Shelly200

Members
  • Posts

    152
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Shelly200

  1. Yes, the fact that Trinitarians view God and Man as different beings affects the way they think about the resurrection. When an LDS person thinks of "becoming like God" they have a much more literal idea of what that means: because God the Father has a body, as does God the Son, and humans are of the same make-up. So they can indeed be like God in body. When a Catholic thinks of "becoming like God" they think of having intelligence and an eternal soul (every living thing has a soul, but only humans have a soul that lives beyond this Earthly life). So when we think of the resurrection, we don't think of becoming like God at all, really... at least I don't. I think of becoming... like me, but perfected. All that I can be, and more. In Heaven, we will all have perfected bodies, but we will all still be completely, totally, absolutely outshown by God. ...if that made any sense at all... or was relevant. Sorry. And anatess explained much better the analogy of copper/bronze/tin. Since Christ IS God, then He is not a different substance altogether than either of the other Persons of the Trinity. So if God is copper, then Christ is copper too, at His core (not His literal core, of course). Christ is God who took on humanity; He was always God (a different substance than Man), who deigned to humble Himself and ALSO take on Man (a different substance than God)... but, being all-powerful, He didn't get rid of His God-ness, but instead was fully God and fully Man at the same time. So He would still be copper. But copper with the properties of tin. And Man would be tin. Therefore, since we are tin, when we die and later gain resurrected bodies... well, we'll still be tin. We won't change from tin to copper, because only God is copper. We'll just be a new kind of tin, but still tin all the same.
  2. Hi Ivo! I'm a Catholic who converted from the Southern Baptist church. You're right that most Christian churches believe in gaining a perfected body after this life. The Catholics are included in that list too (as well as the Orthodox). In the Nicene Creed we recite "I look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." The Catechism states that this resurrection of the dead - a work of the Holy Trinity - is when the soul and the body are reunited. At death the soul and body are separated. The soul goes to meet God and await the reunion with its glorified body. "God, in his almighty power, will definitiviely grant incorruptible life to our bodies by reuniting them with our souls, through the power of Jesus' Resurrection." (CCC 997) So, the short answer is: Catholics also believe in receiving a glorified, incorruptible, perfected body at the end of the world.
  3. Not to mention Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, was really into eugenics and wanted birth control freely given to women she felt were unfit to breed... like women with disabilities, women who had a history of mental illness, women whose parents had a history of mental illness, the poor, and blacks. She also praised abortion and infanticide and forced sterilizations of these same people. Eugenics is happening today in America as it is. Over 90% of couples abort babies who have Down Syndrome, and women abort babies for a number of other health reasons (including cleft pallet and club foot... both non-life threatening). Babies are aborted if they aren't the desired gender (sex-selective abortions are steadily on the rise). Babies are aborted if they aren't the right race (over 50% of all pregnancies to black women end in abortion). Babies are aborted if there are too many (abortions of one or more baby in which the woman is pregnant with multiples is on the rise)... certain demographics of America are being killed off in the millions every year. Eugenics is still happening in this day; only now it is legal and goes by a different name.
