[The Apostasy]

Why? This forum is LDS Gospel Discussion, not Roman Catholic Doctrine Discussion. The OP wanted some information regarding her (that is, the LDS) Church's teachings on the matter, not a Catholic rebuttal based on your own peculiar doctrines. Offering reasons why LDS doctrine is wrong is inappropriate on this forum.

Because I assumed there might be some interest in why Catholics may hold to a different belief concerning the topic. Apparently, I was mistaken. As to the wider discussion that ensued, perhaps the board should restrict this forum to LDS members only. That they do not, also gave me the mistaken impression that any member of the board was free to post here.

[The Apostasy]

FAIR

I for one, am not trying to confuse anyone. I only posted in this thread to explain the Catholic position of why a 'great apostasy' is an impossibility in Catholic teaching, in our reading of the Gospels. The thread devolved from there into a wider discussion in replies to my original post. I am simply pointing out what is hardly a secret, but simply a fact of Mormon belief that can be easily found in numerous LDS sources; in LDS theology and cosmology, in core LDS scripture. Indeed, Traveller reinforced the point. I don't think ill of Mormons for it. I just think it is what it is.

I will try to stick to just answering questions or statements that come up about my own Church's beliefs, from now on. That's all I was trying to do in the first place, but it serves no one well to ignore obvious differences of belief.

[The Apostasy]

Please define easier. For example the very term mediator. One does not mediate with themself. That is not just confusing it is a misuse of the term.

Who used it in such a way? Are you sure you are addressing the right poster? I don't recall ever making such a statement. Perhaps you can quote from what I said.

Also the concept of the fall. How is man excommunicated from a kingdom (lose citizenship) and still have the same Suzerain as their ruler? In other words - how is it that man has the same G-d before and after the fall. If the G-d of Moses (after the fall) was the same as the G-d of Adam before the fall - then there was - in reality - no fall and there is no need what-so-ever that Christ (or anyone else) be a mediator.

Can not a man loose citizenship and then gain it back? I'm not saying that is the correct interpretation of issue, just asking you the question. Why would the Fall necessitate that the god of Moses must somehow be a different god? There is but one God, and that God is totally soverign in whom and how He saves. There is a fundemental diference in the nature of the Old Covenant, from the new, however.

I did not make this up - these questions have been unanswered for hundreds of years and been in part the reason for unjust wars fought in the name of G-d and contention between traditional Christians and just about everybody else (Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Zoroastrianism and various so called Pagan religions to name a few).

I have no doubt it may have been a point of contention with many of those you name, but suffice it to say, that Mormonism is radically different from Christianity, or Judaism, or even Islam, in it's polytheism. It may be a question that some have asked, but if one were to go to pretty much any run of the mill professor of Western Civ. at any university, and asked him what is the central religious idea of the Judeo-Christian tradition, he would say without a moments hesitation; Monotheism. It's really imposable to understand the whole history of the Jewish tradition, and the Christian faith that arose from it, without grasping that one foundational truth. I think you may understand this, but in my long interactions with Mormons over the years, I don't think it is well understood among many. I think that is what often causes hurt to Mormons when told that they are not accepted as Christians.

[The Apostasy]

Remember, we're talking about people who have never heard of the name Jesus. They wouldn't have a clue to cooperate nor even know what faith means.

For those who may not have heard the Gospel, we leave that up to God's mercy. We never say with certainty, that anyone is condemned to hell, as God is the one who saves who He wills, not our judgement. It can't be understood without understanding the idea that there is only one God; all powerful, all knowing, completely sovereign. Even those who respond to the Gospel, do so in response to God's grace. We do not save ourselves. A classic way of understanding this is, God does not call the justified, He justifies the called. Will God save the unbaptised? I dunno. That is up to God. I can only trust in His mercy.

Pre-mortal. Before you are born. You are born on earth BECAUSE you chose to follow Christ in the Plan for our Salvation. Before the Plan was presented, we were merely intelligences that God organized and taught. We needed experience to progress and grow. The Plan through mortality was presented and Christ chose to be our mortal father, our Savior. The Plan through Christ is that you will be separated from Heavenly Father's influence, strap you with opposition (the mortal body) and see if you would still desire God on your own free will. Christ's atonement is necessary to fulfill justice - because, our mortal flesh without perfect knowledge of God is bound to sin.

Lucifer rebelled against the plan because he did not want the intelligences to risk not choosing the path to the Father, therefore, he does not want to allow the intelligences to have free will - he does not want us to have to pass through mortality and be stripped of perfect knowledge. 1/3 of the intelligences followed him and they never got mortal bodies. The rest followed Christ and were therefore given mortal bodies. Yes, that's all of us that are born here on earth.

Baptism on earth is the first ordinance that we require to take that first step in making a covenant to follow God in our mortal state.

OK, that did make that point much more clear to me now. Thanks.

The question is not whether the Church on earth CAN fall. We already know it can. It fell several times in the Old Testament and it was in an apostate state when Jesus was born. Even after Jesus' resurrection it is still stated in the scriptures, a most notable one is in 2 Thesalonians 2, that the church will fall. The only question therefore is when.

