Shelly200

Vort- Well... yes, exactly. I was simply comparing their practices to today. Today, if a man and a woman are married, then they live together and have sex from day 1 (unless there are weird circumstances involved); but if they are engaged, then it's acceptable for them to not be living together or having sex yet. In today's world, if a man and a woman are married (signed the legal papers and had their religious ceremony) and they WEREN'T living together and acting as a married couple... then we'd think there was something wrong happening there. So, to make a modern comparison, I would say that they were, in a modern sense, "engaged" in the fact that they were exclusive to each other, but not cohabitating and having relations and living as man and wife. But, yes, according to ancient Jewish custom they were fully married.

Vort/Jennarator: I believe (?) Mary and Joseph were married, but not living together yet. The ancient Jews had a longer process of being fully married than we do today. Today, we'd probably consider them to have been "engaed"... promised to each other, but not living together/having sex/fully finished the covenant yet.

Ah yes, the DaVinci Code. I actually like that movie, and the sequel. Because I understand that is Fiction. However, I believe there are still people who perform self-mortification, just not to that extent. Usually, though, it is not as penance for sins. Instead it is used to remind the person of Christ and His Passion and suffering for us. We all do little things to bring some kind of "suffering" on ourselves in remembrance: fasting, extra prayer, giving things up for Lent, etc. Some people just go a step further and cause more physical pain to their bodies to remind them of Christ's suffering. To me, there is nothing wrong with this as long as it doesn't go too far; I believe some people still use the wires wrapped around their thighs to cause discomfort, but the wires are blunt and do not cut into the skin. I don't do this, but if it brings someone closer to Christ, I'm all for however an individual does his own private devotions. However, this is the exception, not the norm. Most Catholics stick to Lenten fasts.

While I understand where this is coming from, I don't believe Adam and Eve were unaware of right and wrong. I believe they were innocent of the consequences of sin, but were aware of God's command, and that disobeying Him would be contrary to His law. In a broader sense: to me, it should be enough to know that God has commanded to do, or not to do, something. We don't have to know the consequences of what will happen to us if we sin; all we need to know is what God wants, and then to do it. I'm thinking of people who make a choice, and then when the consequences roll around say "If I had known I'd be punished like this I never would've disobeyed!" To me, this is a cop out. We should obey, because it's God. End of story. God commands, we obey. He doesn't have to reveal to us what He will do if we disobey Him; we should obey Him anyway. However, in the case of Adam and Eve, it is clear that God told them if they ate of the forbidden tree, then they'd die. They knew there would be a consequence to their disobedience. So they weren't exactly completely innocent of right and wrong.

Having grown up SBC, I have to say that in our church no one said very much about Mormons at all. We knew about Joseph Smith, but I never thought the LDS worshiped him. Revered him too much, sure. We were taught that. But the SBC is afraid of anyone saying anything nice about anyone other than Jesus, pretty much. :) However, I have heard in my... well, not mine anymore, now it's my mom's... SBC church that Muslims worship Muhammed and Catholics worship the pope. Hmm... Someone should clear that up with the pastor, since he's going around telling his hundreds of congregants lies.

I think I might have misrepresented myself. Sorry. I'm coming from a Catholic background, so when I say that the bishop/priest forgives sins, I don't really mean that *he* forgives sins, but that God does *through* him. It's easier to say that the pries/bishop forgives sins, but is probably too confusing/misleading, so I'll refrain from saying that again. So I guess that answers my question anyway, though: the LDS bishop is not given authority by the church, or God, to forgive sins in its, or His, name. True. God delights in our contrition, because it leads us back to Him. That is the goal of Catholic Reconciliation as well.

I have heard this before, but am confused as to what exactly it means: what does it mean to receive revelation as the LDS understand it? Is this something like praying and receiving an answer? Yes, it seems to me that there's a significant difference in the LDS/Catholic view of confession. For Catholicism, it is a Sacrament. Grace is bestowed upon us through it, and we are turned away from sin and toward God. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "self-mortification," if you are meaning it in a more drastic way, or if you simply mean doing penance. Penance is usually pretty easy to do, actually... well, it is for me, so I must not be committing very horrible sins. I do not view either penance or Purgatory as suffering to show God how sorry we are for our sins... that isn't penance, that's contrition. Which we must also have in order to be absolved of our sins, but is different than penance. Penance is simply a reconciliation for our sins; we misbehaved and must be punished, as any loving father would punish his children for disobedience. Penance is how we reconcile our bad choices. It seems that the LDS mindset is more toward the Protestant mindset: be sorry, ask God for forgiveness, be forgiven, try not to do the sin again. Would that be a correct assessment?