  4. I mean, yes, everything you said makes sense... I just have some questions about it. Firstly, in Catholic teaching, the only form of regulating births that a couple can employ is Natural Family Planning in which a couple maintains periods of abstinence if they would like to have some kind of "control" over their reproduction. I put "control" in "" because we ultimately have no control over whether or not God allows a woman to conceive (I was friends with a girl in college who was conceived while her mother was on birth control pills AND her dad used a condom... ). But a Catholic couple does not engage in the sexual act solely for pleasure and nothing else; they must, with every intercourse, be open to the creation of life. So... with NFP... if a couple is not open to the creation of life, then they do NOT have sex; they abstain from the sexual act until they are ready to have sex for BOTH of its purposes: to create children and to form bonds with the couple. In the Catholic Church those two purposes canNOT be singled out. So if a woman uses BC or a man uses a condom, then they are singling out the bonding/pleasure aspect of sex and going against the creating aspect. This, in the Catholic Church, is a mortal sin. With the LDS view I would see some holes that I see with the pro-choice/abortion movement. When does the spirit enter the fetus? At viability? At formation of the heart? The brain? At birth? In the pro-choice/abortion movement the question is when does a fetus become a person with rights under the protection of the law. In the LDS church the question is when does a spirit enter a fetus' body. Well, obviously with both of those questions we can't know for sure. And since we can't know for sure, then we run the risk of getting it wrong... I mean, what if the spirit enters the body at implantation? Then all abortions and BC methods that affect implantation are tantamount to murdering a spirit. What if the spirit enters the fetus at some generic number of gestational weeks... like 8 weeks, when the fetus has brain waves and a heart beat... then every abortion performed after 8 weeks is tantamount to the murder of a spirit. But since we can't know for certain, it would be most logical -- in the preserving of our own souls and the souls of the spirit children our families are supposedly providing mortality, and therefore a path to exaltation for -- to be "better safe than sorry" and pick the earliest possible moment to protect the unborn mortal body. As to rape (and incest, though... hopefully incest IS rape... and if it's not... well... it was consensual, so...) and "etc." (what "etc."? babies with Down Syndrome? Mothers with "emotional" hardship? Parents who didn't want a girl?) I would say the same rule as above applies.... the entering of a spirit into a body doesn't have anything to do with the act through which the fetus was conceived, does it? Otherwise, why would God allow any victim of rape to become pregnant in the first place, if He's not going to give that fetus a spirit? And if He DOES give a spirit to babies conceived in rape, then there should be no special allowances for abortion in those circumstances (or the circumstance of disabled fetuses, etc.) because, once again, no one knows exactly when a spirit enters a mortal body, so every person who has an abortion runs the very high risk (with very high spiritual consequences) of killing a fetus that is already embodied by a spirit. It's this very question of when a spirit enters a body that had always made me assume that the LDS church would be against abortion of all kinds, and probably against BC (though I mostly assumed about the BC that it would be disobeying God's command to be fruitful, and against His plan for marriage and families... but if God specifically gave sex to couples for pleasure ASIDE from procreation as well, then this makes more sense). And aside from this, what is the church's teaching on other pro-life issues; the death penalty (I assume it is for the death penalty, because it has always been in legal in Utah, correct? And Utah was originally mostly led by LDS leadership, since it was pretty much founded and settled by the LDS church.), euthanasia, war, suicide. If the spirit does not enter the mortal body at conception, but at some unknown time during pregnancy, when does the spirit LEAVE the body? Only at death? Could a spirit leave a body before then?
  5. I'll have to admit to jumping in here on the end and not reading every single comment. But to the original question, I would say that hormonal birth control is not healthy for women of any age -- the hormones in BC pills are a class 1 carcinogen... not good. Of course, as a (faithful) Catholic I am against all forms of contraception and abortion, as well other life-taking issues, such as the death penalty, suicide, euthanasia, and unjust war. The Catholic Church teaches that every life is sacred, from conception to natural death, and since almost every hormonal birth control has abortifacient properties, we are adamantly against them. But not only that... sex is strictly to be within the confines of the covenant of Holy Marriage. And every sexual act must be open to life (so, no contraception within marriage either!), because that is the whole reason God created sex-- for His creations to be fruitful and multiply. If we are using sex strictly for our own pleasure and not being open to the creation of life, then we are sullying God's plan for sex and interfering with His design. I honestly would think that the LDS church would have a similar stance on birth control. Because I see the LDS view of marriage as something so holy and sacred that it is part of God's plan for salvation and exaltation. And the family unit was created specifically by God as the proper environment for our spirit brothers and sisters to receive their mortal bodies on Earth. So I would think that the LDS church would have a specific position against birth control and abortion, because they both impede God's plan of salvation in preventing spirit children from gaining mortal bodies, and altering the original command of God for husband and wife to be fruitful and multiply... So I guess what I'm saying is that I'd be interested to hear 1.) if the LDS church has any official stance on birth control, and 2.) what reasoning the church has for that stance.