That is not at all the understanding that I have of 2 Thesalonians. It would invalidate, for one thing, all those passages that I sited in my first post. There is certainly a great deception that people can and will believe, and there is greater in the future of mankind, before He comes again. I think this is just one of those areas where Mormon belief and Catholic belief are of a completely different framework. It is an essential point of the Christian faith that the New Covenant is of a different nature than the Old. The old covenant of law, was a relationship entirely dependent on adherence to that law, down to the finest detail. The New Covenant is a covenant of Love, and one that is unbreakable. Christ (God) is the groom and His bride is the Church. The two become one flesh and Christ will not and cannot divorce His bride. His bride, cannot and will not divorce Him. God has promised so repeatedly. The New Covenant is of a fundamentally different nature than the old. Christ's ministry, and His sealing of the marriage to His Church with His blood once and for all, cannot be broken.

BUT, baptism is a MORTAL ordinance. And it is required. In the Catholic doctrine, it is not necessary. Because, even if you are not baptized Catholic - such as Ghandi, or those aborted babies, you can still live with God. But, baptism IS required. It is not optional. And you can't perform baptisms in heaven.

I think you again, have seriously misunderstood Catholic belief. Baptism is certainly required for the called, but God can and does, save who he will save. Ironically, one of those Catholic teachings that is usually pilloried as far too harsh is, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, "outside of the Church, there is no salvation", i.e., only the baptised are saved. That is the only thing that Catholic dogma teaches definitely, for the unbaptised. So was Ghandi saved? Only God knows, but I suspect he was not. I suspect as a matter of private opinion, most Catholic theologians would say he was not, but they would also say that our obligation is to pray for him and leave it to God's mercy. No Catholic can re-write what Scripture plainly says...

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5.

Read Amos 8. It is clear there that God can choose to take it away if nobody is there to hear it. And there's something about not casting pearls before swine. Like I mentioned earlier, man has free will. He may need it the most, but that doesn't mean he is going to choose it.

Man yes, but not the Bride of Christ. Again, I think it is just a vast difference in the whole framework of thinking.

That doesn't make sense. Your post here is exactly what Catholics believe. So it's making it like you're arguing over Catholic doctrine as a Catholic. I'm getting confused. In the Catholic doctrine, people who are not baptized but led a good life or were still babies at death end up in the same heaven as the Catholics.

Not at all, as I explained in my first statement in this post. I think though that somewhere along the line, you failed to grasp this essential Catholic teaching. Those outside of the Church (baptism) may be saved, if God and God alone, mercifully chooses to do so, but baptism and the Church is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism. There is big, big difference between saying that, and what you are asserting that the Church believes.

There's no "you can join now or later". You act on your testimony (present in Catholic doctrine as well). If you gain the knowledge today and don't act on it, then it is on your head. If you don't gain the knowledge today, then you can't possibly act on that knowledge, therefore, what you do as a result of that lack of knowledge is not judged on the same level as if you would have gotten the knowledge today. If you had a testimony that Jesus is the Christ as a Catholic, you are expected to act on it. If you didn't, you will be judged according to that knowledge in the last days. If you are an Australian aborigine who has never heard of Christ, you can't be expected to "follow Him", but you are expected to follow the dictates of your own conscience, diligently seeking truth in all things. We are born with the Light of Christ - a conscience, if you will. The inherent knowledge of good versus evil without the benefit of instruction. Without instruction, the Australian aborigine will still have that light of Christ - the knowledge that he had the ability to act upon and that he will be judged over.

That learning, that knowledge doesn't end in death. Baptized or not, you continue to progress past death. Learning, ministering, aiding others (also present in Catholic doctrine). Baptism for the dead is not effective on the dead unless the dead chooses to accept it. He is still required to learn of Christ and accept Him as His Savior for his salvation. Just because some LDS guy baptized his dead grandmother doesn't save that grandmother - grandma still has to accept that baptism and make that covenant. Early in our marriage while I was devout Catholic, I asked my inactive LDS husband, "You must think I'm going to hell". And this is my husband's answer, "I have a bigger chance of ending up in hell than you". He had knowledge that he didn't act upon, whereas I acted fully on the knowledge that I had.

OK, that does clarify and make more sense to me. Again, thanks.

Therefore, God's removal of the Priesthood on earth, is not to punish us. It is mercy. Without the Priesthood on earth, people living around wickedness, strongly influenced by evil around them, cannot be judged in the same manner if they would have had the Priesthood imparting knowledge while they have to choose between embracing the gospel or getting killed for it.

OK, I accept that it is LDS belief, as I have nothing else to judge it by, but that again, would seem to turn the entire Incarnation, ministry of Christ on earth, and most importantly, His atonement on the cross, on it's head. Again, it certainly on it's face, would require me to abandon the whole scriptural assertion, of the Gospels.

See here, what puts the hiccup for you is that in this paragraph, Church for you is only the mortal part of it. If you put Church in the concept of eternal, this same paragraph holds true even with the Apostasy.

Again, I think somewhere along the line as a Catholic, you missed an essential teaching of the Church. To the contrary of your assertion here, I stated exactly the opposite earlier. The dogmatic belief of the Catholic Church is that it is One, both earthly, (the Church Militant), and heavenly, (the Church Triumphant). One bread, one body. The bride of Christ cannot be cut into.

