faith4
-
Posts
165 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Posts posted by faith4
-
-
There's Catholic Answers Forum. I got banned from there. One of CAF's favorite past times is to bash LDS. It got quite vicious so I tried to do the "Catholic to LDS bridging" that you've seen me do here a lot... the admins called it proselyting and banned me. If lds.net was run like CAF, blueskye and myself would have been banned from here long time ago.
I'm sorry you were banned! Was your name anatess on their site as well? I go there every now and then, but any threads to do with the LDS are on a separate forum for different religions to have discussions, and although those threads can get heated, I've rarely seen anyone banned (and that includes all different religions chiming in and getting a bit angry). But perhaps I don't go often enough to notice. I'm certainly not a regular here or there.
However, I really don't notice a difference between these forums and CAF. I've seen plenty of heated replies from every side and blatant disrespect for others beliefs here as well (I know I've been guilty of some of those things too, so I'm NOT pointing fingers). And just like you may view non-LDS coming to "bash" your beliefs, it happens there as well with non-Catholics coming to "bash" our beliefs (including LDS members who are ex-Catholic). It happens everywhere religion is discussed, no matter the religion, not matter the forum. I'm not trying to say CAF is better, or start a forum argument, I'm just relaying my experiences of both forums.
As a Catholic member of this site, I come here to understand my neighbors better, who are predominately LDS. Sometimes I have questions I would like to ask, but it's just too tricky to do face-to-face, so I come here and find answers to my questions from a LDS perspective, I see nothing wrong with that. There have been times I have felt welcome here, and many times I have not, yet I still come every now and then b/c I understand that this is a better place to go for answers to LDS questions, than on a non-LDS site.
-
I've come to the conclusion that parenting is a constant mixture of trial-n-error and re-adjustment. I hated the newborn stage, it's the one stage I'm totally not looking forward with round 2, but I'm loving the toddler stage. My daughter is an only child, as of now, and is efficient at keeping herself busy - not mindlessly busy - she gets creative and you can see the wheels turning. But there's days when she needs or wants more attention then I feel able to give at that time, especially, at certain times - like prepping dinner or when I'm in the middle of cleaning, etc.
I never liked the newborn stage either, so exhausting. But the good news is it doesn't last long. With they 4th baby, I learned to really enjoy every minute b/c I knew it would be over too soon. Good luck with your 2nd!!
-
It just takes some time and patience, same as any other change of pace in a families schedule. I actually enjoy summer vacation with my boys, I agree with Anatess that it's a time to just let them be kids and have some fun, get rid of any strict schedules (except for church of course). Don't worry about the house staying clean, or about keeping her occupied every minute of the day. If she gets bored, allow her to figure out what she can do to pass the time on her own, it's good for kids to experience boredom and then think of ways to not be bored. And Anatess, I have 4 boys...a lot more wrestling and fighting, but they tend to figure it out pretty fast
-
No! As much as I love ice cream, that sounds painful!
Have you ever made a prank call?
-
Well, unless you consider LDS non-Christian... the LDS Church has not changed their views on contraception as far as I know - even before the invention of artificial means of contraception. It has never been deemed immoral depending on the intent of why someone would prevent pregnancy... even as far back as the early 1900's, church leaders have always taught that having children should not be delayed for selfish reasons. But, they do not say you cannot use contraception because - they also say that it's okay to use contraception for non-selfish reasons like... say, you fear you have a genetic defect that will cause injury to the offspring.
I don't know, even a cursory search of this topic brings up several quotes from prominent members (prophets etc) in your church denouncing contraception and limiting the size of families, which is against the command of God to multiply and replenish the earth. Planning a family in and of itself is not immoral, that is something both churches agree on, it's just the method of how that planning goes about. The Catholic Church does not teach it's immoral to responsibly plan your family, like your church, using natural methods. My husband and I have been married 11 years and have 4 children. We aren't considered immoral for not having 8 children by now, and we choose to use NFP to plan when we are ready to have our children, and this is right in line with Catholic teaching, and most likely with yours as well.
