Testimony of Joseph Smith

[rameumptom]

Hi Misshalfway,

My Catholic perspective ( thought you would never ask LOL :):):))

We ( Catholics ) believe all of our Christian brethren will hopefully through the grace of God make it to the SAME kingdom of heaven with our Lord and savior Jesus.

We also believe we are the universal one true Church ( with respect to the one that Jesus left us with ) and all other protestents have branched off of the same tree)

God bless,

Carl

Yes, but the recent RCC statement establishes that Protestants are NOT a Church nor religion.

We believe all Christians will merit a kingdom of heaven as the free gift of Christ. And, with Catholics, believe that ordinances and commandments are an important and necessary part of the process.

[goofball]

While he has said this, the Church has also indicated that the Catholic Church is not the only pathway to heaven. And, since they only believe in one kingdom, it means I'll be with them, even though I'm not in their "one true church."

I understand what you are saying. I was only responding to your statement on page 11 where you said "Other Christian denominations do not say they are the only true church" which according to the links I attached is not true. The Catholic Church believes it is the one true church.

Once again I will add the disclaimer I am not a member of the Catholic Church and have only the catholic.org articles to base my opinion that they believe they are the one true church. So if I am reading it wrong and the Catholic church does not believe it is the one true church let me know

[Guest ceeboo]

Yes, but the recent RCC statement establishes that Protestants are NOT a Church nor religion.

We believe all Christians will merit a kingdom of heaven as the free gift of Christ. And, with Catholics, believe that ordinances and commandments are an important and necessary part of the process.

Hi again Ram,

Protestants are our seperated brethren ( no longer belong the THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH " CATHOLIC") context if you were interested. ( BUT INDEED OUR CHRISTIAN BROTHERS )

Are we comparing what the LDS church offers in comparison to the RCC as to determine the one that is more appetizing to the human taste?

God bless,

Carl

[bytor2112]

Hi again Ram,

Protestants are our seperated brethren ( no longer belong the THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH " CATHOLIC") context if you were interested. ( BUT INDEED OUR CHRISTIAN BROTHERS )

Are we comparing what the LDS church offers in comparison to the RCC as to determine the one that is more appetizing to the human taste?

God bless,

Carl

Carl,

If I weren't LDS......I would be Catholic. Then my beliefs would still be misunderstood,misrepresented and their would be plenty of so-called Christians to tell me that I am not a Christian. I wonder how many of your "seperated brethren" feel the same about you.....not that many I suspect. As for appetizing to the human taste.... we have "pot luck" every fifth Sunday and some of the Sister's whip up some mighty tastey dishes.

[Guest ceeboo]

Carl,

If I weren't LDS......I would be Catholic. Then my beliefs would still be misunderstood,misrepresented and their would be plenty of so-called Christians to tell me that I am not a Christian. I wonder how many of your "seperated brethren" feel the same about you.....not that many I suspect. As for appetizing to the human taste.... we have "pot luck" every fifth Sunday and some of the Sister's whip up some mighty tastey dishes.

Hi Bytor,

I agree that some indeed do not feel the same about me ( Catholic ) but that does not effect the way I ( Catrholics ) feel about them.

Not to try and convert you but have you ever tasted the Nun's BBQ ribs they provide every 4 weeks ( NOT EVERY 5 ) LOL :)

God bless,

Carl

[Misshalfway]

Hi Bytor,

I agree that some indeed do not feel the same about me ( Catholic ) but that does not effect the way I ( Catrholics ) feel about them.

Not to try and convert you but have you ever tasted the Nun's BBQ ribs they provide every 4 weeks ( NOT EVERY 5 ) LOL :)

God bless,

Carl

I want some ribs!!!

I have to say that one of my favorite plays of all time is 'Nunsense'! Absolutely halarious!!

[Misshalfway]

Hi Misshalfway,

My Catholic perspective ( thought you would never ask LOL :):):))

We ( Catholics ) believe all of our Christian brethren will hopefully through the grace of God make it to the SAME kingdom of heaven with our Lord and savior Jesus.

