Blueskye2

Members
  • Posts

    447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Blueskye2

  1. On 3/3/2018 at 6:48 PM, RickyB said:

    I know this is an old post/question, but oddly enough, I asked two elders yesterday, the position of the church on this very matter. Background: I'm a "backsliding" Mormon. I don't attend church. I followed my parents guidance. They're Mormons as well, but also backsliders. We never really attended church. Just didn't care for it. We were all (4 of us), extremely close, until two years ago, when Dad decided to move to the next realm, unexpectedly. Mom suffered the greatest and still does. She doesn't really have the will to continue, but I'm working with her very closely. She feels that Dad wants her to follow. She claims that she's seen him in spirit, smiling at her, but dissipates when approached. I'm also a psychologist, so I understand what most would say about her claim. I've had cameras installed all over the house since she won't permit me to stay with her (saying, as Mom's would, "you have your own life). The cameras give me some peace and have actually saved her life on two occasions. She suffers from seizures and falls and has broken many, many bones, including C3 a few years ago. The cameras have recently, within the last two weeks, begun to pick up an unexplainable anomaly. They only react to movement, not light (infrared). The cameras record events, three of which show a fast moving ball, orb, or sphere, moving down the bedroom hall, appearing from closed doors, and seeming to pass through another door. They have emerged from various directions, and varying times of day, all while Mother is alone and sleeping in another part of the house. I can see both, her sleeping and these spheres occurring simultaneously. I've shown the events to Mother and she'll smile and say "yes, that's got to be him." I have no idea, other than to know it's very comforting to us both. The elders yesterday confirmed that the church's stance is that it is completely within reason to believe this communication could be legitimate. I showed them the saved videos and they appeared to be astounded; wide-eyed, wowed. Exciting. My current belief system (varies a little from the church's teaching) but at least I think we're of similar minds with this belief as entirely possible. I certainly hope so. And how very thoughtful and kind of Dad to continue to be as consumed with us after death, as he was in life. He was truly an amazing man, husband and Father.

    Having a few cams myself, they don’t work the same as eyes. They may pick up refracted and/or reflected light as lens flare.  So if you have a car or other object pass, that is reflecting light towards the camera lens, the lens flare (orbs of light) may appear to be traveling, and the disappearing into something solid is an illusion. Point a camera outside to see what is passing at the same time your orbs are “traveling”. 

  2. 7 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    @Blueskye2, we do care about you and your beliefs.  Posting the "Christian beliefs" subforum might be more up your ally that the "Learn about the Mormon Church" subforum.

    Thanks, but it is generally a forum where LDS post about what is wrong with Christianity.

    This is an LDS forum, where people of other faiths are welcome as long as the don’t discuss their faith. I can find that kind of interaction  with my atheist friends and family. Where we discuss all of the other commonalities we have. 

    I’m kind of dense sometimes, it’s true. It took me longer than it should have to figure this out.

  3. 19 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

    That came across as a little passive-aggressive, Blueskye2.  If you want to throw away 444 posts of activity and leave in a huff, that's your choice.  But no, this isn't an "LDS only" board - everyone is welcome, but we don't provide a podium for proselytizing for other faiths.  

    As for the "recovery from Catholicism" part, yes, we have one or two here I suppose.  Again, why not go check out the Catholic Answers Forum pages and count the recovery from mormonism threads.  Take a look at their "other religions" forum, and count all the "here's why this or that religion is false and wrong" threads.  Then come here and try to find even one.  You might find my comments on scientology, and dang little else. 

    TL:DR, you're welcome to stay, you don't have a podium or a captive audience.  And if you want to complain about a forum that bashes other faiths, clean up your own backyard first.
     

    I don’t really care about CAF. I tried conversing there but it’s too much, I’m right and you’re wrong, from everyone.People there suggested I go to a Traditional Catholic forum! Gosh, those folks are all about division.  I’m not interested.

    As I said, the people who I love the most in this world are atheist. I enjoy discussions of faith with all people of faith, not just Catholic or Mormons or whatever.

    I’m sorry to say I find here to be the same as CAF...no one looking for the commonality that is found among people of faith. Which is fine, it’s not my discussion forum. I don’t go on about Catholic stuff in an effort to convert anyone here. Was just hoping for more of a recognition that my faith is as important to me as it is to anyone here, as the commonality we share. People of faith.

    It’s Advent, and I know people here would just think I was trying to convert someone, by posting anything related to Advent. Which I would do out of sharing faith, a commonality I thought might be here, but is not. I can have discussions about what separates us, anywhere, and everywhere.