Here are some quotes that I've found, though they are out of context, they seem pretty clear on the subject. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding what these men are saying.
“The Church has always advised against birth control and that is the only position the Church can take in view of our beliefs with respect to the eternity of the marriage covenant and the purpose of this divine relationship.”
- Apostle Hugh B. Brown, The Way of the Master, pp. 114
“[W]e declare it is a grievous sin before God to adopt restrictive measures in disobedience to God's divine command from the beginning of time to ‘multiply and replenish the earth.’ Surely those who project such measures to prevent life or to destroy life before or after birth will reap the whirlwind of God's retribution, for God will not be mocked.”
- Prophet Harold B. Lee, Conference Report, October 1972, p. 63
“Presidents of Stakes, Bishops of Wards, and Presidents of Missions
Dear Brethren:
The First Presidency is being asked from time to time as to what the attitude of the Church is regarding birth control. In order that you may be informed on this subject and that you may be prepared to convey the proper information to the members of the Church under your jurisdiction, we have decided to give you the following statement:
We seriously should regret that there should exist a sentiment or feeling among any members of the Church to curtail the birth of their children. We have been commanded to multiply and replenish the earth that we may have joy and rejoicing in our posterity.
Where husband and wife enjoy health and vigor and are free from impurities that would be entailed upon their posterity, it is contrary to the teachings of the Church artificially to curtail or prevent the birth of children. We believe that those who practice birth control will reap disappointment by and by.
However, we feel that men must be considerate of their wives who bear the greater responsibility not only of bearing children, but of caring for them through childhood. To this end the mother's health and strength should be conserved and the husband's consideration for his wife is his first duty, and self control a dominant factor in all their relationships.
It is our further feeling that married couples should seek inspiration and wisdom from the Lord that they may exercise discretion in solving their marital problems, and that they may be permitted to rear their children in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.”
- First Presidency (David O. McKay, Hugh B. Brown, N. Eldon Tanner ), The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Office of the First Presidency, April 14, 1969
“The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father's children. We know that every spirit assigned to this earth will come, whether through us or someone else. There are couples in the Church who think they are getting along just fine with their limited families but who will someday suffer the pains of remorse when they meet the spirits that might have been part of their posterity.”
- Prophet Ezra Taft Benson, Conference Report, April 1969, p. 12
-
Back to the OP, if this question, "is contraception immoral", had been asked prior to 1930, the answer would've been an emphatic 'yes' from every Christian denomination. At the Lambeth Conference in 1930, the Anglican faith was the first to allow contraception in limited circumstances. After that, most denominations began to allow its use among married persons.
The only exception now, of course, is the Catholic Church. Everyone expected the Church to also change its stance on contraception, but with the release of Humane Vitae in 1968, Pope Paul VI did not change, but rather upheld the Church's stance. This document is now considered prophetic.
For those who would like to actually read Humanae Vitae, here's a link http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
-
There are as many different ways and forms to pray, as there are people. Prayer is a way of conversing with our Father, doing our best to grow closer to Him and accept and live out His Divine Will in our lives. I pray through action, by offering up every day and chores (this is where it varies from person to person, we are called to fulfill different roles). This type of prayer glorifies Him, since I am joyfully doing what He has made me to do. I also pray through meditation (rosary, which is a long prayer meditating on life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus. This is only one example of meditative prayer), and contemplation (when I read the Bible or other theology books). The Mass is a prayer of worship, which I do every Sunday, and can also participate in daily by going to daily Mass if I'm able.
I also pray asking for guidance in His Will, and He has answered me in some truly remarkable ways :) So, yes, I also pray for answers!
-
Yep :) I've attended several different faith services, including LDS.
Have you ever tried to do an old trick (such as a cartwheel) to show off for your kids, and then seriously hurt yourself?
-
There is a push to offer Latin. I know my father's congregation has Latin masses.