And I will repeat again my very first words because maybe this will make it more understandable... remember, my first statement is that an understanding of pre-mortal existence is necessary in the understanding of the Apostasy for a Catholic.

The concept of pre-mortal existence addresses the hard-and-fast belief of the Catholic that the body and the spirit are created at birth. Catholics, therefore, has a harder time understanding the separation between the eternal spirit and the mortal body. Once a Catholic understands the concept of pre-mortal existence, it is then easier to understand the Apostasy because it is the exact same separation between the eternal Church to the mortal Church body. The death of the body doesn't kill the spirit. Both in human beings, and the Church of Christ.

Now, you don't have to believe the LDS doctrine to understand it. My intent on all these posts is not to make you agree with it. My intent is simply to make you understand how, as a Catholic to LDS convert, I was able to get past the Apostasy.

Well I do thank you for illuminating LDS belief on this matter. I don't agree with it but you have been kind to take the time and help educate me..and you have.

[The Apostasy]

Of course. And English is much easier to learn and to speak than Italian. Just ask any English speaker who has had to learn Italian.

Obviously "standard Christian theology" is easier for you to understand. You have grown up with it. In my view, LDS theology (if you care to call it that, though in the strict sense, there is no such thing) is astoundingly logical and surprisingly compact, lacking as it does many of the theological flourishes that other Christian religions have had to invent over the years to account for this or that perceived doctrinal deficiency. It is like drinking from a pure mountain stream. Those used to brackish or chlorinated water find the taste startling and strange, but once you get used to it, you can't go back.

Some languages are harder to learn then others, even for native speakers. It's a fact. That you say there is no such thing as such, as LDS theology, would give credence to my point. Without one set of grammatical rules, a language becomes exasperatingly difficult.

Of course, I disagree entirely in your assessment of Christian flourishes. Ironically, the lack of those in orthodox Christianity, was the precise quality that so attracted me to it. Like so many converts to Catholicism, reading the New Testament without edits and discovering the writings of the Early Church Fathers, was a primary thing that led me into the Catholic Church. Her essential dogma now, as it has always been, is consistent and timeless, since the day of Pentecost.

Now you will always be able to find a Catholic who is ignorant in the faith. I claim no expertise in the matter either, but there is always one unchanging font of what is the truth of faith and morals, that is easy to find for those who wish. My confusion with much of Mormon theology, is not that individual members seem to hold to so many different beliefs, or are unaware of so many others, but that even the prophets and leaders of the LDS church, seem to have so many varied beliefs. As I referenced with the thread on who exactly is being worship, there seems to be no one official LDS position (and some very high level, public disagreements) and on such a basic foundational question of one's religious faith. It is that polytheism (or henotheism, if you like) and complex LDS cosmology, that makes Mormon doctrine a bit more difficult to grasp than Italian.

[The Apostasy]

I don't mean to sound combative, btw, it's just the more I dig into Mormon theology, the more confusing it seems. I'm finding it very difficult to follow as I did when reading a discussion on another thread and me trying to discern if it is the Father that is worshipped, the Son, or the "Godhead" in total. I still don't know, but that is a different kettle of fish.

No offence, but standard Christian theology is much easier to understand. :)

[The Apostasy]

Sure. What about after?

After Christ, the gates of heaven are open to all who cooperate with His grace, through their faith.

The relationship is that WE chose Christ before we came to earth. Therefore, we became members of the church at that time. That's everybody who was ever born and is going to be born on this planet.

"We", as in all before they are born? If all, or the elect or whoever chooses Christ before they are born, then what does baptism do on earth? Who chooses baptism on earth, if they have already chosen Christ before they were born? Maybe I am misunderstanding you.

Okay. Let's suppose that the Catholic Church never went into Apostasy... Let's consider what the fate is for those who, after Jesus' resurrection, was born on earth, never heard of the Catholic Church, nor the name Jesus, nor were blessed with Priesthood power, then died.

How are they in any different fate than those who... if the Apostasy happened... were born within those apostate years and died before the gospel was restored?

That's what I've been trying to illustrate. Priesthood power being on earth or retained in heaven until such time that man is qualified to hold it on earth again does not really change the Plan of Salvation of God's people.

By that reasoning, what is the purpose of the visible Church on earth, at all then? If it does not really change the plan of salvation and as your example says, if the absence of the earthly priesthood is no contributor of the salvation that people may choose, then what is the purpose of the Church as an instrument of salvation to begin with? Why send missionaries out to convert to the LDS church, if there was no effect on the plan of salvation when the priesthood was absent for nearly 2,000 years? Why restore it, if it does not change the plan of salvation?

God does not force man to be righteous. He gives us free will to act and be acted upon. He does not leave us. We choose to leave Him. Our choices cannot put God's plan asunder. When man is rife with evil, as in the Dark Ages, He may remove Priesthood Authority from the earth and restore it when man is ready to hold it once more.

Well, I don't think man was any more rife with evil during the middle ages then any other time in the last 2,000 years. Indeed, if you want to see a time of evil, the 20th century is as bad as it gets. And why would God remove the priesthood, when in such an evil time, when man needed it the most? That is what the priesthood is for, to be ministers of Christ's grace in combating evil.