    My frustration with the world in general is not the fault of anyone here, but came out in my last post. Not wanting that to be my last post, I leave you all in peace and wish you all a blessed Advent, as we prepare for the coming of our Lord.

     

  4. 5 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

    This isn't a "bring and share your beliefs" board.  This is a "learn about all things LDS" board.  You've got to expect us to think we're right here. 

    When I go to the CAF boards, my beliefs and teachings only get accepted to the extent to which they align with Catholic belief and teaching.  Otherwise, I've come to expect correction and folks pointing out where they think I'm wrong.  

    I have noticed a lot of Catholics like to toss around terms like "condescending" and "disingenuous" a whole lot more than I do.  

    Ok then I get it. This is an LDS only board (that borders on a recovery from Catholicism board). 

    Don’t have to tell me twice. I’m out. 

  5. 15 hours ago, anatess2 said:

     

    It's kinda like this:

    One school only has K-8.  The other school has K-12.  You're trying to compare the requirements for passing 8th grade - as it is the greatest gift/experience in the K-8 school to the requirements in passing 12th grade as the greatest gift/experience in the K-12 school.  It just doesn't compare.

    Well, if we’re going to go all condescending. One is a real school and the other are like children who play school!

    Or we can go back to accepting that the summit of faith for each have equal importance for each, respectively, and respectfully. 

  6. 12 minutes ago, zil said:

    Or by believing the literal words. :)

    I’m smiling here, because as I’ve already said, I do believe the literal words. I said we’re both not sola scriptura,  but no one is. EVERYONE interprets the Bible.Mine is not a self interpretation. The Bible itself teaches against self interpretation. 

  7. 1 hour ago, JohnsonJones said:

    Another way to look at it for the LDS, but not a perfect parallel.

    Imagine that the apostles of the LDS church died without naming anymore apostles.  Who then would be the leaders of the church.  From what I understand, it would be the Seventies, and thus the leadership would probably be the Presidency of the Seventy and the First Bishopric.  In this way, they inherit the mantle of leadership, but they themselves are NOT apostles.

    Now, as LDS we believe that the Lord would probably then make a way for more apostles to be appointed, be established, but when one does not accept the idea of continuing prophets and revelation, you would be stuck with the Bishops.

    Not a perfect parallel, but hopefully that can explain it in a way some LDS could understand how the Bishops each have the apostolic power in regards to Catholicism.  Now, of interest, The Great Schism (of I think 1054) are viewed differently between the Roman Catholics and the Orthodox.  The Orthodox do not believe in the supremacy of Rome, but that all Bishops and hence churches were made equal.  For who was the greater and who said what to whom, Peter to Paul, or Paul to Peter?  Who reprimanded whom, and in the Lord's eyes, was Peter greater than the others, or were they all brothers and equal as apostles to the Lord?  The Orthodox may recognize that there was some order, but not the degree that the Church in Rome decided upon it in the years preceding the Great Schism, and more directly after the Great Schism.

    The Roman Catholic church interprets the Biblical verses where the Lord tells Peter upon this rock, as literally saying that Peter is the Rock upon which the church is built (if I recall from many years ago when I learned this).  Hence, as per the Biblical justification, the throne of the church lies upon the church which comes from Peter, which is the church in Rome.  As it is his seat that the Bishop in Rome dwells upon (aka...known as the Pope), it is the authority of Peter that dwells upon him in his purpose as the Bishop of Rome or the head of the church.

    As Peter and the other apostles are no longer around, it falls upon the Bishops that inherit that apostolic succession to lead the church (ala, similar to the LDS example I put above...but not a perfect example).  Orthodox churches that do NOT believe in the Supremacy of Rome, still believe in the apostolic succession though, but that each Bishop is equal in their authority within the church, rather than Rome have supremacy (if I understand the Orthodox teachings correctly).

    Pretty good! Just to clarify, we don’t view Bishops as being a defacto kind of succession because the Apostles didn’t plan, but done with purpose and planning. The idea that the Apostles wouldn’t plan is a “whoa and say what?” kind of thing for us.

    The East calls Peter “the first among equals”.  The Western Church’s view of Peter shouldn’t be exaggerated (and some Catholics exaggerate it). All of our Bishops are equal in authority in regards to their jurisdictions.  As an example, I have an obligation to follow the directions of my Bishop, first, before that of the Pope. My Bishop is in communion with all the Bishops, including the Bishop of Rome. They act as one body.

    The primacy of the seat of Peter is not a unitary function.  He acts in communion with all the Bishops, and in this way he does in fact act as first among equals. Where the East differs is that we view disputes will be settled first locally, then regionally, then in the Curia, then by the Pope.  The Great Schism occurred when the Patriarch of Alexandria did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as having the final say in a dispute.