We also believe we are the universal one true Church ( with respect to the one that Jesus left us with ) and all other protestents have branched off of the same tree)

God bless,

Carl

Has this always been the position of the Catholic church or has there been some kind of change in position over time??

I mean didn't the Catholic church view such "protesting" with contempt????

[Misshalfway]

http://www.scborromeo.org/papers/cathheav.PDF (Catholic website)

All I read from this PC is that the Catholic church is trying to remove some of the emnity that has been felt between the two groups and that the Church wants to be recognized as living example of the love of Christ. I see nothing in this link that tells me that Catholics believe that all Protestants are safe in their religions. It is clear they believe that protestants are missing key truths and that leaving the church is a mistake and that the Protestant tradition is indeed heretical.

The way you wrote was that the Catholic Church had accepted protestantism as an acceptable way to find salvation. All I see is that they are saying that such is possible. And there are some fuzzy statements that appear to me as if the Catholics want to have it both ways.

[Elphaba]

WE DO NOT PRACTICE POLYGAMY

The Church does not practice civil polygamy (married civilly to more than one wife at a time), but it does practice polygamy as defined by its doctrine.

An example would be of a widower marrying a second time. If his future bride has not been sealed to another man, he and she can be sealed together for time and eternity. Thus, he would have two wives for eternity.

This is my own view on certain polygamous times such as the pioneers.>snip< What a loving Father, and a loving caring people.

There is no doubt that those on the trek to Salt Lake did extraordinary things to take care of those in need, but marriage was not one of them.

Polygamous marriages could only be sealed in Salt Lake in the “Endowment House.” Once the Salt Lake Temple was completed, they were married/sealed there.

There may be other places other than the Endowment House where polygamous marriages were performed, but I don’t know of them.

Oh dear i do hope i do not get a telling off this time lol

I think you have a very tender testimony of Joseph that you should be proud of. I believe Joseph was an extraordinary man as well, even though I am an ex-member. He could be incredibly kind, and my favorite story about him and Jane Manning James never fails to bring a lump in my throat. Maybe I’ll start a thread about it elsewhere.

I think people should keep in mind the Church’s history is rich with inspirational stories that are not simplistic, whitewashed or half truths. There is no need to rely on faith-promoting stories--go find a pioneer’s journal online, and read that! I promise, you will come away far more inspired than you've ever been.

My ancestors were pioneers, and I am incredibly proud of them and what they accomplished, even when some weren’t all that well behaved.

Elphie

[prisonchaplain]

I understand what you are saying. I was only responding to your statement on page 11 where you said "Other Christian denominations do not say they are the only true church" which according to the links I attached is not true. The Catholic Church believes it is the one true church.

Once again I will add the disclaimer I am not a member of the Catholic Church and have only the catholic.org articles to base my opinion that they believe they are the one true church. So if I am reading it wrong and the Catholic church does not believe it is the one true church let me know

You're right. In fact, you are probably exactly right, in that LDS also believe that non-LDS will populate the heavenly kingdoms, though almostly exclusively the Telestial and Terrestial realms.

[prisonchaplain]

All I read from this PC is that the Catholic church is trying to remove some of the emnity that has been felt between the two groups and that the Church wants to be recognized as living example of the love of Christ. I see nothing in this link that tells me that Catholics believe that all Protestants are safe in their religions. It is clear they believe that protestants are missing key truths and that leaving the church is a mistake and that the Protestant tradition is indeed heretical.

The way you wrote was that the Catholic Church had accepted protestantism as an acceptable way to find salvation. All I see is that they are saying that such is possible. And there are some fuzzy statements that appear to me as if the Catholics want to have it both ways.

Maybe I'm seeing the glass 1/2 full and you're seeing it half empty???

[funkymonkey]

You're right. In fact, you are probably exactly right, in that LDS also believe that non-LDS will populate the heavenly kingdoms, though almostly exclusively the Telestial and Terrestial realms.