  6. I just noticed this today. It is a short blog post on Apostolic Succession, but it lends to the idea of Tradition being passed down and not necessarily written: Almost Not Catholic: Apostolic Succession is as Easy as WWJD
  7. I was wondering if anyone could explain to me more in depth about the LDS ordinances. Here is what I know so far: 1.) Baptism = 8 years old, full immersion, dressed in white, by a priest 2.) Laying on of hands = I know this happens, but don't know when/where/by whom/etc. 3.) Marriage = in a temple, for all eternity, a sealing, I assume by a priest?, special white clothing 4.) Communion = called the Sacrament, blessed by young priests, every Sunday, bread and water 5.) Confession = I know some sins need to be told to the bishop... 6.) Baby blessings = I know babies are blessed... by multiple men? 7.) Blessings = priest can give special blessings to certain people 8.) Patriarchal Blessing = a special blessing, done by only certain priests, you only get one once, it has to do with your whole life 9.) Endowment = in a temple, special white clothing, learn about creation? 10.) Proxy ceremonies = baptisms, marriages, sealings, and endowments can be done for the deceased That's all I've got. Is any of that right? All of it wrong? What are all of the practices? Which ones are necessary, and which ones are voluntary? Which levels of the priesthood are allowed to perform which ordinances? P.S. = By "priest" I mean "priesthood holder"... "priest" just seemed easier.
  8. This is a pretty good explanation. The only thing I would add is that ALL of the seven Sacraments are mentioned in The Bible: Baptism, Confession, The Eucharist, Confirmation (receiving the Holy Spirit), Marriage, Holy Orders (priesthood), and Last Rites/Holy Unction/Annointing of the Sick (it's called by different names). Most (not all, but most) Protestant churches recognize all of the sacraments *technically* but only recognize two that are required and/or most important of all: baptism and Lord's Supper/Communion. ( I say they technically recognize them all, because all Protestants have marriage, confess their sins [not to a priest, but to God... but it's the same basic concept], have a clergy, etc. I would say more that the ceremonies, as you say, surrounding the Sacraments might be considered more Tradition, rather than the Sacraments themselves. Though, if you've ever seen any Catholic Sacraments, The Bible is *heavily* quoted and used. But yes, the specific layout of how a Sacrament should be performed has been passed down, and is part of our Tradition. So you seem to have a pretty good understanding of the subject!
  9. The idea of Tradition is different based on if you are Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant. In the Catholic Church, the Church stands on three 'legs' :: The Bible, Tradition, and the Magesterium (the priesthood essentially). The Church does not hold to sola scriptura in the way Protestants do. Tradition is what is handed down through the generations, not necessarily by writings. The New Testament mentions following the teachings of church leaders, whether written down or spoken; and also mentions that not everything that there was to know was written down. The Catholic Church has always taken this to mean that The Bible is important in faith and learning, but there are other beliefs that might not be completely spelled out in its words. This Tradition is protected by the Holy Spirit and passed down through the generations. The leadership of the Church is also protected by the Holy Spirit in matters of dogma. (If a pope declares something ex cathedra, then he is seen to be infallible; similar to the way in which an LSD prophet can speak on behalf of the church with continuing revelation.) Protestants are mostly sola scriptura believers, and so do not hold that Tradition is relevent to faith. Some even go so far as to say Catholic Tradition is no more than man's traditions, lower case 't' and that they are heretical. A Protestant will look at the 2,000 years of Christian scholarship and theology to support his beliefs, but will not hold to having a Tradition. Although it is important to note that the three 'legs' of Catholicism cannot oppose any other, and must be in harmony. For instance, a pope cannot declare that Jesus never rose from the grave, because it is expressly written in the Bible. And no Tradition can contradict the Bible as well (there is a Biblical basis for *every* Catholic belief, even ones other churches do not believe in, such as the Immaculate Conception), even though they might not be *expressly written* in the Bible. This is a great question, and one that can be talked about in depth. This is just my basic description.
