SteveVH

You make a great point, Traveler. It does one little good to "belong" to a Church that is truly guided by the Holy Spirit if one does not live out the life demanded by the Gospel. On the other hand, it does one no good to live according to the teachings of a false church, even if we carry out its precepts perfectly. So it is imperative that we do both; seek and find that true Church, and live according to that truth.

I know of no Christian church that teaches that Christ is "currently dead". And yes, we believe that Jesus will forever retain his human body, but in a glorified state. We will follow suit. Our bodies will be resurrected on the last day and joined with our spirits. We will have glorified bodies as well. They are spiritual bodies, but real bodies nevertheless. The difference in our belifs concerns the Father. We know that Jesus is "... the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15). There are many other verses that refer to the invisible God. We find no passage in the Bible, however, that supports the notion that the Father has a physical body. Jesus was unique insofar as he assumed human flesh. But he was first God, before he became man. Obviously this ignores what you consider to be scripture. Just wanted to make it clear that we certainly do not believe that Christ is in any way dead. He is alive. If he were not there would be no such thing as Christianity.

I appreciate that, Traveler. The exchange of ideas is essential in discovering truth. We don't have to agree to everything but we can certainly respect each other as people. Thank you for your kind words.

Does this not describe the LDS Church as well? Since this thread concerns the guidance of the Holy Spirit in choosing a pope for the Catholic Church I will just say this. We do not believe all other faiths are wrong, not do we preach that to the world. We believe that other faiths are lacking in the fulness of truth which the Catholic Church, alone, posesses, but we recognize the truth present in all religions. And yes, of course, we believe that the Cardinals were guided by the Holy Spirit in choosing Pope Francis. The whole Church has been praying for this guidance since Pope Benedict XVI abdicated and it is clear to Catholics, anyway, that the Holy Spirit has chosen to move the Church in a new direction with this holy, humble and Christ-like man.

Thanks, madeleine1. Yes, the presence of the Lord was almost palpable and I finally learned what Mother Theresa meant when she said that she saw Christ in all of the suffuring.

All I am saying, Traveler, is that our first obligation as Christians is to love. That doesn't require that we learn anything and any knowledge we do attain is useless without it. There is much to be said for a simple faith centered on loving God and neighbor. In fact, that must be the basis for all Christian faith, in my opinion.

One of my favorites as well, but I'm a little bias. I have belonged to the Secular Francisacn Order since June, 1994 so I am quite thrilled with the direction our new Pope is following.

I see the question has been answered already. Yes, we all thought that Francis Xavier was a possibilty but it turns out to be Francis of Assisi. You make a great point, seeing that Francis Xavier was a Jesuit, but I think that it makes his pick even that more meaningful. Francis was one of the greatest internal reformers the Church has known. In addition Pope Francis' concern for the poor is right in line with name he has chosen.

Yes, I think Pope Francis will take the Church in a new direction. The Church is always open to the movement of the Holy Spirit. As to any "radical changes" it is important to know that the first responsibility of the Pope is to protect and guard the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. We consider this revealed truth and therefore it cannot change. This would include all doctrines and dogmas of the Church and the moral law which proceeds from this truth. No pope can change this truth (nor would one desire to). If one believes that progress means changing Church teaching to conform with modern notions of sexuality, family, life issues, etc. they will be waiting a long time and will wait in vain.

Thank you for this, Selek. Yeah, this is an issue that is extremely important but as you say, the Church has taken very serious steps in order to deal with it. Of course the media would have the world hide their children and run when in sight of a Catholic priest. The truth of the matter is that the incidence of pedaphelia among Catholic clergy is one-tenth of what it is in the general population. Obviously, one is too many.

This is what happens when we listen to the secular world's opnion on the issues the Pope faces. - Marriage for priests: While this is a discipline, not a doctrine (therefore it can be changed), I wouldn't hold my breath. It is certainly not an issue weighing on the Church leadership. - Priesthood for women: Again, not an issue at all. It will simply never happen because it cannot happen. - Same sex marriage: Need we even go there? Certainly not an issue. These may be issues for NBC News, but they are not issues for the Catholic Church.