I like going to mass still. I attend when visiting family. I like to go at Christmas, when LDS don't have a special service unless it happens on Sunday.
I've been to one Latin Mass, and it was quite beautiful. Pkstpaul, have you been to a Christmas midnight Mass?
-
If he is as traditional as you say, I guess time will tell.
I agree with you about the media. Does it bother you though that he -Is- so popular with them (the liberal media)?
In afterthought, I thought my original post was a bit testy; so thank you for your gracious reply.
Yes, time will tell.
As far as the media goes, it does bother me a tiny bit that they keep making him out to be a hero to the liberal cause, but at the same time I wonder if this is what is what like when Paul VI was Pope and the world was waiting for him to change the Church's stance on contraception...and when he didn't, it caused many Catholics to leave the Church. I figure something like that might be right around the corner when the Pope doesn't say what the media expects him to say.
-
It's funny about Catholics and Mormons. We homeschool, and my family members have found themselves inexorably drawn toward a couple of large Catholic families who homeschool. Despite obvious doctrinal differences, there seems to be a common "feel" in some ways that Mormon and Catholic families both seem to exude.
I couldn't agree more! Our family fits right in with all the LDS families in our neighborhood (about 90% LDS in my area). I trust them with my kids, and I know they trust me with theirs, I love how easy the kids can go from house to house and play with no worry :)
And I want to add, that through open and honest discussions with really close LDS friends, my family and I have managed to become stronger in our faith, while they have become stronger in theirs, regardless of the doctrinal differences. There is such a wonderful, positive energy that comes with meeting others who have a strongly lived faith. You can't help but lift each other spiritually, it's quite beautiful.
- CatholicLady and pkstpaul
-
2
-
I haven't...but HYE laughed so hard while drinking something, that it came out your nose?
-
My husband and I are taking our first trip to Italy together in May (my first time out of the country!), we're planning on adding a 5th baby to the family, and as of August of this year, all 4 of my boys will be in school (well the 4 year old will only be in for for half a school day, but still...) and I'll have the mornings to myself! (At least until #5 arrives
)- Palerider and Roseslipper
-
2
-
a minor point, but such an important one -- He is not perpetually offering Himself on the altar, standing before God - but this He did once, perfectly and sufficiently for all time, and is now enthroned at the right hand of the Father:
But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, and since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool. For by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.
(Hebrews 10:12-14)
with this we know that the work of the cross is complete, finished, and atonement being made perfect, there is no more condemnation for those who are in Him, and there is no more sacrifice that can be made for any who having received Him, turn and reject Him -- the office of 'high priest' (with the meaning of the one who makes atonement at the mercy seat) is fulfilled for all time by one perfect act.
in Him we are being made holy (as we experience things for now only in part), and are (justified and sanctified) made perfect in the sight of the Father, who knowing all things from everlasting to everlasting, sees all things in their fullness.
how great this undeserved gift!!! how perfect His work!!
I couldn't agree more!!
-
Actually, faith4, as far as I understand things, I agree with all you've written, and I appreciate the concise summary. My point in my "irrelevant" (i.e. inconclusive) comment was regarding the OP's question:
Your highly informative answer nevertheless did not address the actual question, which was my point. No criticism of your posts was intended.
No worries, I wasn't trying to answer the OP, I was just clarifying your post :)
-
Much of what you write is true. But it is irrelevant what the Hebrew term for "high priest" might have meant at the time. Or to be more precise, it's relevant but not conclusive. "High priest" has other meanings today, which is the point.
Note that Melchizedek was indeed called kohen, and in fact is (chronologically speaking) the first person to hold that title. The book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that the Priesthood after the order of Melchizedek, the selfsame Priesthood held by Jesus, supersedes that given to Levi and Aaron.
Yes, the Melchizedek Priesthood does supersede the Levitical priesthood because Jesus was (and is) both King and Priest :) . In His time, a Jewish man could not be both King and Priest, the tribes for both of them were separated, yet Jesus brought them together in His Person, as Psalm 110:4 promises (Heb. 7-8).
