Saintmichaeldefendthem1

That seems to be the consensus and I agree with it. As you can imagine, I get frustrated at people who get all their information about the Catholic Church from watching Sister Act, or something they heard from a friend of a friend. You get the picture. My information doesn't come from movies but I was making a general comment about dumbed down Americans who don't read books or study to buttress the weaknesses in their knowledge base. At least the movie was trying to be kind to the LDS faith unlike September Dawn.

I haven't seen The Work and the Glory yet, but I've heard about it and it's been reported that, historical accuracy aside, it seems to be very favorable to the LDS church. I'm sure you all would agree that it's better the public get their info from Work and Glory than other movies like September Dawn. Don't you think?

If he's right, then 1800 years of Christians are wrong, because the whole pretrib nonsense didn't pop up until the Great Awakening in the 19th century. Just to put things into context. But this issue of judging someone's heart...obviously I know and understand the piety of not judging what is inside of someone, but I think it's being used as a shield to ward off my larger point that the pretrib position is one that arises from a lack of trust. Those who hold this view may have an intimate trust in Christ, but they hold a belief that implicitly confounds that trust. We humans often harbor such juxtapositions in our minds.

Wha wha what?? You need more than some help. Even an angel descending from heaven cannot turn error into truth. Here you look at a direct refutation of the pretrib position when Paul says that our gathering to Christ cannot precede the rise of the Son of Perdition, the antichrist that is commonly associated with the tribulation. Even mid tribbers cite this scripture and point out that the Church must be on earth to witness the ascendency of the antichrist and certain things he will accomplish. No, this is a naked example of taking the plain meaning of scripture and twisting it to mean something else; in this case the exact opposite.

Or perhaps I'm misunderstood here. I'm proposing that we are not going to escape the tribulation, but we will ge going through these trying times. It's the pretrib belief that thinks the church will be whisked away before anything bad ever happens. But to believe we will participate also in the time of God's wrath is simply unscriptural: Matthew 13: 24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’” At the separation of the wheat and tares, the righteous will be separated from the wicked and the wicked burned with unquenchable fire. It's not escapism to not be a part of this because we're referring to the final judgement here, not the tribulation.

That's the word I was looking for, Reverend, thank you. The pretribulation belief is escapism. Since when is it a time of judgement. Are the bowls of judgement being poured out here? It's a time of testing. I take great comfort in knowing I will be spared the wrath of God that will befall humanity after the tribulation. There's one thing that's missing in Protestant eschatology, and that's the concept that we are a royal priesthood. You know and cite the verse from Peter's epistle, but you don't fully understand what it means. We are part of the ancient priesthood of the New Covenant according to the order of Melchizadek of which Christ is high priest. Our priesthood is superior to that of Aaron to the point that even Abraham paid tithes to Melchizadek. We plead for the sins of the world before the Father, being enjoined in Christ's ongoing intercessorship and we represent God to the world. That's what a priesthood does. Now what happens if you remove the priesthood that intercedes for the world?Put another way, what happens when you remove the priesthood that stands the gap between a sinful world and the wrath they so richly have incurred? This is exactly why Jesus compared the last days to the days of Noah and the days of Lot. Once the righteous are removed, the wrath of God falls undiluted. The reprobate at that point have no representation. Abraham is no longer pleading the cause of Sodom. . Tribulation Force? Sounds like that statement was taken right out of the Left Behind books. Yes, I do view it as a lack of trust. And moreover, nothing in Scripture backs up the pretrib, dispensationalist position and in fact it's quite deftly refuted in 2 Thess chapter 2, a chapter that pretribs studiously ignore. Pretribbers will come to the truth when they realize that the tribulation is happening and the Lord still tarries. Will it shatter their faith, or will they finally learn to trust?

That sounds an awful lot like what we believe. The pretribulation rapture, aside from being responsible for this May 21 rapture lunacy, robs the saints of the opportunity to stand for Christ when it counts the most, under the most horrendous of persecutions. Where are these people's trust, the ones that want to be whisked away before they experience any cost for standing for Christ? I have absolutely no fear of the coming tribulations because I know I will never be abandoned and I know who will win.

I hope to be given credit for my knowledge of the LDS faith as an outsider to it, because I do try to understand. As I'm told, the LDS faith believes in ongoing revelation. The practice of plural marriage was correct during the early days, but is prohibited now because it was initiated by revelation and done away with by revelation as well. So it wasn't wrong at the time, but it is wrong today because the Lord willed the practice to expire. I can hold Mormons to no higher standard than that which they hold themselves to, and therefore I can come down harshly upon these breakaway groups, because although they claim to have originated from the LDS tradition, they are in stark rebellion against the edict of God. And I don't care a whit whether or not they are happy. Moreover, the reason I can have sympathy with the LDS on this point is because Catholics also believe that the Church is the vessel of divine and ongoing revelation. When Protestants come at Catholics (and Mormons) with, "show me in the Bible", I have to shake my head in disappointment. God doesn't speak through inanimate objects.