Just like we choose Jesus Christ in our pre-mortal existence, we may also choose to accept Jesus Christ's Atonement through baptism after death if we have not had the opportunity in life.

Again, if that is the case, then why worry about choosing the Church in this life? Surely after death when the veil is removed, even the hardest heart would choose heaven, and if not, then they obviously never would on earth either, no matter what. It would seem to make our necessity to cooperate with God's grace on earth, kinda' pointless. Not the desire that some may have, but the necessity that they must. I mean, I know lots of perfectly good people, who love their spouse and are faithful, who raise good children and care for them, who contribute to society and are decent, and who never go to church. Why convert them, as they don't need any visible earthly priesthood, do they?

2,000 years is just a number just like 6,000 years prior to Jesus' birth is also just a number. In the calendar of eternity, it's a drop in the bucket

Well if I'm getting this right, from the LDS perspective, there is no real difference as there is no change in the plan of salvation before Christ's life on earth than after it. If people chose Christ in a pre-mortal existence before being born in the days of the old convent, and they can chose Christ now before being born, or even choose Christ after death, then what was the point of Christ on earth, of His sacrifice on the cross at the time it happened, (seeing as one could chose Christ before Christ was even born.), or of working to convert people now? Indeed, why not just tell them, "you can join now, or you can join in the after life." Why not just tell them, "just stay a Buddhist and be righteous, it doesn't really matter anyway as you can always just decide after death."? Indeed, why tell them anything at all? Just take down their names and baptise them after their death.

No offence, but such a belief would require throwing out huge chunks of the bible. It would seem to make Christ's ministry on earth rather pointless as once the church disappeared shortly after His ascension, it changed nothing in the plan of salvation from before Christ's birth. Not to mention, it would mean that a terrible sinner here on earth may be baptised by someone a day after their death, and be accepted into the kingdom of heaven, but a baptised Mormon here on earth may through falling into lesser sin here before death, would be consigned to hell for eternity...or do they get another chance after they die? It just doesn't make any sense to me. But maybe I am just not getting it still.

This quote from Jason's link explains some of what I'm trying to say:

Actually, what it is translated even in the KJV is, 'until the end of time', the end of the earth, until He comes again. It is not a scripture that stands alone, as I posted earlier, the very words of Christ repeatedly promise that His Church will always be the foundation of truth, the pillar of fire, that the HS would reside within it on earth and hell never prevail against it, until He comes again. The Church is the bride of Christ as scripture says. The two become one. It is why there can be no apostasy of the Church, in heaven or on earth. One Church, one Bread, one Body of Christ.

[The Apostasy]

And that's what I'm saying. The difference is in the pre-mortal existence. I believe it is necessary to the understanding of the Great Apostasy by a Catholic. Because that little snippet gives a much wider viewpoint of the Catholic plan of salvation. It sweeps up the people who were born and died before Christ was born, the people who are born and died without ever hearing the name Jesus, and the people who are born and died without the presence of Priesthood authority on earth.

Also, in addition to pre-mortal existence is baptism for the dead. Those two go hand in hand.

If you remember from the Apostles Creed, Christ descended to the dead before His resurrection, and lifted up the just with Him into paradise, who had existed and died on earth, before His own death and reserection.

Because yes, the Church is to the living and the saving ordinances are to be performed in mortality. But without pre-mortal existence and baptism for the dead, all of these people's lives that I mentioned would make not much sense within the framework of the Church and Christ's Atonement. Hence, it becomes impossible to contemplate a Great Apostasy after Jesus Christ's resurrection.

I must not be understanding you. How does the pre-mortal existence make understanding the great apostasy possible? What exactly is the relationship?

But once it is understood then all those people - infants who die before they have a chance to be baptized, etc. etc. - all their paths are clear. They follow the same path that we, as a Church, do. The Church, therefore, is not only for those who have heard the gospel and repented and got baptized while living.

I'm still not understanding then, why despite all of Christ's admonitions that the Church would always be a pillar of fire and foundation of truth to those on earth, that the HS would reside within it and guide it on earth until He came again, always be the instrument of His wisdom, etc. (see my first post), that the Church, who was founded by Christ for it's urgent earthly mission, would then almost immediately disappear for nearly 2,000 years until it was restored? Leaving centuries and centuries of those in the dark, falling into apostasy and error, into the untruth, that Christ promised His Church would never happen. I may be missing something, but I am trying to get my head around the LDS view of why this would happen and more importantly from my perspective, why it is at such variance with what God's Sacred Word, seems to state in passage after passage of scripture.

[The Apostasy]

And as a Catholic to LDS convert, I went through this same exact logical pathway...

Once I understood pre-mortal existence, the word Church ceases to be just a mortal organization. So that when you say, "the Church would always be the instrument of God's truth and wisdom", it doesn't mean that the Church and her Priesthood authority is only present in mortality. And that, though Priesthood authority is not on earth, the Church of Christ lives as Jesus Christ lives by the authority of the Priesthood held by all of the valiant spirits. So that it is very true that no man can put the Church asunder. And that this Church does not cease to exist just because all Priesthood bearers alive today die before having had the opportunity to call the next generation of Priests. The Church lives on.