    The only other difference is that the Bishop of Rome appoints other Bishops. Again this shouldn’t be exaggerated. He takes recommendations and council from other Bishops. And then there are the Eastern Churches who are in communion with Rome. They select their own Bishops (they call their Bishops, Patriarchs), and present their decision to the Pope for approval.  He has never not approved one of the East’s selections.

     

  8. 7 hours ago, zil said:

    Irrelevant from my personal perspective.  If you're going to believe something other than what the words say (assuming you believe the words at all), then the person/thing contradicting the words better have seriously good credentials - better credentials than the source.  No LDS entity contradicts the words, so I don't have to worry about their credentials for this scripture.  I respect your belief that the Catholic teachings trump the literal interpretation of the words.

     I see the literal interpretation as indicating Jesus not indicating one way or the other. In the context of the whole NT, there is nothing that indicates John is still to this day, walking around.  Where and doing what? In light of Jesus’ commandment and prophecy, any of the Twelve still living should be spending their time teaching the Good News of Jesus Christ.  What an amazing thing that would be, indeed. But the idea that the Beloved Disciple of Jesus, just has been hanging out incognito for 2000 years, has no evidence or justification. You can only come to this conclusion by citing extra-Biblical sources, that I don’t accept.

    The examples cited of Elijah or Mary, were assumed into heaven. They aren’t wandering around the earth somewhere.

    i don’t want to seem overly critical.  I understand why you believe what you believe, and have respect for your beliefs. 

  9. 5 hours ago, zil said:

     

     

    My point was strictly that if you strip beliefs, interpretations, and teachings away and go only by the words, the words say John will stick around until the Second Coming (regardless of when you think that happened / will happen) and that Peter ought not to worry himself about it.

    Hi :)

    This is a sola scripture argument. Catholics, and LDS, are not sola scriptura. 

  10. 3 hours ago, Traveler said:

     

    You may want to reconsider a number of points.  That is that many of old times were said to have been removed from society and taken into heaven without dying.  This is a particular status of being and was appointed to Elijah (who was taken into heaven in the “chariot of fire”).  We learn from antiquities that the purpose of such a status was to be able to return at some future time for some specific reason.  The example of Elijah who had a place reserved at Passover for his return.

    It is my understanding that Catholics (at least some) believe that Mary, the mother of Christ, was taken from her home in Ephesus without tasting death.  You can state if such doctrine is true or not – I would be interested if this doctrine of some individuals not dying is actually a doctrine acceptable to Catholics – like yourself.

    I would understand why Catholics would not accept John surviving because that is very problematic in their claim that the Pope has right to apostolic secession – which claim would be false if John somehow survived beyond Patmos.  But in a previous post I pointed out that the Prophesy of Daniel the prophet points to the “Kingdom” being cut out of the mountain as a stone when the great empire of Rome was divided into 10 Kingdoms (the toes of the figure).

    I understand why Catholics must reject any possible reference to such a possibility – But I honestly think history in general is problematic in the Catholic claim they are the kingdom fulfilling prophesy of the “last days” before the return of the Messiah.

     

    The Traveler

    Catholic doctrine is that Mary was assumed into heaven. Whether or not she died first is debatable. 

    Apostolic succession isn’t limited to Peter.  It is emphasized by the Latin Church because of Peter’s primacy. However, the Twelve appointed successors throughout the world. These ancient Sees are recognized by the Latin Church as having a valid Apostolic succession. An example is the Patriarch of Alexandria, who is the successor to Mark. 

  11. 21 hours ago, zil said:

    First, note that in this scene, we have Peter, Thomas Didymus, Nathanael, James, John, and two others (7 total).

    In verse 19, we're talking about Peter's death.  Then Peter asks about John's death.  Now why would Peter ask about John's death unless he had some reason to believe that something unusual was happening to John?  Maybe he just wanted to be comforted a little - "well, if I have to die so terribly, can John die with me?" (not!)  Why not ask about all of the others, or a different other?  Why was John singled out?  Because John was an exception and they already knew it - even if they didn't fully understand it.

    So then Jesus says, "If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?"  Short and sweet - no explanation.  They already know what he's talking about.  Well, what's "till I come"?  He's already there.  He's already been resurrected.  Those who believe in the Second Coming understand this to reference that event.  So, the Lord says (in answer to a question about John's death!) John is going to "tarry" until the Second Coming.  Well, either the second coming is happening in the next 60 years or so, or something unusual is happening to John.