Nope.

I grew up with this kind of teaching. The hypothetical person went to church all his life, faithfully every Sunday, prayed, tithed, and was always kind to neighbors, animals, etc. But he goes to hell for eternity because he/she never really knew Jesus. I've now come to reject this reasoning as absurd, for I don't believe that nothing except the love of the Lord can compell someone to devote themselves to prayer, church, and other religious observances. Not everyone is expressive and extroverted in their expression of religious faith and Christ's flock consists of teddy bears and grouches both. The ability to openly articulate a testamony of Christ is certainly encouraged within the LDS faith, and I have no quarrel with this practice, but I don't believe one's relationship to the Lord to be predicated upon it.

So a breakaway group in schism to the LDS church? Usually these groups are already practicing what they hope will become legal, just the same way with gay marriage. It's really difficult to enforce those laws upon people willing to live in such an arrangement even without legal recognition. This was found to be true when Congress passed a law against polygamy, effectively controlling marriage; a trespass upon a domain exclusively controlled by the state and not the federal government. Trying to enforce it was nearly impossible. I would also speculate that the left leaning media, even in Canada, is more piqued by quasi-Christian deviancies than those of Muslims. Though Muslims bury their "westernized" daughters alive, kill converts to Christianity, stone women for the "crime" of being raped, and murder anyone who insults their "prophet", they seem to get a pass in Western journalism. You could have 10,000 Muslims call for polygamy, but it's not interesting until Christians do it.

The size of the gift to the bride's father was a matter of prestige. Wealthy families had more to offer, and the arranged marriages were a way of economically uniting influential clans. One thing is certain; if you had the daughter, you would NOT be paying for the wedding.

Arizona's law was based on a similar law in Ohio that was upheld in the appeals court. This isn't a carte blanche restriction on all protest, it's specific to protesting at obsequies.

Muslims have been calling for Sh'ria law and parallel court systems in every country in which they've gained numerical significance. It's not just plural marriages but arranged marriages between 40 year old men and very young girls that they would want to see happen. I believe that all western countries should tighten up their lax immigration policies, and (dare I say it?) be especially restrictive on immigration and student visas from Muslim countries. The survival of our cultural identity is being threatened in no small manner.

I'm very glad to know that, Pam. It should also be noted that the Catholic Church champions the best in Christian virtue and modesty in sexual matters. We would never support using sex to sell anything.

I heard about that on the radio. One thing that was made very clear was that it was neither endorsed nor encouraged by the LDS Church.

Don't you wish for the old Jewish tradition where the family of the groom not only hosted the wedding, but actually paid the bride's father? This was usually in livestock or other goods, but you get the picture.

Rebbe?

So the LDS do not have a set doctrine on the rapture and its timing?

Oh, so somebody beat me to it. I heard about it when one of the promoters of this movement was interviewed on Catholic Radio. The interviewer reminded her that Jesus said nobody knows the hour or the day. What's amazing is the backflips they do to get around this or any other Bible passage used to refute their claim.

I'm not sure what the LDS eschatology is on the rapture happening before the tribulation. Your post seems to assure me that you don't buy into that nonsense. Of course, the LDS were born in persecutions, and if you were the type to start looking to the sky for rescue, you would have done so back then. Instead, you grit your teeth and soldiered through it. One of the things I admire about LDS.

Every generation of Christians has believed that Christ might return during their lifetime, but the pinpoint predictions really began in earnest with the onset of the pretribulation rapture belief that spawned from the 19th century Great Awakening movement. You're right about trusting in Christ whether he comes or he tarries. What I don't understand is this desparate hope to be whisked away before any persecution happens to us.

Has anyone heard of this new movement: May 21, 2011 - Noah Knew, WeCanKnow! Christ's Return on Judgment Day: May 21, 2011 It appears we have yet another group predicting the "rapture" of the church. This time it's May 21 (yes, that means this year) and the world will end on October 21. And watch out because they say if you are "Left Behind" on this one, you have no hope to be saved. It's interesting how they have a way of explaining away all Bible verses that speak about Christ coming like a thief in the night; that no man knows the hour or the day of Christ's return. All the scriptures in the world cannot turn aright people smitten by invincible ignorance and who are oblivious to history. These "predictions" have happened too many times to count.

Well, I'm an unabashed fan of Foxnews. They cover stories, issues, and angles that the others won't cover because of their liberal bias. CNN and MSNBC refuse to hold accountable this administration as they run rough shod over the will of the American people with bail outs, Obama care, and trying to raise taxes. CNN and MSNBC anchors are alway trying to put their liberal heroes in a positive light. In the 1960's didn't the liberals say to distrust the government? What changed? I like Foxnews. Greta rocks. So does Hannity, Glenn Beck, and Bill O'Reilly. Conservatives in Foxnews are a great way to balance out the whacky left of the other, less popular networks.

That's a great story. I never heard about that and I just started reading about it online because I was like 7 when that happened. Our God is truly awesome.