  10. I mean, I understand that there were good people living and doing good works. But that's not the same thing as maintaining doctrinal legitimacy. According to LDS beliefs -so far as I understand them - the truth that Christ brought to the world vanished with the death of the last Apostle, leaving the Church nowhere and making it impossible for people to be saved and reach Heaven. This is why Smith was needed; to restore the church and make it possible to fully worship God and be with Him again in Heaven. I'm just confused as to why God would allow this to happen in the first place (why send Christ to Earth to redeem men of their sins... and then have men not be able to be properly redeemed of their sins for almost 2,000 years?), and how anything that happened in that time can be trustworthy. Okay, so there was a remnant of good people. Sure. But how do we know these people were properly inspired by the Holy Spirit in their goodness? How do we know *which* people were right and about *what*? Surely Joseph Smith did not have a revelation concening the validity or falsehood of every doctrine claimed between that time. So, unless Smith had a specific revelation about a specific doctrine, that doctrine could possibly still be true, right? Are Joseph Smith's revelations the litmus test for doctrinal legitimacy with pre-resoration Christianity? What about doctrines that Smith is silent on? I'm asking honestly, not trying to be difficult. We, as Catholics, believe in apostasy too, sure. But not total apostasy, which is what I have always been told is the LDS view. For Catholics, there is always a remnant. And the remnant is what keeps the Church alive, even if the majority sure fall away. And for that matter, if Joseph Smith thought the Song of Solomon was not an inspired book, why is it still included in the LDS version of the KJV Bible? Is this book taught about in LDS Sunday school classes and such?
  11. I guess I'm just wondering how anything can be trusted that came during the time of apostasy, when Christ's church was absent from the Earth. How was it even possible for any truths to remain on Earth if the Church and Priesthood were gone? If the priesthood could no be conferred from the Apostles to any other men, then how can we trust what those non-priesthood-holding men decided? The same councils that were called to compile The Bible were also called to iron out the doctrine of the Trinity and other basic orthodox doctrines, so how can we trust that The Bible was compiled (under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit? I'm not sure what the LDS thought on this is... can the Holy Spirit inspire the lives of these men if the Church had fallen away?) correctly (or nearly so), but that the doctrines of the Trinity, Mary as Theotokos, the Creeds, etc. were incorrect?
  12. Everyone used the same Bible until Luther. Therefore it was The Bible. It still is. Catholics have not altered it since its compilation. So Catholics do not have a 'version' of the Bible; they have The Bible. Reformers such as Luther looked at The Bible and did some editing. They have a 'version' of The Bible. Thomas Jefferson edited down his own version too. None of these people sat down with all ancient sources on Judaism and Christianity and compiled a new Bible; they sat down with The Bible (the one the Catholics compiled), and then chipped away at it. If anyone has a 'version' of the Bible it's Protestants; Catholics maintain the original Bible in its ancient form. Honestly, I would think that a religion that believes 'plain and precious truths' had been removed from the Bible and Christian understanding might have something to say about using a Protestant, shortened version of The Bible, in which books and chapters were removed from it. ...Or would use any version of The Bible at all, since it was compiled during the Great Apostasy.
  13. Um... no. This takes it a bit too far, in my opinion. Firstly because it was already mentioned that the woman had a master's degree and was turning down good jobs within her field. I'm pretty sure she'd make enough money to support herself and her two children, and afford childcare on a master's degree salary. (Not to mention the fact that you've just described a *common* attitude of many people on government assistance, who can work but choose not to because their unemployment checks are bigger than the checks they'd make for the jobs available... that attitude leads to laziness, irresponsibility, a huge deficit, an entitlement complex, and who's to say everyone can't just laze around until they find a higher paying job? I'd *love* to make more money. That doesn't mean I'm not going to take what I can get.) Secondly, this is a religion vs. state thing at this point. If she wants to have "revelations" allowing her to not work, fine. If the LDS church believes her, then IT should maintain her upkeep, NOT the secular U.S. government, and by extension me... who doesn't believe in her revelations at all. I should not be expected to support her or her family because of her religious convictions, anymore than you should be expected to support me or my family if the pope declared it sinful for women to work. Once you bring the government into the picture, things change. From the scenario that is being described I'm surprised social services aren't involved. Not working to provide for your kids, and not providing for them properly so that they have to sleep on a basement floor? She needs to watch herself. If this was truly a revelation from God, wouldn't He provide a way for it to be fulfilled? If not, someone needs to intervene.