Thanks for the responses! About prayer: personally, when I pray at home/in the car/alone I don't do anything with my hands... I just bow my head and close my eyes and pray (or just pray in my head if I'm doing something I can't close my eyes for). But in Mass I pray the entire Mass with my hands together, fingers down and intertwined, right below my chest. I've seen some (very devout?) Catholics say Mass like this too, with their hands folded at their chests or right below. The only people I've ever seen have the stance in Vort's picture are the priests/deacons/altar servers. There's actually been some "controversy" going around the Catholic spere about how to pray the Our Father during Mass. A lot of people either hold hands with their neighbors, or hold their hands up at their sides. Apparently this isn't really what the Church wants us to do... which is sad, because I liked holding my hands out, but now I refrain. Oh well. On to sins: I actually wasn't thinking of the Fall at all, but it is interesting that you bring it up, Vort. I had just heard that LDS view sins and transgressions differently, and wanted some explanation. When someone needs to speak with a bishop about their sins... what does the conversation entail? Does the bishop forgive the sins of the sinner? Or do they simply try to work out why the person is sinning and how they can overcome? Is there any type of penance that is given out for certain sins that a person would need to do in order to be made worthy again to perform church duties?

This, to me, is probably one of the biggest hindrances of people who already have a faith and are investigating the LDS church. Well... that's just my opinion, so it could very well be false, but I know that it kind of sticks to me. Because I just don't understand why God would take the priesthood away from Earth... why would He institute His Church and then let the authority of that Church's priests fall away because He did not call any priests. Certainly, His Church needed priests at that time (Apostles through 1800s) as is seen through all of the struggle the Church went through. So why would He not call men to lead His people when they needed Him, and then mysteriously decide to begin the callings again with Smith? Even in the OT, when the Jews would turn away from God and then turn back, and turn away from God, and then turn back... there was always a remnant. There were prophets called, even when those prophets were persecuted. Because God so loved His people that He would never give up on them. In a sense that is what it sounds like to say that either God allowed His Churh to disappear, or that He didn't call proper priests to lead it; that He abandoned His people and left them no proper guide. I'm not trying to sound negative or condescending. I'm looking at the LDS church as a convert from and to another church; when I was looking into the Catholic Church, there were some key doctrines that needed to be proven to me before I could/would look further --such as Apostolic Succession, transubstantiation, the Sacraments, the Saints, and Purgatory (pretty typical stuff). So I'm trying to look at the LDS church in the same way: if I was considering a new church, and looking into the LDS church, which key doctrines would be "hurdles" that I'd have to jump in order to continue to research it? Mine would be: 1.)the Great Apostasy (if there's no apostasy, there's no need for ole Joe Smith); 2.) Joseph Smith as a prophet; 3.) the Godhead; 4.) progression to godhood; 5.) the natures of Man and God. (There are way more, but these would be the first five I'd have to get past.) So, I'm trying to learn about these five concepts. [As a somewhat-off-topic aside: My parents have the BYU channel at their house (they have about... eight hundred million cable channels) and I watched three episodes? in the Work and the Glory series (are there only three?). It was interesting to see how Joseph Smith and the early Mormons were portrayed. I have to admit that I've never actually read anything on Smith that was written by a Mormon (besides things on the lds.org site); the only things I've read in depth were either "impartial" or anti-Mormon. Smith would be a big, huge, gigantic hurdle for me (And others) to jump in a journey to more fully embrace the LDS church. If you have any suggestions on not-textbook-length books/articles/websites on Smith, that would be appreciated.] [Also- I watched the series on PBS called The Mormons. An LDS friend of mine said her family didn't like it. Has anyone see it? To say if it was a great/good/okay/bad representation of the LDS church?]