Prisonchaplain, I really like reading your posts, and love how you produce such insightful exchange of ideas in such a Christ-like manner. I've learned a lot! :)

Anyway...

I'm not sure what the Catholic perspective on this topic is, but one thing I've always liked about the LDS church is that we believe the "work" does not end with mortality. But rather we continue to have opportunities in the afterlife to continue to learn and grow and teach.

So in this theory, anyone has the opportunity to attain any level of "kingdom", dead or alive.

I like this because I'm pretty darn sure I'm going to die an imperfect being, and find peace in knowing that I can continue to work on refinement even after I die.

Not sure if that made any sense!

[Snow]

The lesson, quite simply going along with the other posts, is -- people want to think that learning the true history of the church will somehow cause them to feel discieved thus causing them to not believe in the church. Catch my drift now?

Well - you know my motto - people are idiots, kinda.

I take full responsibility for all my own thoughts, behaviors, beliefs, education etc.

[omega0401]

You have an uncanny knack for pulling information out of the essay, taking it completely out of context, and inferring things it does not say.

Read further and you will notice that I can say the same about your comments. I will give more quotes that will support that.

I’ll address where you’ve misunderstood as follows

Interesting comment. You are so confident that you have all the truth but don't be too sure as you will see.

"In ALL cases, the women continued to live with their first husbands."

This sentence is very poorly written, and I can see where you get the wrong impression. However, Katich is not saying the women continued to live with their first husbands until death, as you assume in your subsequent remarks. What he means is these women continued to live with their first husbands while Joseph remained alive.

On page 1. "Of the eight marriages, five were to women who had Mormon husbands and three were to women married to disaffected members or non-Mormons. Three of the women's first marriages to Mormon husbands and two of the marriages to non-Mormons lasted until death. The other three remaining marriages ended later in life after Joseph's death in 1844. In all cases, the women continued to live with their first husbands."

So if you really want to get detailed then five did remained faithful until death (assuming her death but it doesn't matter, they remained faithful). The remaining three marriages did end but only after Joseph had died.

To understand the concept of what was happening at that time>snip<Without it you would not receive exaltation in the highest degree of heaven.

I was raised in the Church, and I understand the Church’s doctrine regarding marriage.

I assumed you have a lot of knowledge about our doctrine but my comments were not intended to insult your knowledge. Please realize that many people are reading these posts and may not know the doctrine as well as you and me. I wrote this to address a general audience and not just to you specifically. The same goes for any other comments I make now and in the future to anyone.

When you read that these women were civilly married to their first husband and then also being sealed to Joseph, Katich's article neatly fell into place. These women were faithful to their first husband until death.

As I wrote above, that is not what Katich is saying at all.

But Katich did say 5 women remained faithful to their first husband until they died. 3 remained faithful until after Joseph died and then they left their first husband but not because of their sealing to Joseph and wanting a relationship with him. While Joseph was alive they remained faithful to their husband. I believe that’s all that Katich was trying to say.

A few of these women did not remain with the first husbands, and were not faithful to them. You really need to listen to that, and not continue on with the misunderstanding.

I remember one of them divorced her husband but I don’t recall anywhere that any of them were unfaithful to their husband. Just because one got divorced does not mean they were unfaithful. If you have a quote from the article then go ahead a post it.

The article never states the first husband did not want to be sealed to their wives.

You are right it never states it but look at it this way. If the first husbands wanted to be sealed to their wives, then they certainly would not have allowed Joseph to be sealed to them (see below). Since the article doesn't say that we are speculating.

In fact, Zina Huntingon Burton and her husband Henry Burton were sealed for time and eternity in the Nauvoo temple once it was completed. Thus, Zina was sealed to both Joseph and her husband for eternity. That it is a whole difference conversation, however.

Now you have really lost me. First, on page 5 it mentions a Zina Diantha Huntington Jacobs who married Henry B. Jacobs. There is no Henry Burton in this article but I am assuming his middle name is Burton. In that case, you must have all this memorized because that was not obviously clear in this article.