  14. It's actually the 4th century that is the most commonly used in explaining the beginnings of orthodox Christian doctrines. It was up to, and during, this century that the most basic doctrines were ironed out. And y'all are right that many (not all, but many) Christian leaders who speak against the LDS church do not know much about it. And these leaders obviously impact the minds and opinions of their followers. There are major doctrinal differences between the LDS church and the orthdox Christian faiths. This is simply true. And there are many people who, even after they learn a great deal about the LDS church, still believe that Mormons aren't "Christians." Usually this is just their way of saying that they aren't *orthodox* Christians. (Which, to most Christians, yes, means the Mormons aren't Christian at all... most have one basic definition of Christianity. And if you don't fall into that category, then you aren't Christian, end of story.) These people understand that the LDS church technically worships the same God as the rest of the Christians do, but from an orthodox perspective the LDS church has gotten so much "wrong" as to be a completely different church. (I'm thinking Jews, Christians, and Muslims all worshiping the same God is a good comparison here.) This can be debated at length, sure. But I doubt it will change the minds of most Christians. Just as an LDS missionary would go to a Baptist's house to convert him to the true church, a Baptist would have no qualms doing the reverse. Both sides believe the other side is wrong... or at least not as right as their own side. I understand that this can be frustrating... but I think that Mormons are set apart from "normal" Christians. And I say, why not live it up? Be proud of who you are and don't try to conform yourselves to someone else's definitions of anything. If you're okay being Mormon, then be Mormon. If someone asks, explain your beliefs. But I wouldn't worry too much if people say you are or aren't Christians. As long as you know what you believe and who you are, then the rest doesn't matter. ...and to be the one Catholic in the room, it is a requirement for me to say.... the Catholic Church compiled the Bible. So... we kind of like to think we have a certain understanding of it. (Whether anyone here agrees with them or not, Catholics and Protestants *can* and *do* use Scripture to support their concepts of God. The same way the LDS church does. I think this is just a losing battle for both sides.)
  15. Haha, The Rosary is not a necklace! That's like nails on a chalkboard to Catholics! And red letter Bibles are more a Protestant thing, which I remember reading as a kid... though, come to think of it, there's a Bible I'm really wanting to buy because I like the translation, but it's a red letter edition, and I hate those. Eh. Oh well. One nice thing about Mormons is that there's only one translation to get for all of your holy books... I have a weirdly large collection of Bibles that I've accumulated over the years. Which is only getting bigger now that I can add Catholic Bibles to the mix. And strangely enough, now that I'm Catholic I still don't own a crucifix necklace. The first piece of Catholic jewelry I got was my St.Thomas More medal (look him up, he's awesome). I actually don't see many Catholics wearing crucifixes these days... I think most Catholics who wear religious jewelry (beside scapulars) wear the Miraculous Medal to receive the graces promised through its wearing. I have never seen a Mormon wear a cross before, though. I knew they weren't used in worship, and just assumed they couldn't be worn as jewelry either.
  16. Yes, medals as in medallions... we just call them medals. I wasn't sure, because I know that the Mormons can't wear or use crosses (and, by extension, I assume crucifixes), so I wasn't sure about medals. If I strode up into my mom's Baptist church wearing a cross I'd have no problem... if I strode in wearing a Miraculous Medal I'd have people giving me the weird "this girl's a Catholic, and Catholics go to HELL, and I better not touch her or I'll catch Mary-worshiping cooties" looks. I wasn't sure how the LDS base would react. For some reason Mary is a touchy subject with non-Catholic/Orthodox... I don't want to ruffle any feathers. I'll try leave my Mormons Aren't Christians t-shirt at home. Good advice.