I would like to thank most of you for your kind words and wishes. As a Catholic, I am thrilled with the choice, for many reasons. The fact that he is from South America will energize the over 500 million Latin American Catholics. I love his humility. As Archbishop he refused to live in the "palace" available to him, instead choosing to live in an apartment. He also got rid of the limo which was made available and road on buses instead. He is also very strong, refusing to back down or water down the Church's stance on social justice issues. He has been extremely vocal agains the government of Argentina on issue such as abortion and same sex marriage, calling it a plan of the father of lies (that went over well). The name that a Pope chooses is very important and does give us some idea of the direction and focus he will take. Like Francis of Assisi, Pope Francis has a passion for the poorest among us. And, like Francis of Assisi who reformed the Church from within, there is much work to do in this regard, especially with the internal workings of the Curia. My personal feelings are that he will bring renewal to the whole Church by being a model of humility and love for the world.

You make a good point and yes, I have read official statements from Mormon sources on this matter. But when I see contradictions in official statements (at least from my point of view) I come to forums, such as these, in order to discern what is believed by the Mormon faithful. I will not get into those issues here because I am not here to debate anyone on this particular forum (General Discussion). I have asked the question, received the answer and I accept and respect the answers given.

You had mentioned the book "Mormon Doctrine" as an example of a source that distorts Mormon belief. My only point was that it was a sermon by which the Adam-God "theory" was delivered and he said that anything given in his sermons could be considered "scripture". In other words, it did not come from some anti-Mormon source. In any event, I was only trying to let you know how one on the outside, putting these two things together, could conclude that this is Mormon doctrine. You and everyone else have made it abundantly clear that this is not considered Mormon doctrine and I take your word for it.

Just so you know, the evidence that was given to me were Brigham Young's own words, as transcribed, as well as excerpts from the Journal of Discourses which seems to support it. In looking futher I saw where it had actually been denounced as a false teaching by Spencer W. Kimball in 1976. I would say that it must be true that Brigham Young said it or it would not have to be denounced. Brigham Young also said "I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of men, that they may not call scripture" (Journal of Discourses, 13:95)., yet this is exactly what he was doing when he gave the Adam-God sermon. I only mention this so that you don't think that there wasn't any basis for the question other than heresay.

Thanks to all who responded. I think you have made it very clear that this is certainly not believed by Mormons today which is the message I will relay. Thanks again.

If I was allowed to debate, I would.

Thanks, which is why I asked first of all if this was LDS understanding.

Just wondering if I can get some help here on what I believe is a Mormon doctrine. I was discussing the Adam/God position and was told that the Mormon belief is as follows: Heavenly Father became the Archangel Michael, who then came to earth with his wife Eve and became Adam which is why we are literal sons and daughters of God. First of all, I would like to make sure that this is LDS understanding. If so, then these questions immediately jump out at me: 1. If Adam was God, then it follows that since Adam sinned, that God also sinned. How is this reconciled? 2. When Adam disobeyed God who was he disobeying since he, himself was God? I will not be debating the answers to these questions as this is not the correct forum in which to do so. I am simply interested in your responses so that I can relay them to the party with which I am having the discussion. Thank you all.

