Blueskye2

FWIW, I pass a Jewish temple everyday. It is a Reform congregation. I read up on it once out of curiosity and discovered Reform Judaism calls their churches Temples, because they believe each Reform church replaces The Temple, in Jerusalem. 

Most of the world, is.  

*shrug* My understanding is that this would be a question to take to your Bishop. The random strangers here have no authority over you.
 

In my own family line, there was a woman who came to the US in the 1600s, last name Knightley.  Family lore has always been that she was from a royal family and her father in every family genealogy I've seen is British royalty,  However, I tried to find record of this connection.  Birth, marriage, wills, deeds, anything, and nothing. I'm convinced someone was overly excited to be descended from royalty and penciled in a Lord with the same last name of Knightley. Thus, the temple work for this extended royal family has been done by my family, and probably a long time ago, as this family lore and most likely bogus connection is in old, Mormon, family records. As early as the late 1800s or early 1900s. All that to say, the case may be the same with your family line.  Someone connected into it and worked their way through every line and name they could find, a long time ago.

Fwiw, I worked with a guy who did general conference translations.  They received most of the talks a week before. There always seemed to be a straggler who didn't turn in their talk until the day before. He would translate the written talks beforehand, as preparation.  During conference he would listen (audio only, no video) and translate as the person was speaking.  
 
When somone would ad lib, it would make it difficult to keep up.  He said one time that he could not keep up, and just summarized a whole block of speaking as "all is well!".

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.
 

I did not criticize, I observed.  
This IS an LDS beliefs board, so I don't expect LDS posters to agree with Catholic teaching on points x, y and z.  However, that inter-faith respect we all claim to want has to have a place on an LDS board and a Catholic board.
I have absolutely no dispute with the LDS requirements for entering the Temple.  While I disagree with LDS theology, I love and respect any individual who seeks the Will of God and does His Will as they honestly believe it to be.

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. 

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. 

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. 

Yes, Apostolic succession is as indicated in Acts.  It is your own assumption that the successor to Peter in the seat of Rome was not given apostolic authority.  Catholics do not believe in a Great apostasy.  They do not believe that the Apostles of the New Testament did not pass the authority to anybody else beyond the scope of the New Testament records.  As a matter of fact, they believe that apostolic authority was passed to the Bishops as the apostles got martyred (except for John who was in exile) and they were called in their stead.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.  
 

St. Patrick is said to have used a three leaf clover as an analogy. The problem with all analogies about the Trinity, is that they all fail in some way. A three leaf clover is a pretty good one though.
 

“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.

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. 

At the death of President Hinckley, I mentioned to LDS acquaintance that my parish prayed for his soul at Mass. I thought it was a nice thing to do but the LDS person was somewhat taken aback, and asked why would we pray for him with the assumption that his soul needed the help of our prayers. 
It’s the assumptions that get under people’s skin. 
People who are deeply committed to a religion, might view doing something that implies the deceased person’s religious commitment was for naught, as saying something very personal about the deceased and their own deeply held beliefs. 

“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.