Secondly, the paragraph right above where it talked about Zina says, "Joseph's sealings to women that were married for time-only to active LDS men..." and then goes on to talk about Zina and Henry. So Katich claims they were not sealed as you are alluding to if they are the same people you are talking about. Now who's inferring things that it does not say in this article? Henry, from what little is said about him, seems to be an active LDS member because it talks about his faithfulness and obedience. What the article is unclear about are the less active and non-LDS husbands.

Either Katich is wrong that they were not sealed or you are wrong that they were sealed. One of you is mistaken.

No infidelity took place at all with Joseph. They lived their first marriage as if their marriage (sealing) to Joseph had never taken place at all.

Again, you are inferring something the Katich never said.

What I am saying is there was no marital relationship between the two of them. See the next similar comment. To think otherwise is speculating. They did not live together as husband and wife. All eight women remained with their husbands while Joseph was alive as you said previously. Therefore their purpose of being sealed was not so they could leave their husbands and be with Joseph. It was for their eternal salvation in the hereafter and I believe that was the only reason.

While this may or may not be the case, with one possible exception, there is simply no evidence to support an intimate dimension in these eight marriages.

Katich is dissembling here, by saying it could have happened, but he doesn't think it did. He is just not aware of the evidence. However, when you then go on to infer Katich means it never happened, that is not what Katich said. Again, you need to be careful not to be inaccurate.

Additionally, he acknowledges there is evidence that Joseph did have relations with at least one of these wives. How you could miss this baffles me.

Now you are being inaccurate at this point. Yes, he does mention one possible exception but goes on to show how weak it is supported. Let me quote more of the article about this. On page 6. "Joseph's marriage to Sylvia has been argued [note the word argued, meaning we do not know it to be a fact] to be the sole marriage [note only marriage and not 'at least one' as you inaccurately infer in your post] that included intimate relations in these types of unions."

Katich then went on to say, "Josephine Fischer, Sylvia's only daughter, reportedly [note the word reportedly, meaning this is not a fact] stated that her mother had told her that she was the daughter of Joseph Smith." Remember it is only reportedly stated.

And then Katich says this about Josephine's conversation, "Josephine's belief, that she was linked biologically to Joseph, has been the basis for historical interpretation [note interpretation, meaning this is not a fact.] of the event. However, the fact [now he’s stating what the fact is] that Sylvia's husband was not out of fellowship, until several more months after she was married to Joseph, introduces error in the conversation at the outset."

So these are quotes from his article. Katich says it is argued, reportedly, interpretation, introduces error. That does not sound like a fact to me but speculation. He’s saying that even though it’s a “possible” exception it is a rather weak one.

And a woman having two marriages is in a polyandrous relationship.

But the article by Katich said, "In the case of Joseph Smith, the traditional definition for 'polyandry' simply does not apply and the term must be redefined in light of the eternal perspectives of those involved and the lack of temporal extent those marriages entailed.” I agree that the term has to be redefined in that light. You will have to disagree with Katich on that one.

In at least one situation, the first husband gave permission for this to happen. All the husbands most likely did.

Again, you are making assumptions the article does not make. Katich never said "most likely" all of the first husbands gave permission. And in fact, not all of the husbands gave their permission.

Oh but you are absolutely wrong and I don't know how you could have missed this. It is you that is making that assumption. Let me quote the article. On page 8. "A consistent pattern in Joseph's plural marriages was that he extended invitations for those selected women (and their LDS husbands inasmuch as they apparently [note apparently meaning most likely but no one really knows] consented to the marriages) to inquire of the Lord and ascertain the truthfulness of the principle they were about to engage in for themselves.

So Katich did indeed say, "most likely" but he used the word "apparently". Means the same thing to me. What is unclear in the article are the non LDS husbands.

In his conclusion, he says, “If one wonders how these women and men came to such an apparently impossible decision as to become sealed to Joseph or allow one’s wife to be sealed, the answer is found in personal revelation.” The husband and wife needed that personal revelation in order to make that decision.