This is something in my research I have just come across, and wanted more detail on. What is the LDS definition of 'sin'? In what ways are sins different than transgressions? On a similar note: do they LDS hold to a belief in there being different types or levels of sin? And how does a person in the LDS church go about in repentance and forgiveness of sins? (I've heard that some sins must be confessed to a bishop. Is this true?) Okay, also, something that is... kind of related, but maybe not... I have frequently seen Mormons praying with their arms crossed over their chests. Are Mormons taught in church to pray in this manner? Is there a specific reason for it? I've frequently seen this and just never asked; but it's one way I think is easy to pick a Mormon out of a crowd or picture: they frequently pray with heads bowed and arms across the chest. I'm just curious about it.

anatess- What you said makes sense, yes. I guess the problem is that different Mormons give different answers to some of the same questions, so it can confuse those of us who are looking for a more official answer; i.e.-I've heard about three different answers multiple times on when the apostasy ocurred. (The lds.org website lists the apostasy as happening in the 300s??) So my basic understanding, from what you are saying, is that it wasn't Truth that left the Earth, but the priesthood? And *this* is what the apostasy was about? The disappearance of Christ's priests? Okay. If that's the correct LDS teaching, then I can understand that. For me this raises another question. Why does the LDS church think that the priesthood left the Earth? Was it only because the Apostles died, and they were the only ones with that authority? And so that same authority that the apostles had was given back to Joseph Smith? And then Smith passed that authority downto today? If that is correct, then I have to wonder why the priesthood left in the first place. If Joseph Smith had the priesthood, and had the power to confer it to others down the line; and the Apostles had the priesthood... why did the Apostles not have the authority to confer that priesthood down to others? As a Catholic, Apostolic Succession is extremely important, and makes sense. In the LDS mindset, priesthood authority is extremely important as well. However, the Apostles had that priesthood authority, but not the power to continue it? This is the part that confuses me the most...

I simply named John, since he was the latest surviving Apostle, and most LDS tell me that the Church didn't go into apostasy until the death of the last Apostle. However, most of the Apostles actually lived into the mid to late 1st century:St. Peter died probably in the 60s or 70s; St. Andrew in the mid to late 1st century; St. Philip around 80; St. Thomas in the 70s... so if the Didache was written in 60AD, or 70AD, or 75AD, then it would be, in my opinion, an accurate description of the early Church led by the Apostles. Although, if you want to think of it in your way... 10-12 men? Did they have complete control over the entire Christian world while they were alive? Probably not completely and utterly in and of themselves. So then how can you trust anything that was said or done by anyone other than Christ? To me, the reasonable explanation is that the Apostles preached and gave Authority to others while they were living. And then these men preached and passed on the Authority too. And so on. So that the Truth could continue down the line... even without the Apostles being alive. The LDS church holds the same belief today; Apostles continue on from Joseph Smith to today, giving their authority to the next group.

So modern LDS doctrines such as eternal marriage, plurality of gods, non-Trinitarian Godhead, the Fall as a good, etc. ... were these doctrines believed to have been held by early church members? Or did these doctrines get established with Joseph Smith? In other words, is the modern LDS church similar to the early church through organization, leadership, and revelation only? Or did the early church believe also in all or some of the modern LDS doctrines? Which doctrines that are found only in the LDS church are believed to have also been taught in the early church?

I completely agree, 100%.

