blueskye

Nuts, oranges, small accessories that go with the main gift under the tree. Small stuffed animals or other small toys. Money: unusual coins, like Sacagawea dollars, for younger kids. New crisp bills for adults and almost adults.

I am not approaching via right/wrong but providing comparisons. I'm not claiming to be The Expert. But with that, I'll just bow out of the conversation. :)

Well, if I'm going to be called our for expressing what I understand as LDS belief, then I don't think you can use the Judaic view of Christianity as an argument. More precisely, their argument is based on viewing the Trinity as an expression of multiple Gods, when that is not the Christian belief. However, I argue that is not the same argument I'm making against the LDS view of God, in that the LDS church teaches an explicit plurality of Gods. Apples and oranges.God created us fated, indeed, for Himself. We have the freedom to go against God. There are modern philosophical discussions available, on being both fated and free. Comparitively, if I may, the Catholic view is that a choice made against God, i.e. Sin, is an illicit exercise of free will. While my understanding of the LDS view is that all choices, even those against God, are a licit exercise of free will. Other than that, I don't get the idea you understand the Christian view of God. So, yes, we are at an impasse. Pagans, atheists, LDS, all reject the Triune God of Christianity, and it is a valid point. There is nothing illogical about the comparison, especially when the exact same arguments are used by the very different groups. The point being, if you support and love the God who you worship, you don't make and find arguments against the God who you worship at websites and forums that claim to love the God who is being worshipped! That point has never been addressed. Just claims of "we love the same God". When the evidence contradicts that statement quite thoroughly. That is the illogical claim being made! "We love the same God" but by the way, saying out of the other side of ones mouth, "the Holy Trinity is false doctrine". I don't know how you expect someone who worships the Triune God of Christianity to react to such a contradiction.

Ex nihilo is used in the philosophical/theological argument of the unmoved mover, which, most certainly is argued against by atheists. Ex nihilo nihil fit is the atheist argument against ex nihilo. See any atheistic argument against St, Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theoligica. LDS make the same arguments against both ex nihilism and the unmoved mover. LDS of course replace Chriatian theology with another religious view, while atheists don't replace. Free will is not the same as predestination, though I agree I have come across more than one LDS who make this argument. It is of course a straw man. An argument against something that is not taught or believed. 1. Jesus Christ fulfills both the law and the prophets, which were given to the chosen people of God. In the Revelation of Jesus Christ, the Son is revealed by the Father, and the Father and the Son reveal the Holy Spirit. God has revealed Himself as One, and also Three. Jesus Christ is THE Christian Revelation, which obviously is not accepted by non-converted Jews. We worship the same God, one does not believe that Jesus is God. But your argument is a red herring and also a tu quoque response. 2. I can say John is nice, has red hair and smokes cigarettes, You might say he's a mean SOB who quit smoking years ago, and has gray hair. That is not my argument. We're discussing the nature of God, not the description of God. It's more like I'm saying John is a human and you're saying John is a frog. But to clarify, Christian teaching is that God does not have a species, so I hope you can see how there is a ontological difference being discussed, and not one of general appearance or habits. I acknowledge the similarities. But, LDS are far from the Jewish understanding of the nature of God. Which is, One, not plural, they having left the pagan idea of "gods", so-called, behind millennia ago. The plurality of Gods is a regression, to a point from which God has already led Israel out from. The Jewish understanding of God is that God is Spirit, is unseen, and is the Creator of all things. Again, an ontological difference to LDS teaching. That being said, it is Catholic teaching that all people worship God according to their understanding. So there is a tension between the commonalities of all religions, and the differences that set them apart from each other. I read many LDS sourced discussions and talks from LDS leaders, that teach against the Triune God of Christianity. Some mocking our God. So while yes, it would be nice to say we worship the same God, by the words and attitude towards the God we worship, I'd say it is LDS who make the arguments for themselves. That the God you are worshipping is not our God.