At this point, Elphaba, I will stop as this is taking too much of my time to continue as much as I would like to but let me skip to your recap.

1. The women did not live with their first husbands for the rest of their lives.

His article says 5 did live with their husbands and 3 lived with their husbands until after Joseph had died.

2. Katich did not say there were no intimate relations.

He only mentions one and that it was a “possible” exception and mentions the weakness of that story.

3. Katich did not say there was no relationship with Joseph after her marriage/sealing to him.

The marriages were arranged for eternal salvation for these women only. Hatich did not say there was a relationship between them after their sealing. If you disagree, which quote in his article do you base it on?

4. Katich did not say all of the husbands gave their permission for the marriage/sealing.

He does mention it. That the active LDS husbands apparently gave permission but the article says nothing about the non LDS husbands.

5. Katich did not say the husbands probably did not want to be sealed to their wives.

If they wanted to be sealed to their wives then they wouldn’t have apparently given their permission for Joseph to be sealed to them. See #4 above.

Now delving into the dark arts of history doesn’t get anyone anywhere. You’ll find that, at times, even historians won’t agree so it gets us know where. Are people digging up information because they want to get history right or are the trying to prove some other point?

If Joseph Smith is a prophet of God, these dark arts won’t matter.

And since we are talking about Joseph Smith, what are your feelings about him? Do you feel that he is a prophet, a fallen prophet, or was never a prophet? I only see three possibilities. To me he was a prophet.

Edited July 31, 2008 by omega0401

[lindsayjane]

We ( Catholics ) believe all of our Christian brethren will hopefully through the grace of God make it to the SAME kingdom of heaven with our Lord and savior Jesus.

I have Catholic family members that believe and have been told by their priests that the LDS will not be going to heaven. I have never heard anything like the above quote before. Unless they are distinguishing the LDS from the general Christian population? But it was my understanding that the rules for getting into the Catholic heaven are as strict as the rules for getting into the LDS celestial kingdom. These are only attained through specific ordinances administered by those in authority. So I don't see how a Catholic could claim that a non-Catholic Christian could obtain heaven without baptism, communion, and adherance to the other laws and requirements.

[HiJolly]

Brian C. Hales is getting close to publishing his book on the wives of Joseph Smith. He's sent prelim copies to friends for review. I'm looking forward to it.

HiJolly

[lindsayjane]

As far as I'm concerned, all of the fuzzy details of Joseph's life can be speculated about indefinitely, but none of those details have any bearing on the simple facts of the works he produced. First, the Book of Mormon. Yes, the authorship and validity of the BOM is debated, but the clarifications it offers for many of Christianity's ambiguous and controversial doctrines make more sense to me than any of the verse-twisting, pick-and-choosing methods of explanation I've ever heard from mainstream Christians. Second, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The ideas found in these books paint a more plausible picture of God, man, and eternity than any other religious text I have ever read (and I've read a lot of the world's sacred texts). I have thought occasionally that if I weren't LDS I wouldn't even be Christian. There are simply too many problems with mainstream Christian doctrine and especially with Christian history. So much is either not logical or portrays a God and an afterlife that I wouldn't want to have anything to do with anyway. It is only because of the scriptures and revelations received by Joseph Smith that I can buy in to Christianity at all. I can't believe that a minimally educated farm boy could make such beautiful sense out of centuries of corruption.

[Elphaba]

Brian C. Hales is getting close to publishing his book on the wives of Joseph Smith. He's sent prelim copies to friends for review. I'm looking forward to it.

So, Hi, are you a friend?

Elphie

[rameumptom]

Has this always been the position of the Catholic church or has there been some kind of change in position over time??

I mean didn't the Catholic church view such "protesting" with contempt????

I think it is rather recent, since there was a time when such "protesting" brought about the Inquisition, excommunications (such as Martin Luther), and even burnings at the stake.

Of course, Protestants have also burned people at the stake. But then, those aren't required to be actively taught about these Christian religions, because they aren't Joseph Smith.