And the information of High Priest is very relevant and conclusive. The High Priest was set apart, specially consecrated for his duties in the Temple. He was the only one who could enter the Holy of Holies and look upon the ark of the covenant while making atonement for Israel. Where is Jesus now? He stands before God the Father in heaven, the original Holy of Holies, not made by human hands. What was in the Temple in Jerusalem was merely a shadow of something far greater. Jesus is our High Priest who stands before the throne of God, offering Himself as atonement for ALL our sins.
"But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing
through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging
to this creation, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and
calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption" Heb 9:11-12
"For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a copy of the true one, but heaven
itself, that he might now appear before God on our behalf" Heb 9:24
Idk, He is the High Priest of the New Covenant, always offering Himself. But I guess in your church the term doesn't have the same meaning, so maybe this info is irrelevant.
-
"High priest" has various meanings. The lead priest in the Levitical order was called the "high" priest. Though he held the Levitical Priesthood, which is basically what we Latter-day Saints would call the Aaronic Priesthood, still he held the title of high priest because he was the one in charge. Similarly, in Christ's day, the main priest was referred to as the "high priest". In this sense, of course, Jesus is always the great and ultimate "high priest"; the Priesthood is his.
In the OT, the High Priest did not have various meanings, it referred to one person, who was a descendant of Aaron. After the Babylonian captivity, the office of High Priest was used as a political pawn and did not stay with his descendants, but remained within the Levite tribe. The Hebrew word for "priest" is kohen, which means one who offers sacrifice, and that was the job of the priests. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, once a year on the Day of Atonement, to atone for the sins of all Israel for the year.
When Christ was crucified, the cross became the altar on which he offered Himself as the perfect sacrifice. At the moment of His death, the veil in the Temple was torn in half from top to bottom signifying that the High Priesthood of Christ fulfills and surpasses the High Priesthood of the Old Covenant. He is the High Priest of the New Covenant, instituted at the Last Supper, and stands at the right hand of the Father interceding on our behalf until He comes as the Just Judge, and puts the last enemey (death) under his feet.
Jesus' Priesthood is in the order of Melchizedek b/c He is both King and Priest. King by being a descendant of David, and Priest by His sacrificial offering of Himself to the Father. Jesus was never a priest in the earthly Temple of Jerusalem, He was not of the Levite tribe, but of Judah (David). We get the name Melchizedek from a mysterious figure in the OT who helps Abraham. We know he was both king and priest (Gen 14:18), and as priest, he offered a sacrificial offering of bread and wine, not an animal sacrifice. Melchizedek forshadows the priesthood of Christ, and Psalm 110 promises that the one to come will be both king and priest in the manner of Melchizedek.
-
Dear John, God loves you more than you could possibly comprehend! He loves all of us so much, He sent His Son to us to atone for our sins by offering Himself up and dying a cruel death. God sends all of us little signs of His love constanly, most of the time we simply don't notice them. Allow yourself to open up to Him like a child, earnestly and humbly seek to know Him more, and pray constantly throughout your day. In faith, learn to love Him and His creation and you will begin to see how He's been by your side your whole life, offering you His love.
Eternal God, in whom mercy is endless, and the treasury of compassion inexhaustible, look kindly upon us, and increase your mercy in us, that in difficult moments, we might not despair, nor become despondent, but with great confidence, submit ourselves to Your holy will, which is Love and Mercy Itself. Amen - St. Faustina
-
In the road
-
Please remember that I did not say it, Brigham Young did. The question at hand is, what did he mean by it? Was Brigham Young so out of touch that he did not realize that difficulties are part of life? Did he not see that sorrow was part of our experience and "cannot be avoided"? Or is there something more that he saw that others did not? Here is an important point, "sorrow to you can exist only in your own hearts". I submit that until external circumstances do not effect our peace of mind we will forever be unhappy.