  17. I'm not exactly sure how it is in the LDS church, but in the Catholic Church in order to be absolved of your sins (even venial sins that do not need to be confessed to a priest), you must have true contrition. If a person sits down and thinks, "I hate my mom. I want to kill my mom. I know it's wrong, but I just don't care. I know it is a sin. But I don't care. I'll shoot her, and just confess it later, no big deal." Then that person will not be forgiven for his sin of murder, because he did not have true contrition about it afterwards... instead he just used God's mercy as an excuse to do what he wanted. If your girlfriend purposely lies to get into a temple with the feelings of "it doesn't matter, I'll just confess it later" then that's not true contrition, and her confession would be invalid. You must have true repentance in order to be forgiven of your sins, and it doesn't sound as if your girlfriend has that.
  18. Thanks for the replies! ...I actually didn't get to go yesterday, because the friend that was going to go with me ended up not being able to go. So we're going to try again this coming up Sunday. Which, I guess will be better, since it will be a normal service. I knew there was a special fasting day once a month, but I didn't know which Sunday it was. Now I know. I'm not too worried about it being too different for me, because I'm a Catholic convert; I was Southern Baptist before, so I'll be more used to the 'mundane' way everything goes, as well as the set up of Sunday school (I assume). The friend who is going with me, though, is a cradle Catholic, and she's worried that she'll be intimidated by people asking her to convert. She's really only going because I'm asking her to... she doesn't know much about the LDS church, and doesn't really have much of an interest. She's just being a nice friend. So she doesn't want missionaries to magically show up at her house the next day or anything. I told her I'd field any requests that go our way... I'm not really interested in converting, but I'm interested in learning more about the teachings and culture of the church, so I wouldn't be averse to talking to missionaries or visiting with members. Hopefully everything will work out for us to go this Sunday. I was sad I didn't get to go yesterday, because I had to go out of my way to get to Mass on Saturday night... and I'll have to do so again this weekend, so hopefully we'll make it. I don't like vigil Mass as much as Sunday Mass. Another quick question.... would it be completely outrageous and disrespectful to wear medals to the service? I always wear two medals (the Miraculous Medal and a St.Thomas More --my Confirmation saint-- medal)... as in, I wear them everyday, without fail, no matter what. I would feel really weird not wearing them. The Thomas More medal is long enough that I could probably stick it down the top of my shirt/dress, but the Miraculous Medal is too short for that. I don't necessarily mind it being a dead giveaway that I'm Catholic (because I think it'll be pretty obvious anyway), but I don't want to be rude...
  19. I had been wanting to visit an LDS church for some time, but haven't been able to for various reasons. However, I finally am able to tomorrow morning. I have seen the video that was passed around explaining what a church service is like, but I still had some questions about what to expect. Are visitors allowed to come to all three hours of service? Or just the service and Sunday school? How would I know which class to go to? Are you supposed to bring your Bible to church with you? Are there any people specifically designated to help visitors know where to go/what to do? Like ushers or greeters? As a Catholic I'm not allowed to take communion at other churches. How is communion done in the LDS service? Is it passed around, or do people go up to the front? Am I going to be asked to fill out any forms/visitors' cards? Will I seem rude if I decline invitations to have missionaries visit me, or to come for other activities? Is there anything else I should know before going for the first time? Any converts who have tips on what it's like to visit for the first time?