I said, both do not love "our God", by which I meant, the Holy Trinity, Who is the God that Christians worship. Just read any LDS thread, or atheist discussion on the God of Christianity. Often the arguments are in the same vein, if not exactly the same. One example in this thread, is the argument that the doctrine of ex nihilo is proof for a God that is immoral (a monster). I've read both atheist and Mormon arguments that make this point. Christians don't believe our God is immoral, or a monster. Would any LDS say they love our God, who they believe is an immoral monster? (I don't think so.) At any rate, I think LDS view the Trinity as an abstraction, and view arguments against the Trinity as scholarly in nature. Like a St. Thomas Aquinas, but providing arguments in the negative. I just think there should be an understanding that if one's position is arguing against a God (any so-called God), then one does not love that God. ie, I can make arguments against polytheistic beliefs, such as found in Hinduism and indigenous religions, but I'm not going to simultaneously claim I love Ganesh. It is illogical to stake a simultaneous claim to both an argument in the negative and a positive affection. Our God is not an abstraction to us, and our belief of what God has revealed about Himself is what we understand about the God who we worship. That is WHO we worship. LDS are very against accepting our God. I don't think it is out of line to say, one does not reject a God who one loves.

Why not? You seem to be coming from a position that God, by virtue of creating you, owes you something. God owes you nothing. You owe Him, everything.

Atheists make arguments against the God who Christians worship. Mormons make the same arguments against our God. Neither, love our God. Belief, or not, has got nothing to do with it.

Yes, also is an atheist view.

God also created us free, as rational beings, with the ability to reason and make choices.

This is a view that reflects a trend in our society, that view being, it is better to not be born at all than to suffer. And, it is better to die than to suffer. I don't share this view. God created us destined for Himself. Twisting this gift as something not of value, is diabolical in nature. I hope you understand, these types of arguments come from those who do not love God.

The conversation implied I had some great sin to confess for which I would be excommunicated! I don't think so!

This is a friend from the old neighborhood as well. High school, bleh. My graduating class had 1400 people. There's a FB group for my high school. The yearbook has been useful to put the old faces to the young faces.

A lot of begging the question! Is hell a created place? Maybe? Theologically, hell is an absence of God. It is simply logic, that if one is not in heaven, in the presence of God, then one is in a state where God is absent. Free will is given to us in order that we may live God freely. Love that is forced, is not love. This argument that God should force everyone to love Him is always odd to me. What is monstrous about allowing a person to love someone? Choosing to not love God, is a choice made and therefore hell is a choice that is made. God does not send anyone to hell, it is what a person chooses, Where do you get the idea most people will go to hell? It is not an orthodox teaching. Calvinism is not orthodox.

Angels were created before humans, so do pre-exist humans, though by how long is not revealed in scripture. Also, being heavenly creatures, time is relevant, or irrelevant. One third of the angelic host fell, and are called demons. Mormonism is the only religion I know of that teaches angels are pre-existing humans and the spirits of the dead.

Just one, a friend from high school. One of those, I haven't talked to you for 30 years, but you found me on FB. I received a cordial enough message, talking about kids and old friends. Then out of the blue asked me why I'm not "active". I said, I just don't believe what Mormonism teaches. Where they thought that was the opportune time to tell me I can get excommunicated, repent and come back, unfriended

Halloween has fizzled out in our neighborhood. We had two kids at our door. I'm thinking next year, we're going to keep our front porch light turned off and enjoy a quiet evening.