The absence of sorrow is not necessarily happiness. Yes there are many moments of happiness and joy but there are times when we simply feel peace. Peace is the promise of the gospel in this life, not always happiness. In the midst of the most difficult circumstances of this life a true Saint can look deep in his or her heart and they will not find sorrow, they will find a deep and inviting peace. Yes, in the world the storms will rage but in our hearts there will be a calm. To quote Elder Holland, "There certainly can and will be plenty of external difficulties in life. Nevertheless the soul that comes unto Christ dwells within a personal fortress, a veritable palace of perfect peace" ("Come Unto Me", BYU Fireside, March 2, 1997, italics mine).
Why are you so quick to concede that we must feel sorrow in this life? The gospel over and over again promises peace and rest. Of course we cannot suppose this means that all external challenges are over. But when will we learn that external difficulties do not determine our inner state? Let me give you Elder Holland one more time. He first quotes Christ's words, "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, either let it be afraid." He then offers this:
The peace of the Lord dwells in the hearts of the humble and righteous. It is simply a fact. Sorry to throw out another quote, but read President Monson's words:
Did you catch it? He will stand buy us, he is with us! What challenge can we not face.
Again, we definitely can face difficult circumstances but we do not need to feel sorrow in our hearts. Nor do we need to be troubled or worried. This truth is at the very heart of the gospel. When all these difficult external circumstances surround us we can find peace. And when we find this peace we will have entered into the rest of the Lord. A place reserved for the faithful. A place where all worries and all sorrows cannot enter in.
Your reply describes what I meant by using our sorrows to lift us up to sainthood. By having a deep and abiding faith, sorrow can never overcome us, and it is through this means of turning to God in our times of need, that we are refined and made stronger in our faith. And yes, I realize Young said this, not you :)
But sorrow does exist, and it can exist in our hearts, especially when a child dies suddenly. Although I have faith, and I'm sure her parents and family have a deep faith, it still hurts, and it will take a while for the family to grieve through their sorrow. I'm sure this Chistmas will be very difficult, as will her birthday, which according to the obituary, was to be this October. The possibility for sorrow to overcome any one of her family members is real, especially if an extended family member does not believe in God. But the good that God can make from this, is to bring those non-practicing members, into belief. We never know what will happen, but with faith, we know that we can always turn to our Father, and trust in Him. (I would also mention that many of the children at school who knew her, are having difficulty with her death, for some, this is the first time someone they knew died, especially a friend. Is this not sorrow for these children who are trying to cope now with the reality of death?)
Joy is wonderful, and with faith, can fill our lives with light, but sorrowful events will happen, and it is up to us to accept this, and to deepen our faith so that when these things do happen, we are more prepared to turn to our Father and allow Him to comfort us. I guess I just didn't agree w/how Young made that statement, that you can't find a single Saint who experienced sorrow, b/c they did (it is simply a part of our human nature. Jesus felt it, Mary felt it, all the Apostles felt it,etc.). Sorrow is sorrow, it is what it is, and by its nature, affects the heart. Jesus showed us, by His life, how to act in times of sorrow, by loving and forgiving those who hurt us, and trusting in God goodness and fidelity.
I have felt the peace of Jesus, and I have this peace within me now, it is stunning in its beauty, and remarkable in the breadth and width of the true freedom it gives! One of my favorite Bible verses, which so aptly describes this for me is Romans 8:31-39.
Your quote of Elder Holland ("There certainly can and will be plenty of external difficulties in life. Nevertheless the soul that comes unto Christ dwells within a personal fortress, a veritable palace of perfect peace"), reminds me of the book Interior Castle by Teresa of Avila, a Spanish mystic, written in 1577.
-
must not look
-
Here is how Brigham Young put it, "You need not expect to see sorrow, unless your own conduct, conversation, and acts bring it to your hearts. Do you not know that sorrow to you can exist only in your own hearts? ...You never saw a true Saint in the world that had sorrow, neither can you find one" (JD 6:40-41).