Jayanna- Thanks for your response. I guess many non-LDS are confused when LDS claim to be a restoration of the Apostolic Church because we take that to mean that the two churches should look the same. What I have come to understand, instead, is that the LDS church means that they are the same as the Apostolic Church in relation to having current apostles, revelation, etc. Is this a correct assumption? When I was interested in learning about other forms of Christianity in my own journey out of the Southern Baptist church, I wanted to join a church that would most correlate to the Church of Apostolic times. Therefore, I looked into the Orthodox and Catholic Churches; and in my research was led to believe them both (though obviously moreso in Catholicism, obviouslu) to be the most similar to the early church. So, hearing many LDS say that the LDS church is "the same as" the Apostolic Church, I am simply wondering more about this concept; i.e. *how* the LDS church is the same as the early church. Catholics are often told that if they were transported back in time we would fit right in with the early Church -- there would, of course, be differences, but none so many or drastic that we couldn't understand and follow along. ... so I'm simply interested in the LDS view of the early Church. As to continuing revelation- you bring up an often-mentioned concept about the LDS church that I just now had a thought about. Many people (including LDS) make harsh comments against Catholicism because it has been "changed" over the centuries, or dogmas have been "added." It seems to me like the LDS church would have no qualms over this idea, for the very reason that they believe in modern revelation, and God being able to change/critique/edit/add doctrine or practices at any time through His prophets (like your example of plural marriage). The Catholic Church doesn't believe in a similar concept (and also doesn't believe it has added or changed any True dogma), but is accused of it all the time. And it just seems to me like this cannot be a negative against Catholicism from an LDS standpoint. Thanks for your response!

I believe the Apostle John was the last Apostle to die; his death is believed to have been around the year 100. I think it is generally believed that he died between 100 and 115 AD. The Didache was written in the mid- to late first century. Meaning that it was written sometime between 60 and 100 AD. So it was written during the time of the Apostles. Not if my above statement is correct... which I believe it is. If I'm wrong, I'd love to see the sources dating the Didache and/or the Apostles' deaths at other times. So... I'm confused. Are you saying that the church has *always* been apostate? Did it fall into apostasy the moment Christ died?

I don't think I was explaining myself very well either; I knew the LDS church didn't think the Didache was divinely inspired, because then it would be in the Scriptures, wouldn't it? (Although, to that point, anything the modern prophets say concerning doctrine is considered divinely inspired, isn't it? And this does not get added to Scripture.) I was simply wondering if the Didache was ever looked on as an accurate description of the early Church, and if that had any bearing on the idea of the LDS church being a restoration of that church.

anatess- I do not believe the Didache was divinely inspired, and never made such a claim. However, having studied ancient Greek myself, and knowing how very short the Didache is, I *would* bet that it's translated correctly. As far as I know there are extremely few, if any anymore, churches that include the Didache in their canon. I'm not referring to it as being Scripture. However, it is still a writing that describes the early church. Just because it was not to be included in the Scriptures does not mean that it is false. It is an explanation of the way the Apostolic Church, and the church immediately following, conducted themselves. Besides the writings in the New Testament it is the oldest writing we have that explains the practices of the Church, as far as I know. So, while it isn't included in Scripture, it can still give us a good and accurate description of the way the early Church was. I was simply wondering what the LDS church thought about it, since they say they are the restored church, and so the Didache should (I would think) look extremely similar to the modern LDS church. rameumptom gives me a good explanation when he says that continuing revelation can... "trump" old in a way (he says "give us a new direction") (example being plural marriage?), and so the modern LDS church will not look exactly like the original Apostolic Church. This idea is slightly disconcerting to me, because I've heard numerous LDS say that their church is the same as the Apostles' church, and only when the Apostles died did the church change to become apostate. So I always took it to mean that the LDS church believes that the restoration of the church would look *exactly like* the Apostolic Church. I guess the answer is simply to leave it at modern revelation and that's it? But thanks for both of y'all's responses. :)

rameumptom- Well thanks! Do you happen to know the citation for St.Augustine's quotation? I'd be interested in looking that up. The idea that man can become god is interesting to me, and I'd like to research more fully both sides of the debate.

Rameumptom- I understand what you're saying, but I don't think it really answered my final question. It's not just that the LDS church can find truth in different places, but that the LDS church claims to be a restoration of the Apostolic Church -- and all other churches are not practicing the true form of Christianity as seen when the Apostles were still living and teaching. So, if the Apostles were still alive during the writing of the Didache, and the Didache describes the way Christianity was practiced during that time, then wouldn't the LDS church need to look just like the Christianity described in the Didache to be a true restoration of the Apostolic Church?