Of course, as a former Catholic, you know the Church is not simply the visible Church on earth. That is the 'Church Militant', the assembly of those living, there is also the 'Church Triumphant' in heaven. That is the point of the belief in the Communion of Saints. We are one Church, on earth and in heaven, one mystical Body of Christ. The purpose of the Church's mission however, is to the living, which is why it's disappearance on earth, worse, it's apostasy for almost 2,000 years, still makes little sense to me. I confess, I know little of LDS beliefs concerning pre-mortal existence, as well.

[The Apostasy]

As a Catholic, I have heard of this idea of a 'great apostasy', but of course, reject it. It raises several problems, but suffice it to say, that the greatest would be that the Word of God would be in error when Christ told His Church that the gates of hell would never prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), that the Holy Spirit would reside within the Church for eternity (John 14:16), that the Church would always be the instrument of God's truth and wisdom, (Eph. 3:10), that the Church is to be the "the pillar and foundation of truth" (1 Tim. 3:15), that the Church is the faithful bride of Christ and that marriage is indissoluble (Eph. 5:23–32,).

The idea of such an apostasy also raises the obvious question of what the purpose was of Christ's atonement if almost immediately after Pentecost, the Church would have effectively, disappeared from the known world for almost 2,000 years, leaving all who followed Him to wander in the darkness, century after century.

I'm not here to convert, but thought I would try to explain why Catholics may take a different view. As a Catholic convert, I was first attracted to and have remained so for over thirty years, to the consistent teaching of biblical Truth the Church has maintained, for 2,000 years.

[Limiting God]

I probably take it much further than the average Mormon and certainly much further than the Churches teaching. I do find that my point of view is much closer to many (so-called) "internet Mormons"

And yes the KJV is the official English version of the Bible the Church USES -- I personally dislike the archaic language of it and use modern versions for personal study/reading.

Thanks so much for your answer. It's one of those things that I thought I knew and had assumed, that as PC had offered, that it was more along the lines of relatively inconsequential differences. I knew that there was always a great hermeneutical difference in reading the texts, between LDS and conventional Christianity however.

[Limiting God]

On what do you base this upon? The fact the the Bible is old?

If God would have wanted to keep his message perfect and clear -- like many people assume -- then why wouldn't he have kept Prophets around all the time and in every region?

Why would he have 1 book that so many people argue about what it really means as His only guide for us if He made sure it contained the messages He wanted us to have?

Sorry, but I have never understood why people think the Bible is infallible or perfect or that God maintains it the way he wants it to be.

I haven't posted here in a bit but have been lurking. I thought I would ask though, does your view represent your personal opinion that is divergent from the LDS church's or is that accepted belief of the church? As PC posted, I have also read the "as far as it is translated correctly" from LDS sources but did not know how far that went. I would be pretty surprised if such interpretations meant that the LDS view is that destruction of the Amalekites was not called for by God. Is this so?

Is the LDS OT translations different regarding recorded events such as this? Don't you guys use the KJV of the bible?

[Cutest Kid]

When I had my first baby, I thought she was the most beautiful child to ever grace the earth. The first time I took her to have her photos done at JCPenney, I fully expected them to ask me to sign a modeling contract for her right then and there. I was shocked when they didn't.

Now I look at those pictures and she was a little bit funny looking, as all newborns are. Of course she's lovely now.

That really made me chuckle.

[Interpreting Scripture]

I have heard more than one LDS person criticize the Catholic Church for not translating the Bible into vernacular languages earlier. They accuse the Catholic clergy of centuries past of controlling what the people believe, and teaching them unscriptural doctrines, by keeping the people from reading the scriptures themselves, and offering only their "official" ecclesiastical interpretation of the scriptures. They talk about how important it is for people to be able to read the scriptures in their own language. To me, that implies allowing people to interpret the scriptures for themselves, and removing a barrier or layer of mediation between the ordinary person and God. It seems to me that the reason for translating the scriptures into the vernacular is so everybody can read them and see for themselves what they say, and have a more personal relationship with the scriptures and with God, rather than relying entirely on the mediation of a priestly caste.

1. That the Catholic Church did not allow, translations of the Bible into vernacular languages earlier, is a myth. One of those many popular myths of many non-Catholics that has no basis in fact....but will never die. The Church has never had a single official translation, but has endorsed and used many in numerous languages. In the West however, Latin is the language of the Church and so most translations were. In the East, Greek is more the standard and still the oldest translation of the whole bible that is still in use, the Septuagint. It has always allowed for translations into the vernacular but you need to keep in mind, until the invention of the printing press, books were extremely rare and of course, until the advent of universal education, the overwhelming majority of people in the West, could not read.

The Bible was printed in translations used by the Catholic Church, in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Armenian, Slav, Arabic, etc., etc., all long before the reformation. Even in the West, there were numerous translations in the vernacular. Remember the famed Gutenberg printing press that finally allowed books for all? The Gutenberg Bible in German? It was Catholic. Printed almost three decades before Martin Luther was even born. Where the truth lay that the "urban legend" gets wrong, is that the Church certainly did ban unauthorised versions of the Bible in Catholic jurisdictions.