Although I agree w/most of what you wrote, I couldn't disagree more than with the part in bold. All of our experiences as humans, including sorrow, can be used to lift us up to sainthood. Of the thousands of saints throughout history, sorrow was always a part of their life, b/c they were all human, there is no way to avoid sorrow in this life. However, it's how Saints have chosen to handle sorrow, that have made them Saints. I guess as a simple example, Jesus wasn't exaclty joyful while he was being scourged and crucified. His mother, Mary, wasn't exactly joyful & happy as she watched her son carry his cross and continually fall. I'm sure those weren't happy tears falling from her eyes as He was crucified and hung their dying for 3 hours. But she trusted in God, knowing that He would make good come of this unhappy time, even if she didn't quite understand what that was yet. Little did any of them know (Apostles and other followers), that it was through this great sorrowful trial and death, that the greatest graces would flow to all. That this is what is meant to love and trust in God, our Father, without holding anything back, even if it's our very life. What makes a saint, a Saint, is being able to lift up our sorrows (when they come) to God, and trust in Him that good will come of it, even if we don't understand what good that could be yet. So when something sorrowful happens to us (b/c it will), rather than force joy and happiness out of ourselves to try and ignore it, we should recognize it for what it is, and offer it to God, so that we are made stronger through our trials. It is through these that we are refined!
Just last week, a 2nd grade girl from my kids school, died in a car accident. Just terrible for such a young life to be lost so suddenly. Her family is LDS, and I would bet that they would disagree w/this statement as well, b/c I'm sure their hearts are full of sorrow right now at the loss of their daughter, yet they are faithful mormons. Can they no longer be saints b/c of their deep sorrow and grief? Should they try to hide their sorrow and joyfully move on with their life? What will make them saints is how they handle this sorrow, whether allowing it to refine them as they turn to God for comfort & healing, or allowing it to make them bitter and angry, blaming God for not saving their daughter. Our sorrows are our greatest tests in life.
So I wouldn't consider anyone a Saint, unless they've experienced sorrow in their life, and overcame it through their greater love of God.
-
fishing pole
-
I couldn’t agree more with this statement, but if i may. What leads to feeling Gods love? notquiteperfect mentioned that gratitude is essential for happiness, and I couldn’t agree more. I believe that expressing gratitude invites Gods love into our life. What other attributes invite gods love?
By God's grace, it is a gift! Not everyone will receive this gift the same way, or even understand what it is. Gratitude is a good way to recognize our blessings, but it is still not the ultimate means to happiness. A person can think to themself on a hot day, "I'm sure glad this car has air conditioning!", and yet be struggling with depression. Sure, they can be grateful that they aren't driving in a hot car, but that doesn't mean they are happy and satisfied with their life.
Gratitude, I believe, is a fruit of Love, but not the means of finding happiness and staying happy. (Especially if they were grateful for their home, but yet lost their home during the recession. Their happiness through gratitude was relying on a material good). God's Love is not a material good we can purchase at a store, it is a free gift offered to all.
"You have made us for youself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you" St. Augustine.
Resigning from the Church
in Learn about The Church of Jesus Christ Of Latter-day Saints
Posted
Hmmm...there aren't many LDS threads anymore, there are a few, but the majority of "bashing" comes from ex-LDS members (but to be completely fair, not all the LDS site members are respectful either...in short it's not a pretty view from either side). If a question is too antagonistic, I've seen several Catholics actually defend our LDS site members, just as every now and then I see some LDS defend Catholics on this site. No single religion is immune to this behavior, we are all human after all , and we are all passionate about our beliefs...sometimes we all just suck at having a peaceful discussion
And I'm guessing that the increase in LDS threads was due to Romney running for President that year. There was probably alot of curiosity about his beliefs, and once a topic gets heated and carried away, it can be hard to put out (including here on these forums).