Perhaps looking at the development of the Christian liturgical calendar would help. The earliest feast day celebrated, in a lunar cycle, is Easter. The early Christians, knowing that Jesus suffered, died, was buried and rose again, knew this occurred during the Jewish holy day of the Passover. Which is, a lunar based celebration. This is why Easter is a moving feast (not on the same day every year). Forty days of fasting, in association to the Paschal Feast, is a very early practice, which is now known as Lent. Pentecost, as described in Acts, is 50 days after the Resurrection, and is also a very ancient Feast day. Every Sabbath was celebrated as a Paschal Feast (still is today), where we celebrate the Paschal Mystery (Christ has died, Christ has risen, Christ will come again!) The earliest liturgical calendar feasts (first and second century) were: Lent, Pascha (Easter), Pentecost and the weekly Sabbath. All these, being based on the ancient Jewish lunar calendar. The Feast of the Nativity (Christmas), does not have as strong historical documentation available for it. It was not listed as a Feast day, in the list of Feasts recorded by Iraeneus. It is not believed to have been added to the liturgical calendar, as a Feast day, until the late 4th century. There are no reliable, or accurate accounts, as to why December 25th was selected. There are scholars that say Constantine selected the date to coincide with the Roman pagan holiday of Natalis Invictus, but other scholars that say the date was selected before Constantine. St. Athanasius, in a homily, mentions the two feasts, The Feast of the Nativity and Natalis Invictus, as coincidently occurring on the same date. The fact is, we don't know why December 25th was selected to celebrate the Feast of the Nativity. Natalis Invictus, was not a Roman holiday until the late 3rd century. It is this Roman holiday that is sometimes tied to Mithras, and thus an attempt to tie it to Christmas. Since Natalis Invictus was not a Roman holiday until the late third century, this places the Christian narrative of the nativity, nearly 300 years prior. If one borrowed from the other, it is the Roman holiday that borrowed from Christianity. As for the word "Easter" and its association to pagan practices in Britain. The Christian holy day has always been called, The Paschal Feast. Easter, is a regional/cultural word for the Holy Day, and is only used in the English language.

I have heard this a lot, and have researched it. More from a Catholic perspective, because usually when I hear it, it is from the perspective that pagan practices entered the Catholic Church! Evangelization, as Catholics practice it, is important to understand, since European pagan cultures were evangelized by Catholics. Evangelization means to bring someone to the Good News, which is of a course a Person, Jesus Christ. When whole cultures are evangelized, their existing religious practices were sometimes turned, to Christ. So, as an example, the yule log, that was celebrated as part of the pagan holiday for the winter solstice when the light of the sun begins its return to shining brighter and longer, is turned to Christ. The yule log, for Christians, celebrates the Incarnation, when God entered the world as Man, and brought to us a stronger light than the sun itself. In turn, what were once pagan practices, turned to Christ, are revised again by secular celebrations. Such is the case with Halloween, which has been turned to Christ, as the holy days of All Saints and All Souls, but now has been turned again, to a secular celebration. Though of course, many Christians continue to celebrate All Saints and All Souls, with an entire separate understanding from the secular celebration of Halloween.

Hey beefche, I'm glad you feel that way. What a grace for us to experience!

I enjoy reading your posts. :) I'll just add, that we are called always be prepared. For whether the parousia occurs in our lifetime or not, we all must die, and will meet our judgement. Also, from a Catholic perspective, every Mass we experience is a parousia, when Jesus is made present, Body and Blood, so of course we should be prepared to receive Him.

FWIW, Catholic children/youth are confirmed and receive their first communion between the ages of 7 and 15 or 16. It is up to the Bishop, really, who accepts the child's petition to receive these two sacraments. Here in the diocese of Salt Lake, it is age 8, because the majority of children here, who are LDS, are baptized at age 8. This helps to make Catholic children not feel left out or ostracized from the larger community.

Re: Charlamagne...there is the theology surrounding just war, which is sound and logical, but also used by some to justify unjust actions. That "some" includes Catholics of high station and prominence. But, as Anatess points out, inserting anachronisms into history based on modern ideas and social norms, isn't understanding history. God will be the judge. And Catholic doctrine will remain the same, regardless of how it is put into practice, or not, by Catholic individuals or groups.

Catholics are not sola fide.

I'm confused. In your scenario, what sin did the girl commit?Other than that, the Catholic Church teaches that all human life is equal in value, to God. And equal in inherent dignity, by vitrue of our, us all, being made in the image of God. There is no view, from Catholicism, that one life had more value than another, or that one has less value. . Everything possible to preserve the lifves of the mother and the unborn child, is obviously preferred. There isn't a view that the unborn child's life is worth less than its mother's, therefore, being disposable. Both lives are valued. That is what is pro life.

It was the writings and teaching style of Pope Benedict XVI that helped draw me to Catholicism. Brilliant theologian and teacher. Pope JPIi was before I paid attention to anything Catholic. Of course I've read things by him. :) Pope Francis, is special. Good people like him, who teach mercy and peace, in a world that loves violence, are rare.