2. Your main point though is one of authority. What is true is the heart of the difference between Catholics and Protestants. The central core issue which the "Reformation" was based on was sola scriptura, i.e., that each individual is their own authority in what the Bible says, and therefore, what is truth. The Catholic Church says that the magisterium (teaching authority) authority of the Church is the only legitimate authority for Christians in matters of faith & morals.

3. What I am curious about is what seems to be your assertion that the LDS church is more on the Protestant side of that divide. Are Mormons free to interpret scripture as they wish and remain members of the church in good standing?

[Free Will, Agency and Choice]

2. Catholic teachings: Nah, they taught what they still teach - what many religions teach. That God gets angry, is disappointed, saddened, punishing, vindictive ... the God of the Old Testament (not saying the True One doesn't make appearances). Hateful, insecure, confused, out of control, jealous, contentious - pits his 'other half' against man in fun (Job).... A God who's innerds are in humans. A God we are to fear and prostrate before. I said, "No, thanks. If I have to fear a God who *says* they love me, I'll pass. I can get that at home." A 'human' God didn't make the cut.

The God of the Old Testament is the God of the New. I think you are mischaracterising God's nature however, and erring in your personal interpretation of OT scripture. God is vengeful against evil, because He is just. Above all however, God is Love. It is the heart and core of my faith.

Then we have Christ who teaches Love, and only Love. That the Kingdom is Within - all we need to find the Way Out of the chaos, is within us. The evil (miscreated entity), the questioner, and the Guide. Have Guide, will travel.

For me, there was no marrying those two entities. Can't have it both ways. Hate one and love the other, or love one and hate the other - but not both.

But your problem then was not just a "Catholic" problem, but a Christian one. We cannot reject the God of the Old Covenant, because He is the God of the New as well. Christ did not come to destroy the Old Covenant, but fulfil it. God is love, even a God who destroys evil. Indeed, He is because He destroys evil.

And, to be honest, I was also, reluctantly, disappointed with Christ back then. To tell us the Holy Spirit was within - but failed to tell us how to Know, for ourselves - how to get to It. What was the point of dangling the carrot He knew we couldn't reach? I searched for a very long time - then gave up. Alcoholism stopped the questions, but brought a new hell.

Imagine my dumbfounding surprise when in AA, I read:

"...We found the Great Reality deep down within us. In the last analysis it is only there that He may be found. It was so with us." And many more 'clues' couched in terms of God that actually point to Within. I was back on the hunt. <s>

I would never tell anyone to give up on AA if that is helping you to stay sober and lead a better life, but the only thing inside of us that gives us Grace is that Christ that is external. We can never find salvation within ourselves. We can only say "yes" to the Holy Spirit and be changed within. To be holy is a process of cooperating with that grace to internalise it, to partake of Christ's nature, but as I said, take what you can from AA that helps you in your sobriety. I'm not trying to convert, just clarify and answer, concerning some of the things you stated.

3. Confession. Church told me to pray to God often about everything. That only God knew whether I was truly sorry for something. Then they tell me I have to confess my sins to a priest - who knows nothing about whether I'm sorry or not. And, worst of all, says, "By the power invested in me by God/The Church, *I* absolve you of your sins."

Well, nothing about it said 'logical', to me. And by 16, I'd already figured out that the priest was a man and not the 'holier than thou' person I was led to believe he was. It was a conundrum when I got to AA and saw the 5th Step. "What's Confession doing in AA?!" I tried and tried to figure out where my logic was in error. Couldn't find a flaw.

I don't know who may have led you to believe that about priests being "holier than thou", but I've met no priests who believe that. Of course, you meet all kinds so I'm sure they are about, but priests, from the pope to my parish priest, are just men, nothing more, and sinners all, and hopefully on the same journey to holiness that you and I are. As far as the sacrament of penance, you of course know, you confess to God. The priest is there to help facilitate that and give absolution, but he is not there to judge whether you are truly sorry. He is there as Christ's physician, to help facilitate your healing...

"Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the presbyters of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord. And the prayer of faith shall save the sick man: and the Lord shall raise him up: and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." John 5:14-15.

That is what the presbyters (priests) do in confession. That is what they do in the sacrament for the sick. That is their job, to facilitate God's healing.

If you are NOT truly contrite and honest in your confession, your confession is invalid, the priest's absolution is invalid. Just as if the priest wasn't there and you were lying only to God. You can't fool God, inside or outside of the the confessional. No priest has the power to absolve the unrepentant.

In the Bible, it says, "Confess to one another." That's AA, and is far different from transferring the Power of Forgiveness to another person rather than discovering for oneself that the Power/Grace is Within.

It isn't either/or. We should confess to one another, but the Bible also says that Christ's vicars were empowered by Him to forgive sin and that such would be binding in heaven as well as earth, (John 20:21-23.). We can't pick and choose from the Word of God. It's either true or it's nonsense.

It is impossible to 'get good enough' to deserve/be worthy to receive the Holy Spirit.

One cannot become Truly Good - without the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit was with me while I was living with grievous sin -

That is the whole point of God's ultimate act of Love. We need not be "good enough". We are not "good enough". And yet...

"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."-John 3:16.

God does not expect us to be "good enough", but He does expect us to be faithful. All of us, are called to be saints, but God knows that this life, is just a foreshadowing of that heavenly perfection. We will not know it fully here.