I'm jumping in here, and admit to not having read every single comment, but this paragraph struck out at me. I have never been taught, either in the SBC or the RCC, that man is divine when created. The whole point of many of the Sacraments is to share in God's divinity- not that we have any of our own. We have "divine potential" in the fact that we can become members of the Body of Christ; we are not created that way- we must enter into His Body through Baptism into His Church. To me, it is more in line with Mormonism to say that Man is created divinely- since Man and God are of the same substance. Yes, I know Man must progress into godhood-- but it is a more similar idea that God and Man have the same substance, so Man *can* become god at all. In traditional Christianity, Man is *adopted* into Christ's Body through Baptism-- Man and God are of different substances, and only God's is divine. So to me, Ireneaus would be spot on with traditional Christianity to say that Man has "divine potential".... if that was the context of the discussion. If it wasn't...sorry! And feel free to ignore me.

I don't wonder so much if the LDS church uses it the same way they would the Apocrypha- as in, the Apocrypha, to some, are inspired books of the Bible- but more along the lines of seeing how the Apostolic Church was in doctrine and practice compared to the LDS church, which claims to be a restoration of the Apostolic Church. Wouldn't the Didache, then, need to be completely consistant with the doctrines and practices of the LDS church? -- is my question.

In light of the LDS church believing it is a restoration of the church of the earliest Christians, I was wondering if the LDS church ever studies or makes mention of the Didache. And if so, what deos the church say about it in relation to their teachings?

I will not get into every argument you presented, but I appreciate your response. What I will say is on two points: the first is St. Jerome. From what I have been told about him, while he was translating the Bible into the Vulgate he had issue with some books that he didn't want included in the canon. (I believe it was St. Jerome who coined the word "apocrypha" for the deuterocanonical books.) In the end, however, he bowed to the dictates of the Church, recognizing that they, and not he, had the Authority to determine which books and writings were to be included and which weren't. Also- while papal infallibility itself is not mentioned in Scripture ... I mean, the word "pope" isn't found in Scripture either... the ideas surrounding the doctrine do have a basis in the Bible. Once again, the Bible can be interpreted many ways; I can give verses that the RCC uses to support papal infallibility and you can disagree with them. So I'll refrain from doing so. However, the point is that the RCC places a great importance on Scripture, and the Church would not have a doctrine that conflicts with the Bible or Christ's words; but she (the Church) also places great importance on Tradition and the Magisterium (which is one thing that is common between the LDS and the RCC- the importance of an Authoritative priesthood), so not every doctrine she teaches must be explicitly stated verbatum in the Bible in order to be True. (Though they won't admit it, Protestants do this too... sola scriptura and sola fide are not stated in the Bible either.) Lastly, concerning unbaptized: the Catechism states: "As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God...the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved...allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism." CCC 1261 And: "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity." CCC 1260 So, while we believe that Baptism is necessary and was commanded by Christ, we also believe in God's mercy; for those without the opportunity to be baptized, they can still be saved. The LDS believe something similar, however believing that a person must be baptized by proxy to receive its benefits after death. The RCC does not go that distance; they simply trust God's mercy.

From the Catholic perspective (which is the Protestant perspective too, since we share this common history... we were all Catholics in the beginning): the creeds were formulated during the many ecumenical councils of the first few centuries of the Church. Since the Church was founded by Christ and Christ sent the Holy Spirit to the members of the Church on Pentacost, then the Church has a special Authority to approve and disapprove (if you will) matters of doctrine. In cases in which there were questions concerning a piece of dogma-such as the divinity and/or humanity of Christ- a council was convened to promote the Truth and squash the heresy. There were many heresies during the early Church that needed to be addressed. Councils were convened, and creeds eventually formed so that all members would have the fullness of Truth, stamped and approved by Christ's Church. So there would be no question as to which ideas were Christ-given. It is true that some ideas from the Greek philosophers are similar to doctrines in the creeds. But the council members - bishops and leaders of the Church - didn't sit down with the writings of Aristotle and then build a creed. They used sacred Tradition - knowledge passed down from Christ, to the Apostles, to the bishops and members throughout the years, since there was no Bible bound yet - and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to determine which doctrines were Truth and which were heresy. Everything in the creeds is supported in the Bible, yet creeds were being formulated before the Bible was compiled completely. It was through, therefore, Tradition passed down from Christ, the writings the Church already had, and the guidance of the Spirit that formulated the creeds. This is a very basic explanation of the beginning of the creeds. I'm interested to hear others' take on their origin.