[Guest ceeboo]

I have Catholic family members that believe and have been told by their priests that the LDS will not be going to heaven. I have never heard anything like the above quote before. Unless they are distinguishing the LDS from the general Christian population? But it was my understanding that the rules for getting into the Catholic heaven are as strict as the rules for getting into the LDS celestial kingdom. These are only attained through specific ordinances administered by those in authority. So I don't see how a Catholic could claim that a non-Catholic Christian could obtain heaven without baptism, communion, and adherance to the other laws and requirements.

Hi Lindsayjane,

Forgive me if I do not completly understand your contribution. You, having Catholic members in your family ( confirmed by priests ), understand that there will be no LDS

in heaven? In addition, to reach " Catholic heaven " ( ??? ) you must follow a strict set of rules? while I await your response I thought I might offer a few comments for your consideration.

Catholics do not believe in a " Catholic heaven " rather we believe in one heaven where ALL ( because of the grace, love, and ultimate sacrifice by our Lord Jesus) has made this one heaven attainable for ALL OF US BROKEN PEOPLE. YES INDEED, we believe that the best way to get there is through the Church that he ( Jesus ) left us with, but certainly do not professs it to be the ONLY WAY. By the way, it is not the best way because we think we are all that and a bag of chips ( far from it ).

Due to the picture you seem to have painted, are you suggesting that we ( Catholics ) will be the only ones to spend eternity with our Lord and savior? If so, what picture would you paint of us concerning all the non Catholics, the ignorant, the 40,000 plus protestent denominations, the Jews, and so on in regard to their eternal fate ?

I will stop for now,:)

God bless,

Carl

[rameumptom]

According to the Catholic view, we are a restorationist Church. This mean we did not come out from them, as did the Protestants. IOW, we are not in their line, a broken limb off their tree. We are an entirely new plant, and therefore cannot hope to be saved via the blessings coming down from the Catholic/Universal Church to Catholics and (hopefully) Protestants.

But we LDS will still allow all of them to be saved anyway, even if we burn in one of their many hells planned for us.....

[Guest ceeboo]

According to the Catholic view, we are a restorationist Church. This mean we did not come out from them, as did the Protestants. IOW, we are not in their line, a broken limb off their tree. We are an entirely new plant, and therefore cannot hope to be saved via the blessings coming down from the Catholic/Universal Church to Catholics and (hopefully) Protestants.

But we LDS will still allow all of them to be saved anyway, even if we burn in one of their many hells planned for us.....

Hi again Ram,

VERY interesting perspective ( to say the least )

Slightly different context, if I may,

Do you ( LDS ) also see your Church as a restoration Church ?

The protestent Christian brethren are a limb ( not a broken limb as you suggest )

Your claim of being a new plant ( true, do you debate that you are ? )

The last comment speaks volumes to me. Your quote " BUT the LDS allow all of them to be saved"

I was under the assumption that Jesus ( NOT LDS, NOT CATHOLIC,NOR ANY OTHER RELIGION) had the ability or power to allow or prevent this eternal saving, further I thought we ALL owe Jesus that enormous thank you and not the LDS.

Anyway, just another example ( as I see it ) of choosing your " home " by deciding what it most appetizing for our own life.

God bless,

Carl

[candyprpl]

You're right. In fact, you are probably exactly right, in that LDS also believe that non-LDS will populate the heavenly kingdoms, though almostly exclusively the Telestial and Terrestial realms.

I'm taking an Institute class right now and the senior missionary couple teaching have brought a great deal of insight my way. I have come to know my Father in Heaven better than I thought possible. While reading the post that I have in quotation, I remembered this handout that was given to us students a few weeks ago...

