parable of Lazarus and the rich man, the rich man went to hell because he chose comfort in this life and ignored the plight of the poor even when it was at his very gate. To allow final negotiations after this life that are contrary to our disposition here on earth is to make unimportant the choices we make in this life.

Thank you for clarifying. Now I see what Bytor was saying. I am aware of the multiple tiers of Mormon heaven, but I was sure they also believed in hell. I'm going to go out on a limb here just based on reasoning to suggest that in your theology, those who seek repentence and remission after death are those who were predisposed to in their life. They were oriented toward reconciliation in their life and were given a chance, post mortem, to complete their intended course. There are all sorts of reasons why a person might not possess the faculties for a proper confession during life. I'm also guessing that Mormons have noticed something that Protestants seem to ignore. That in speaking about blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, Jesus makes reference to forgiveness in this life and the life to come; which brings into question the Protestant insistance that any such transaction must happen during this mortal life. I have no documented evidence that this is what you believe, but I'm trying to make your perspective fit the Scriptures as best I can. If my impression is right, then I would still posit that a murderer that evades the justice of man, even if he asked for the forgiveness of God, would not receive it in this life or the life to come. That person was trying to purchase fire insurance and wasn't truly sorry for what he had done. True sorrow would lead invariably to confession to the authorities, regardless of the temporal penalty, that is beyond question. Being disinclined toward true repentence in this life, this person will not repent in a state of purgatory either.

So then the LDS believe in universal salvation and deny the existence of hell?

But they don't want to believe it's unforgiveable. I'm having a hard time reconciling that murder cannot be forgiven, but that a murderer may, in the end, still have eternal life.

I'm still learning the differences between LDS belief and that of Protestants for whom one's temporal life represents the only and hard window for repentence. A good token that mercy is being sought is to confess one's sins against man to man. Especially when it involves murder. I don't see a lot of similarity between this and the Catholic teaching on Purgatory. Purgatory is not a second chance for those who die in a state of mortal sin (murder). It's a purging process for those who lived righteously, having repented of their mortal sins and are destined for heaven. The LDS teaching, as represented here, seems an awful lot like a "second chance" for those who have already fulfilled the terms for eternal loss and perdition. No, that doesn't come anywhere near blasphemy. I think anyone entertaining the idea that they can simply confess murder to God but not reconcile that sin with man should be warned that their soul is in jeopardy.

You see, it's here that we get into LDS teaching on the subject. My experience is that most Mormons don't believe this because they don't want to. What I find repugnant is the idea that murder is just like any other sin, and you just pull the slot machine lever and get the same result you get for gossip, fibbing, or any number of venial sins. Murder is such a serious and grievious offense that, although I don't fully agree with what you said, I'm in sync with you in addressing the grave nature of this offense. Paul considered his life of fervent service to the Church of God to be an act of pennance for how he persecuted Christians, assisting in their deaths. It's not an issue of whether or not Paul was forgiven, but rather it highlighted how much he dreaded the memory of what he did and used it as a catylist to do even more good. Forgiveness for murder is not like forgiveness for any other sin. It should be sought desperately with all intent to make ammends and it cannot be concealed from God or man. Mercy for this sin should be hoped for, but never assumed. It seems too many Christians think it a commodity to be meted out in a perfunctory manner. I'm more in line with your position than theirs.

Jesus warned against the hardening of our hearts and it was for this very reason. Each time we refuse to respond to grace, we become just a little deafer to it. Does God raise his voice? The reason that the police elicit a quick confession is because it's at the time of the crime in which a person is most willing. Once a person has gotten over that hill without confessing, the desire to do so is greatly diminished. Actually I hardly followed the news on that trial. Or are you seriously suggesting that, as a Catholic, I'm unacquainted with confessions except for what I see on TV?