Gotta go - tornado warning for this county. Probably 'nuff said anyway. <g>

Best to All,

Pamela

Don't *believe* anything I say. Desire to Know, for yourself, if anything I say is true.

"You can only find Truth with logic if you've already found Truth without it." GK Chesterton

I know from what you have written that you have been on a rocky journey in life and I am not trying to debate you, but only help with (hopefully), some truth and light. God's blessings be with you in this life and the next. Pax Christi, and I will pray for you.

[HI everyone! New church member here]

Welcome, Brian!

[Free Will, Agency and Choice]

The nomenclature here can be very difficult. "Free will" has a specific meaning that comes out of the Calvinist/Armenian disagreement. Calvin said that God chooses who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. God is sovereign, and to suggest that we have the moral strength to choose for ourselves is to deny God's rightful authority. Armenians counter that God granted us free will, and we can accept or reject his grace.

I've come to understand that the LDS doctrine of Agency has more to it than that theological dispute. Joseph Smith seems to have clearly came down on the side of the Armenians though.

Palagius vs. St. Augustine. Most Protestants and many Catholics seem to forget....St. Augustine won that argument in the Church.

[Free Will, Agency and Choice]

I left the Catholic Church when I was 16 (tho completed 12 yrs parochial schooling). I left over the illogical concept of Confession as well as the contradiction between singing "God is Love" and hearing about the God who hated his creation and was angry all the time. (The stuff of many atheists and agnostics.) Today, I know better.

I'm very glad you have found sobriety and some spiritual peace, but very sorry to read this. All I can say is that you were very, very, poorly taught in that schooling as there is absolutely "0" in Catholic theology that states that God, hates His creation. That is deeply saddening and something I have not encountered in the slightest, in over thirty years as a practising Catholic. I mean, can one imagine the Franciscans "hating creation"? This was not really your fault, as you were just 16. The Church actually teaches...

"Because creation comes forth from God's goodness, it shares in that goodness - "And God saw that it was good. . . very good" for God willed creation as a gift addressed to man, an inheritance destined for and entrusted to him. On many occasions the Church has had to defend the goodness of creation, including that of the physical world." -Catechism of the Catholic Church.

...and as for confession...

"Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” John 20:21-23.

[Random questions]

A bacon sandwich doesn't quite capture the flavors that adding tomatoe and mayo to it can do.

Still, for me, it's all about the bacon.

[How is everybody doing?]

Welcome!

[New member]

Welcome! New here as well!

[Gospel of Jesus Christ - Easy or hard]

Part of the both the intent and extend in the definition of prodigal is the giving of gifts for which the benefit there is little or none. You may want to review the history and definition of prodigal - it does included the giving of gifts to those un-thankful and unworthy.

My answers may conflict with the doctrine you know so bear with me. Yes, it does refer to that, but we are all unworthy. Every one of us. We do not save ourselves. We are saved by God's free gift of Grace, in spit of ourselves. It is the unthankful who are dammed. The Father's true gift was not the wealth that was squandered, but the gift of forgiveness and love.

As far as the son being sinful - these are the words of the son to himself thinking that by so separating himself for the love of his father that he MIGHT be accepted back. The father never indicated any such thing.

Well, I hate to belabour the point but he didn't just think it to himself, he confessed it to his father (Luke 15:21). Are you saying that the son actually did NOT commit sin and so returned to his father to ask forgiveness for something he was not actually guilty of? Not simply wasteful spending and living, (which btw, is almost always sinful.), but having, "sinned against heaven and against you"? I think this is the heart of our disconnect. The classic meaning of the parable which I adhere to, is that no matter how grievous our sin and unworthiness, we need only to ask the Father contritely for forgiveness, and we will be born again.

Are you sure you meant to say a gift cannot be wasted? In the parable of the prodigal son - was that not the point of the son being prodigal and why we call him prodigal? This his "gift" from his father was wasted? The gift of G-d is to all man and is free - but do not some men wast the gift of G-d in the likeness of the prodigal son before his return?

No, I said that God's true gift cannot be wasted. God and God alone, decides who is saved and who is not and so gives the gifts of grace to accomplish all according to His divine will. This may be one of those points of irreconcilable religious difference. Only God makes the righteous. We can only cooperate with that will.

As to suffering - Do not the wicked suffer more than the righteous? How then is suffering a benefit if those that suffer most benefit least?

Because it matters whether that suffering is redemptive suffering or not. A heroin addict may suffer and in his suffering turn his hatred toward God. Another heroin addict may suffer equally and cry out, "Lord Jesus, save me!", and be given grace and healing. He may never have uttered that cry without the suffering. Think of the two men crucified next to Our Lord.

I believe the point is that the suffering of the righteous (as per the example of Jesus) is also a sacrifice and is done out of discipline over one's will to avoid suffering - which in reality is harmful. Thus sacrifice through discipline is the element the separates the suffering of the righteous to a benefit from the suffering of the wicked that only continues because there is no benefit to suffer without sacrifice - none - ever.

Your terminology is different than what I am used to but your point here, is one that I have agreed with. Suffering is not beneficial for it's own sake, but only when united with the Cross.