  20. It's weird to me to think that some guys don't want/like earrings. My dad took me to get my ears pierced when I was little. I can't remember how old I was, but it's one of my first memories, so I think I was between 3 and 5. Since then my dad made me wear plain studs. As I got older I'd take the earrings out for long periods of time. When my dad noticed, he'd get mad and make me put them back in so the holes wouldn't grow in! I guess people are just different. He sees it as a feminine thing... he also didn't like it when I cut my hair short once in junior high.... he has his ideas of what it means to be feminine, and he wanted to instill those ideas in me. As far as pain goes... honestly, no one remembers what happens to them before the age of 3 anyway. I broke my collar bone when I was 3... don't remember a thing. But with getting ears pierced the pain is minor and quick; when I got mine done they had two girls do it, so they could do both ears at once. Easy, peasy. And yes, my parents had to put rubbing alcohol on them for a few days, but that goes away too. And as far as choice... well, if she doesn't want to wear earrings ever again in her life, then she doesn't have to. But it's nice to have holes there just in case. (It's super hard to find clip ons, and usually they're not as pretty... and they actually hurt a lot themselves, because they squeeze your lobes so hard!) And especially nice not to have to get them pierced as an adult when you'll be more receptive to pain. Ultimately, though, I'd say it's not a huge deal, especially if it's going to lead to contention with your husband. Hear his side of why he's against it, then voice your side of why you're for it, and then decide from there. Babies/toddlers/preschoolers look cute with earrings on, but no less cute without them!
  21. Just out of curiosity... of those on this thread who are speaking out AGAINST The Tudors, how many of you have ever watched an entire episode? And... isn't agency a big thing with the LDS church? Shouldn't each person be allowed to use his/her own free agency to make choices for his/her own life? Unless Dahlia is going around forcing other people to watch the show... what's the problem? It also goes to the heart of what is/isn't moral or modest. Unless the LDS church comes out with an official list of tv shows/movies/music/etc. that its members can and cannot partake in... then each individual member can decide for him/herself what is appropriate to watch or listen to. What you might consider immodest or immoral, might not be considered so to someone else. And if there's no official doctrine on the issue, then each person can interpret the morality for himself. (For instance: I know people who think it is immodest for women to wear pants, *ever.* Suffice it to say, women wearing pants is not considered immodest by most Americans. To one group it's immodest, to one group it isn't.) Also, people all struggle with *different* sins and temptations. Maybe Dahlia can watch an entire sex scene in the Tudors show and *not* be tempted into sin... just like I can have a drink of beer at a restaurant without ever feeling the temptation to sin into drunkeness, while another person might be tempted to get drunk at the very mention of alcohol. Since none of us know Dahlia's heart but her, and her church hasn't told her not to watch this show, then we can't tell her she shouldn't watch it.
  22. Yes, the Church has a system for canonization. However, Marian apparitions have nothing to do with canonization. In one way, because Mary has not been canonized: she is not a Saint in the same way we consider, say, Joan of Arc to be a saint. She holds a separate position altogether. And as to those who have seen Marian apparitions... those appearances are not really considered when one is canonized. In order to be canonized a person must have two miracles performed through their intercession (Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha is going to be canonized this year. Another American Saint. I'm very excited about it!) Whether or not Christ or Mary appear to them is of no consequence. It is very true that certain apparitions are widely believed by most Catholics -- no one bats an eye in Mass, even in America, when a priest mentions Fatima or Lourdes or Our Lady of Guadalupe, etc. Most Catholics believe in apparitions if the Church does not deem them heretical. However, my point was that it's not *doctrine*... it might be "expected" in some parts of the world, but disbelieving any and ALL apparitions would not prevent someone from being able to enter the Church. However, with the LDS church, one cannot become LDS if one does not believe the First Vision. If you don't believe Smith received revelations, private and public, from God, then you can't be Mormon. It is an unchangeable, concrete dogma. ... I can't really think of a good LDS example of this issue... Perhaps things like what God was doing in His mortal life? There are guesses and suggestions, but no hard dogma either way about most things (like, was God a sinner when He was a mortal man?). I'm not sure... But the dialogue here is good. Perhaps a thread more on Smith and his revelations would be nice...
  23. I love this. If you knew how many Mormons I know who have never actually taken the "Moroni challenge" that they encourage all non-LDS to do, you'd cringe. They simply believe because they were brought up to, not because they sought the Truth themselves. Even Mormons need to pray to be sure the LDS church is true! Just like every member of every church should!