Elder James E. Talmage, Conference Report, Apr. 1930. "During this hundred years [of Church history] many other great truths not known before, have been declared to the people, and one of the greatest is that to hell there is an exit as well as an entrance. Hell is no place to which a vindictive judge sends prisoners to suffer and to be punished prinicipally for his glory; but it is a place prepared for the teaching, the disciplining of those who failed to learn here upon the earth what they should have learned. True, we read of everlasting punishment, unending suffering, eternal damnation. That is a direful expression; but in the mercy the Lord has made plain what those words mean. 'Eternal punishment,' he says, is God's punishment, for he is eternal; and that condition or state or possibility will ever exist for the sinner who deserves and really needs such condemnation; but this does not mean that the individual sufferer or sinner is to be eternally and everlastingly made to endure and suffer. No man will be kept in hell longer than is necessary to bring him to a fitness for something better. When he reaches that stage the prison doors will open and there will be rejoicing among the hosts who welcome him into a better state. The Lord has not abated in the least what he has said in earlier dispensations concerning the operation of his law and his gospel, but he has made clear unto us his goodness and mercy through it all, for it is his glory and his work to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man."

We have a loving Father in Heaven, full of mercy and from this quote I also think, that those WE think should only have the glory of the Telestial or Terrestial may not be the case. They will be taught in the spirit world and given a chance to learn and progress. Only our Eternal Father knows.

PC -- I do enjoy your posts -- it's refreshing having a non-member post without becoming contentious.:)

[candyprpl]

As far as I'm concerned, all of the fuzzy details of Joseph's life can be speculated about indefinitely, but none of those details have any bearing on the simple facts of the works he produced. First, the Book of Mormon. Yes, the authorship and validity of the BOM is debated, but the clarifications it offers for many of Christianity's ambiguous and controversial doctrines make more sense to me than any of the verse-twisting, pick-and-choosing methods of explanation I've ever heard from mainstream Christians. Second, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. The ideas found in these books paint a more plausible picture of God, man, and eternity than any other religious text I have ever read (and I've read a lot of the world's sacred texts). I have thought occasionally that if I weren't LDS I wouldn't even be Christian. There are simply too many problems with mainstream Christian doctrine and especially with Christian history. So much is either not logical or portrays a God and an afterlife that I wouldn't want to have anything to do with anyway. It is only because of the scriptures and revelations received by Joseph Smith that I can buy in to Christianity at all. I can't believe that a minimally educated farm boy could make such beautiful sense out of centuries of corruption.

GREAT TESTIMONY!!! I say, HEAR, HEAR!!!

[Misshalfway]

Hey Carl.

I think Ram was being a little sarcastic with his last statement. The whole "LDS allow" thing was not our position. Hope you can see thru the fray on that one. I prefer to poke Ram and then roll my eyes and then, of course, offer him a biscuit!! :)

You bet we think our church is a restoration church. It is part of our very foundation. And it something that I would imagine would put us at odds with Catholic theology. We believe that the authority to act in Gods name was lost shortly after the resurrection of the Lord and needed to be brought back to the earth. So, no we would not disagree if, in fact, the Catholic Church said something like this "new plant" idea.

I must say that I am confused by your posts. Perhaps it is that you are answering questions with questions, which is fine but perhaps my brain is a little slower. :) It appears you love your faith and perhaps are feeling defensive. I sure hope not! :) I, for one, just had never heard what PC said and it shocked me. And listening to your responses, I feel more confused about certain things.

It sounds like you are saying that the Catholic church believes that there is one heaven and that thru the blood of Christ and his grace than mankind can be saved into that kingdom when life is over. I am also seems that certain lines are drawn concerning such opportunities. My question is does the Catholic church feel that the Protestants have a chance.....because of their "blood lines" so to speak and that other any other group outside of that circle will not be saved. Am I understanding the Catholic position or not? BTW, I have no desire to dispute it. Only to understand. In fact, I would assume that such would be true....only I was under the impression that protestants were heretical groups and so I am interested in this apparent change in the RCC's position.

I also have questions about Hell and pergatory and judgement. I suppose I hold a similar question to LindsayJane. Only your answer wasn't really an answer.

Anyway, I would love to understand more. From you, cuz you are funny....and any other Catholics rather than mormon or protestant versions of what you believe.

Edited July 31, 2008 by Misshalfway