    From what the apostles knew, they think ("this saying went out among the brethren") that John will not die.  Why do they think that?  Because they interpret Christ's words (referring to something they already knew about) as saying that John will tarry until the Second Coming.  How can he do that?  Well, whatever else is true, he can't die when normal men die because the Second Coming isn't that close - while some followers may have thought it would be any next second, the leadership clearly knew (the writings of Paul make it clear they knew) that it was quite distant.  Thus, they assumed John would not die, since that's the only way they can imagine him sticking around that long.  Presumably they didn't think to ask how, they just assumed he wouldn't die.

    Meanwhile, when John (who knows what's going to happen to him) corrects them, he doesn't say he's not going to tarry, or that "till I come" isn't in reference to the Second Coming, he says only that Jesus never said John wouldn't die.  That's the only correction.  Thus, the tarrying to the Second Coming was never countered.

    So how is it that John can remain until the Second Coming and yet still die?  Simple, he will die at the Second Coming and be resurrected, in an instant - he will not be buried, will not "sleep" - just like the righteous still alive at the Second Coming:

    John corrected the error about him not dying because all must die, in consequence of the fall of Adam (see various statements by Paul about death and the resurrection), but never corrected the statement that he would tarry until the Second Coming - because that didn't need correcting.

    Further evidence:

    Christ is again talking about the Second Coming.  Based on earlier verses in this sequence, we have reason to believe that these are the apostles and perhaps a few others, but not a multitude.  It's a veiled reference to John (and for all we know, others, though latter-day revelation tells us no others from the original 12).

    The dating of NT writings matter. During the Apostolic period of the Early Church, there was a widespread belief that Jesus would return in their lifetimes. As time went on and some of the Apostles died, the belief changed, and thus the writings change, to anticipating Jesus in some future, unknow, time. So we can have verses like you cite from the Gospel according to John, where the two beliefs intercept. It’s clear to me that verse clarifies that Jesus is saying, more or less, “I do what I want and who are you to question me?”.

    Peter, well, I love the stories with Peter in them, he is a man with a personality, and here we have him comfortable enough with our Lord to question Him.  They knew Jesus has power over death, and John is mentioned more than once as being favored by Jesus, so Peter, thinking like a man, and not like God, asks if a special favor is going to be shown to John, who is sort of like the golden child of a family. Jesus plainly says, what’s it to you? 

    Beyond that, the Christian life and world went on after the NT writings and historical writings have John dying at a very old age, at Patmos, Greece, while under what we might call house arrest. The only Apostle who was not martyred, and so we see a special treatment by God, in the manner of his death. Old and peaceful, rather than young and violent.

    The last verse you cite from Luke, is understood by Catholics as establishing the Kingdom of God on earth, which Jesus did. Some, if not many, did live to see that day, and we are living in that day now. To make th Catholic understanding more clear, in comparison to LDS teaching, what the LDS call the millennium we call “now”. A thousand years is not a literal amount of time, but used figuratively through the Bible to represent a long period of time. We are in that time now. 

    Hope that helps.

  12. 6 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

    I agree with this, it says

    20 Peter, turning around, *saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His bosom at the supper and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?”

     21 So Peter seeing him *said to Jesus, “Lord, and what about this man?”

     22 Jesus *said to him, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? You follow Me!” 

    23 Therefore this saying went out among the brethren that that disciple would not die; yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but only, “If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?”

    The way I read it, it clearly says Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, this passage is highlighting the fact that they misunderstood what Jesus meant and went around saying things that Jesus had not said.  I don't understand how that is supposed to support the theory that John didn't die?

    LDS use the Book of Mormon, which cites this passage and “clarifies” for them that St. John the Evangelist, did not die.

  13. 6 hours ago, zil said:

    I believe the question has already been answered.  When I read John 21:20-23 and ignore everything anyone else has said, and just look at the meaning of the words, and then follow it to Luke 9:27, and also check Revelation 10:11, and 1 Corinthians 15:51-52, I see clearly the idea that one can "tarry" until the Second Coming of Christ, at which point, instead of "dying" in the traditional sense, they will be changed from a semi-immortal state to a resurrected state, and that this was to be the state of John the Beloved / the Revelator.

    I know other people don't believe that, and that latter-day revelation confirms that understanding, but the words alone seem clear enough to me that while Peter would die, John would remain ("tarry") until Christ's Second Coming - a mortal can't do that, so he has to change somehow to enable it.  If the Lord can raise men from the dead, surely he can delay their death for as long as He wishes.

    Yes that is the passage I alluded to.  The opposite is obvious to me.

  14. 1 hour ago, zil said:

    Why?  What does it matter where John is or whether he was translated?  (And this is a Bible teaching, not an exclusive Mormon teaching.)