  24. I just wanted to chime in one thing. You give good explanations for the LDS side of the discussion, and know a lot about Catholicism, which helps with ecumenism. But it is important to note that members of the Catholic Church are not required to believe in any of the Marian apparitions. The Church investigates them and says whether or not they *could* be valid, but does not force any members to believe they ever happened at all, because they were *private* revelations/apparitions. No members of the Church are required to believe in someone else's private revelations/apparitions. Even events that had hundreds and thousands of witnesses aren't required for any member to believe. Whereas it is the most basic piece of LDS doctrine that Joseph Smith had a vision of God and Jesus when he was alone in the woods. So, to a Catholic, this can seem strange. I personally don't fault anyone who believes Smith's vision, or anyone who believes in any of the Marian apparitions. To each his/her own. The difference, though, is that one church lets it's members decide for themselves if they want to believe them or not, and the other church requires belief in its founder's private revelation as a main point of basic dogma. So, in the end, I can see how Madeleine1 would see a problem with this. And I don't think it's really comparable to Marian apparitions. ... but other than that, you make some good points.
  25. I believe the RCC does not recognize LDS baptisms because the LDS church does not hold to the most basic of RCC doctrines, such as the Trinity, creation ex nihilo, etc. To the RCC, these basic doctrines must be believed in order for a baptism to be valid. Since the LDS church does not believe them, their baptisms are not valid in the RCC. It's pretty much that simple. The Catholics aren't trying to be mean or anything; they simply have a list of requirements for valid baptisms and the LDS church does not meet that list. Most (NOT ALL!) Protestants meet that list -- Oneness Pentacostals & Seventh Day Adventists, for example, do not have valid baptisms under the RCC). I don't think anyone will dispute that the Church has gone into apostasy during periods of Salvation History. The point of dispute is that there was always a remnant. I think most non-LDS have a problem with LDS who say there was a total apostasy-which I have heard many LDS claim. This is the issue most non-LDS have. In the RCC, we recognize that there will be apostasy in the future as well. In fact, we recognize that there is apostasy now (technically, any church that has split from the RCC is in apostasy in the RCC mindset). There's no argument here either. However, I would say that most Catholics... and probably ALL Protestants think the Bible is complete as is. (This is a major doctrine of Protestant sola scriptura: the Bible is full, complete, inerrant, and all that is necessary for salvation.) Catholics revere other books, look to the extra-Biblical writings, as well as the writings of the Church Fathers and Saints, but believe that the Bible doesn't need adding to, that the Holy Spirit directed its compiling, and that all the books (and only the books) that God wanted included were included. (It is important to note also that St. Jerome bowed to the Authority of the Church, and understood that they, and not he, had the Authority to decide which books made the cut.) I would personally love to discuss more about Joseph Smith and his visions, but I feel this thread isn't the place. However, sufice it to say that most non-LDS find enough faults/inconsistencies/problems with the Joseph Smith revelations to have them not believe him to be a true prophet. This can be debated at length forever... LDS will believe him, non-LDS will not. Many people did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah either, so the LDS have that going for them if they want. And yet, non-LDS can also point to Muhammed and Ellen G. White too. This is probably a losing battle... a person has to be significantly convinced that Smith was a prophet in order to be LDS. Actually... there has always been only one pope at a time. However, there have been times when there has been one pope and one or more *false* popes. The story is told by Catholics in one way, and by non-Catholics in another. But to the RCC, there has always been one legitimate and true pope. This is also a point that can be debated at length, with neither side getting anywhere. To the RCC: Peter is the Church. He is Christ's representative on Earth after Christ leaves. So Peter and the Church are the same. *Individuals* and *groups of individuals* can apostasize from the Church, but the entire Church cannot go into apostasy. Christ's Church cannot be wiped out. And when Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church, He did not mean "in the end," He meant "ever." In the RCC mindset. Once again, this can be discussed at length in and of itself. This is just a couple of my thoughts on the subject. Maybe it will lend to the discussion. And just to note, the LDS church history is not very neat and clean either. We can't argue over who has the perfect church with the perfect people... because no one does.