To be real honest, I think a simple faith is many times the most authentic. We enter heaven through the grace of God, not because we might know a bunch of "stuff". And all we are really asked to do is love him with all our heart, mind and strength and to love our neighbor as ourself. So that is really the task before us. :)

Suffering is a real mystery. I can both empathize and sympathize with all of you who have spoken about loosing a loved one. I lost my mother to Parkinson's disease and my younger brother to cancer, both within the last four years. Both of these diseases cause untold suffering. My mother suffered during her life, but passed rather peacefully. My brother suffered enormously. When he finally slipped into a coma, those last few days, waiting for him to die, were the most painful I have experienced. I remember asking God, why? Why don't you just take him? What possible good can come from prolonging this? And then, four hours before he died, he sat staright up, out of the coma, looked me in the eyes and said "hey Steve". We just held each other for about 15 seconds and then he slipped back into the coma and I laid him down. I will never forget that moment as long as I live. It is one of my most treasured memories. Can any of us really know what happens in those moments before death? Traveler, your dad saw angels and this is not uncommon. I think God is especially close to us in those moments and he has his own reasons, reasons of which we are not aware. Maybe there is some house cleaning to be done before entering into our eternal destiny. Maybe, in God's mercy, there is one last opportunity for one to come to God. Who knows? To stop one we love from suffering is a strong human desire. In those last moments we are faced with the desire to end their suffering and at the same time the inconceivable act of terminating the life of one we love. It's a heck of a situation to be in. My faith tradition teaches that we are not obligated to prolong one's life artificially if they are technically, otherwise dead. As someone else said, sometimes its just time to die. We are, however, prohibited from killing; for ending one's life before their natural death, even in the case of suffering. Now this is probably a uniquely Catholic belief, but we believe that suffering can have much value. As part of the Body of Christ we believe that we can join our suffering to the suffering that Christ endured on the cross and thus contribute, through Christ, to the salvation of mankind. Believing this, however, does not make it any easier to go through, trust me on that one.

In the philosophical sense, all beings have "substance", whether divine, in the case of God, angelic in the case of angels, or human in the case of mankind. The Father, Son and Holy spirit share the same divine substance which is unique only to God. My position is that no other being possesses divinity as part of its nature other than God. From the Catholic position we would say that there is no differentiation in God's being. Each person of the Godhead shares in the divine substance. The distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is not one of differentiation in being but distinction according to relationship only, between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Jesus, first being God, humbled himself to become man as well. He "assumed" flesh which means that his divine nature was separate and apart from the human nature he later took on. When a man and woman "become one" it is, in a essense, so real that nine months later you have to give it a name. The love between a man and a woman, that incredible intimacy that results in life, is a foreshadowing of the relationship we will have with God. So I would say that we are certainly hunting in the same direction. The union we will have with God, however is a spiritual union and is beyond our comprehension. Heaven is described as a wedding feast. Christ refers to his Church as his spouse. So all of the language of marriage is used to describe this union with God. That is a great observation, Traveler. And this is where we have common ground, as long as we also recognize our differences as to how we obtain divinity and what that really means. As I have said before, as a Catholic I believe that we will share in God's divinity which we receive from outside of ourselves as a gift. As adopted sons and daughters of God we share in the life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. However, we can and do become one with God in this life time through the Eucharist. Jesus becomes one with us and we with him and each other. Thus, the importance of believing in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. If anyone is interested, this belief is so important that if we did not have the Eucharist, there would be no Catholic Church. It is the source and summit of our faith. Where we can agree is that we become one with God and share in his divinity. The conversation now would have to shift to the differences between "exaltation" and "theosis" in order to explore the two options you have set forth. Catholic theology would oppose the second option; that we are made of the same divine substance as God.

We have our share of junk, believe me. Depends upon the store. When I see a glow in the dark crucifix, for instance, I want to vomit. These are suppose to be fairly sacred things and the quality should be above average just because of what they represent.

Holy medals are classified as "sacramentals" and are worn as a reminder of who we are. A cross or a crucifix are the most common. The priest will bless the cross or medal with the intention that it remind us daily of our new life in Christ, for instance. It is not to be worn as jewelry, but can be worn either outside or inside of one's clothing. I wear mine inside. Each morning I put it on I am reminded that I am a child of God.

In my opinion this is the source of all doctrinal differences, or it at least provides the lens through which we view most aspects of our respective faiths and even our world.