     

    I don’t know of any other religion that teaches the Apostle John is still alive. What Bible are you reading? ;) Tongue in cheek there.  I know the passage, just Mormons interpret it differently than everyone else.

  15. Convert to Catholicism here.  I self studied Catholicism for about nine months on my own and continued self study along with RCIA for another nine months. I started RCIA, with no intention of converting.  Just trying to figure out a few things that were well explained and I totally got it, by going to RCIA. I thoroughly understood Catholic/Christian doctrine by the time I was baptized, and would not have been baptized if I did not.

    .Self study of Catholicism, for someone with an LDS background is extremely difficult. Mainly because religious words and phrases have completely different meanings, when comparing the two religion’s explanations, side by side. I found, every single religious related word, I had to look up the Catholic/Christian meaning, understanding and teaching. 

    Likewise for a Catholic or any person with a Christian background, studying Mormonism, learning the definition changes are going to be huge. This thread is a prime example, where the word “God” does not have the same meaning for the two religions.  

     

  16. 6 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

    I don't think anyone here is trying to downplay how Catholics feel about the Eucharist.  Still, it is proper to compare the Lord's Supper to the Lord's Supper, becoming a priest to becoming a priest, getting married to married, etc.  That's apples and apples, not mixing up different rites.

    That is not what Fatima compared, which is where this whole comparison tangent started. Fatima said:

    Quote

    Catholic priest withhold judgement in participation in the sum and summit of the Catholic faith (the Eucharist) while the LDS bishop does (necessarily) pass judgement in withholding an individual from participation in the sum and summit of the LDS faith.

    Anatess said:

    Quote

    The Eucharist is not the same as the Temple.  The Sacrament is the equivalent to the Eucharist without the transubstantiation part (unique to Catholic).  There is no equivalent to the Temple in Catholic faith therefore, they are not comparable. 

    And I said:

    Quote

     

    Temple theology in Catholicism clearly points to the liturgy of the Eucharist, where Christ is present body, blood, soul and divinity. Jesus naming himself the new temple, that would be raised in three days. 

    The Eucharist is, absolutely, for Catholics, at same level of sacredness and importance as the LDS temple is for LDS. 

     

    Our churches are temples, a place where God dwells, body, blood, soul and divinity. Each church has a tabernacle, where any consecrated Eucharist is found.  The Book of Revelations is full of Eucharist/temple/heaven symbolism, that we recognize. Temple theology abounds in Catholicism, with an understanding that is much different than LDS, but neverless, no less in comparison.

  17. 2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

    The bolded is not Trinitarian doctrine at all.  Rather the Trinity specifically states that they are 3 different persons:   "For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. "  -- Athanasian Creed.  Yes, it is believed that they are 1 God, but still 3 persons.

     

    Right, that is the part where I just said my fingers aren’t typing what is in my head...I have edited my post.

  18. 41 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

    Catechism from the Vatican

     

    The above explanation also shows why a Catholic has no problem with the three separate manifestations at the Baptism found in the New Testament, because it is seen as it is interpreted by the Vatican above.

    PS: This is as per the Vatican, not necessarily other offshoots of Catholicism or Protestants.  It seems there are various interpretations of the trinity, even among those who claim to believe in the trinity.  In that regard, believe it or not, there are some Mormons here that actually down and out sound almost Trinitarian in some of their explanations, as they don't deviate half as much from each other as some of the more far out explanations of the trinity do for some sects.

    Modality is just one of the explanations some utilize in their ideas of what the trinity espouses, but there are many others.  Sometimes it seems there are as many explanations of what the trinity is as there are different major sects (Methodist, Baptist, Calvinists) that claim to believe in the trinity.  Sometimes the differences are very small, sometimes they are very big.

    “The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another”

    ...is the support for my point. 

    The Trinity is sometimes better explained in the negative, as in, what God is not. Ie, God is not three Gods, but one, etc.

    Anyway, I should stop typing because my fingers didn’t type what my head was thinking.

    To clarify, Trinitarians believe God is three distinct persons who share one divine substance. One being, not three beings. 

    This has been a great thread really, as so often LDS threads on the Trinity devolve into Trinity bashing.  This one is truly refreshing. But since this is the LDS discussion forum and I get scolded for discussing non-LDS subjects in this forum, I’ll see y’all on some other thread.

  19. 3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

    Not from the LDS viewpoint, so the clarification is necessary. 

    But it’s a “clarification” that makes a Trinitarian cringe. ?? Because it implies God is divided into three parts that are united. Trinitarian doctrine is that God is not divided into three parts that are united by a substance. God is one substance, or nature, not united by substance or nature.