Hmmmm -- I am trying to understand why you make the above statement. The entire chapter of Luke 15 (that contains the parable of the prodigal son) is focused on the return of that which was lost.

I don't understand your confusion. The return of the lost and the feast that awaits. Hence...

it's main meaning is that God's forgiveness and love is unfathomable and endless.

Even if we have so sinned as the prodigal and turned our backs on God, so that we think we can never be forgiven....all that we need is to return to the Father with head bowed and ask for forgiveness with true contrition, and the fatted calf will be slaughtered for the banquet.

[Gospel of Jesus Christ - Easy or hard]

Desertknight – thank you for your thought. I believe if we only talk to individuals that we agree with – we will not learn. However there are two very important points that I think you have not considered in you view – or point of view.

Point 1: Prodigal does not mean sinful or rebellious even though such understanding is often attached to the term prodigal, most likely because of this parable and the evolution of traditional religious thinking. The term prodigal means wasteful, lavish and extravagant. We may define that as sinful because of the relationship we all think that prodigal has to pride but as much as we would press the issue it is in the full extension of meaning, border line sinful at best. In essence to exist in a mortal state makes us prodigal and unprofitable before G-d – Regardless of how pure or repentant we may attempt to live. Thus it could also be understood that G-d himself is prodigal and wasteful in the very redemption of man from his fallen state – because G-d will never nor can G-d ever be repaid and receive a “return” or profit from the investment made for mankind.

1. I agree! It is important to talk to people with differing views.

2. In the specific case of the prodigal son, it most definitely does refer to great sinning on his part...

"And the son said to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee, I am not now worthy to be called thy son." Luke 15:21.

3. I must disagree with you that God is "wasteful". God cannot sin and no true gift is a waste. That is where I believe your analogy is wrong. God did not "invest" in us. Our salvation is a free gift of His ultimate act of Love.

Point 2: I believe that you are attaching too much of the meaning that we should have to sacrifice to your meaning of suffering. It is very possible that suffering can have no point what-so-ever. Suffering has absolutely nothing to do with spiritual growth without sacrifice. Thus the point is not in suffering but in sacrifice. The net very point about sacrifice is that sacrifice itself is indirect and an outgrowth of something of greater essence – and that is discipline. Without discipline sacrifice cannot exist. It is interesting to me that Jesus called his followers that believe on him disciples – which has the same core concept as discipline.

Well, it has always been historically rendered as suffering, tribulation, because in passage after passage of the Holy Bible, that is how it is written...

"We boast in the hope of the glory of God. Not only so, but we also glory in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance;" Rom. 5:2-3.

Can suffering have no point? Most certainly and tragically, when we fail to use it as God intends.

You indicate that you believe the parable of the Prodigal Son is more about the Father than the son – and thus I think you miss the focus that Jesus gave to the parable. The concept is that the younger son became disciplined – even more so than the older brother and if we are not careful we will lose this focus that Jesus intended. The older brother lost nothing but the reason the father rejoiced in the younger over the older is because the younger achieved a greater discipline.

If that is true, Sacred Scripture makes no mention of it. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that I can't go beyond what Sacred Scripture has written. I think like all great biblical parables, it probably has meanings that I have yet to explore, but for me, it's main meaning is that God's forgiveness and love is unfathomable and endless. We need only to respond.

[Gospel of Jesus Christ - Easy or hard]

It seems to me that desertknight is correct in his view about suffering. Without suffering you can not grow to your full potential. Suffering does not have to be associated with a prodigal. As you know, all members of the church even active, suffer greatly. We all endure trials. That is the meaning of bearing our cross and the nails.

As far as sacrifice, that is also a type of suffering. Maybe we are all meaning the same thing just using different words. Sacrifice just seems to be a Latter-day Saint word for suffering. To me if I lost a child the better word would be suffering and not sacrificing. Saying it is sacrifice is also a better way to look at it then suffering.

Exactly, which is also my point that we all suffer, whether we live for one minute, or 90 years. It is a condition of life since the Fall of Man. Can a baby use suffering? Well, probably not, but that most of us can and should use suffering, does not cover every person, explain how each of us suffer or whether we are given enough life to use that experience. It is each our own private cross to bear, but bear them we must.

[An Acceptable Prejudice?]

Here's an essay that you might like to read. Here's an excerpt:

When I first moved to Pocatello, I lived in a cul de sac and seven of my nine neighbors belonged to the LDS Church. Nobody tried to convert me. They invited me to church picnics – no pressure. My next-door neighbor spent nearly two hours one weekday morning (he was late to work) helping me restore my snow blower to life after five years in the humid South. Another helped flush and fix my sprinkler system. A third returned my dogs after they’d escaped. Several just showed up with family members to help me move in. A fourth one tossed me the keys to his Cadillac after the transmission in my Suburban disassembled on my driveway. "Bring it back when you don’t need it anymore," he said.

Essay about prejudice in academe against Mormons | Inside Higher Ed

M.

This paragraph you posted here, has been my experience as a non-Mormon, living among Mormon neighbours for many happy years. I still live in a predominately LDS area of the country.

For what it's worth, concerning the luncheon with a bevy of liberal academics, they don't just think Mormonism is a dangerous cult, they think all of Christianity is a dangerous cult.