The Three Levels of Heaven


Blossom76
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

Well, for a Catholic, getting baptized into another faith is the same as shooting yourself in the head... except, you have a slight chance of redeeming yourself if you don't die before you go back to the faith.

So a Catholic assumes there spouse is irrational? Wouldn't that bad assumption destroy the relationship since the Catholic would not trust their spouse or listen to them on the matter? 

That is one of the reasons why I am saying this issue of control needs to be dealt with first, before any give and take on religious matters is discussed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, james12 said:

So a Catholic assumes there spouse is irrational? Wouldn't that bad assumption destroy the relationship since the Catholic would not trust their spouse or listen to them on the matter? 

That is one of the reasons why I am saying this issue of control needs to be dealt with first, before any give and take on religious matters is discussed.  

It is not impossible that someone is devout in a faith that they do not understand in principle all that much.

 

The Traveler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Traveler said:

It is not impossible that someone is devout in a faith that they do not understand in principle all that much.

Yes that could be, and it would be worthy of a short discussion between husband and wife to insure there is mutual understanding on significant points of doctrine (though not necessarily agreement). But my comments are particularly directed at the analogy of selecting a different baptism being compared to shooting oneself in the head. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, james12 said:

So a Catholic assumes there spouse is irrational? Wouldn't that bad assumption destroy the relationship since the Catholic would not trust their spouse or listen to them on the matter? 

That is one of the reasons why I am saying this issue of control needs to be dealt with first, before any give and take on religious matters is discussed.  

No, the Catholic believes the spouse is about to make a terrible mistake (like killing herself) that will send her straight to hell.  A loving husband would do everything in his power within righteousness to prevent that (his wife going to hell) from happening in the same manner that a husband will do everything in his power to prevent a wife from shooting herself in the head (which will also send her to hell).  Both actions will lead to the breakdown of his family as well so, from his perspective, everything is about to go to hell in a handbasket.  Yes, it is a nightmare for a husband who went into a marriage, where divorce is not an option, believing his wife is Catholic.  It is different for a Catholic husband who went into an interfaith marriage with his eyes wide open.  This has nothing to do with control and everything to do with the salvation of his family's souls that he is obligated to protect under his marital covenant. 

Unless you believe that a husband stopping his wife from killing herself is just a control-freak... I really don't know how else to explain the dire seriousness of this situation in the perspective of a devout Catholic.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

No, the Catholic assumes the spouse is about to make a terrible mistake (like killing herself) that will send her straight to hell.  A loving husband would do everything in his power within righteousness to prevent that (his wife going to hell) from happening in the same manner that a husband will do everything in his power to prevent a wife from shooting herself in the head.

Except that an otherwise healthy individual would not kill themselves unless they had some serious mental disorder. If a Catholic husband believes baptism in the LDS church is like his wife killing herself, then he must assume she has some mental disorder. Right?

If this is how he thinks then there is no Bible discussion that will change his mind. He must first accept that she is a rational , fully functional individual.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, james12 said:

Except that an otherwise healthy individual would not kill themselves unless they had some serious mental disorder. If a Catholic husband believes baptism in the LDS church is like his wife killing herself, then he must assume she has some mental disorder. Right?

If this is how he thinks then there is no Bible discussion that will change his mind. He must first accept that she is a rational , fully functional individual.  

James... in the Catholic faith, being baptized and catechized Catholic receiving the sacraments AND THEN REJECTING Christ by leaving the faith IS AS SERIOUS as killing one's self.  In the same manner that the LDS teaches that having received revelation that Jesus is the Christ and then Rejecting Him sends you to Outer Darkness, a catechized Catholic believes that leaving the Catholic faith sends you to Hell (Outer Darkness).  If you are a person of faith going to Hell is the WORST THING that can ever happen to you.  It's a spiritual death that has no salvation.   A lot of people, even religious ones, treat this as some nebulous thing up in the air somewhere that they can't seem to relate it to immediate things such as mortal death.  Mortal death is not eternal.  Spiritual death is.  It is a grave danger.

You cannot assume that a person who wants to kill himself is simply suffering from a mental disorder.  She may seriously just want to kill herself because she believes that being dead is better than being alive.  The husband, therefore, will do everything in his power to stop the killing while he works on making his wife understand that dying is not the correct path.  This is what the husband is doing.  This is not about being a control freak.  This is about LIFE AND DEATH of one's soul.

The only way the husband will stop trying to save his wife is if he gives up on his Catholic faith (path to hell for him), or he abandons his marital covenant (divorce is also a path to hell for a Catholic), or the husband becomes inspired to seek the truth of the restored gospel for himself... those are the only possibilities.  Or, if he doesn't love his wife much he could just let his wife go to fend for herself and try to seek repentance for himself and his children without her! 

I've been LDS for 17 years and even today, my mother still diligently tries to get me back to the Catholic church and gets the Carmelite sisters to ceaselessly pray for my salvation.  She is resentful of my husband even as she tries her best to be kind.  She believes that I have been won over by the devil.  She tried to stop my marriage to a non-LDS even as I was still devoutly Catholic.  She saw the danger.  I left my family and eloped!  They didn't speak to me until my first child was born.  And that's just my mother.  I love her so much for all the things she tried to do to save my soul.  She wouldn't do that if she didn't love me.  How much more for a husband who has to raise children with his wife!

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, james12 said:

Yes that could be, and it would be worthy of a short discussion between husband and wife to insure there is mutual understanding on significant points of doctrine (though not necessarily agreement). But my comments are particularly directed at the analogy of selecting a different baptism being compared to shooting oneself in the head. 

Not sure why you have difficulty with this concept of different baptisms.  Baptisms are symbolic of someone accepting G-d.  Not accepting the correct baptism (which gets someone into heaven) is there for a path to Hell.  The very term Hell means death.  So yes, taking a path to anywhere but heaven is like shooting one’s self in the head.

Catholics are similar to us LDS (Mormons) in that we believe baptism is validated by authority.  Just like someone cannot spend counterfeit money for things of value – one cannot spend a counterfeit baptisms for an entry to heaven.  You may not like the concept – but that does not mean that it does not exist.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anatess2 and Traveler,  I'm not misunderstanding how other religions view baptism. I realize they see it as serious. But this is an issue of control, and comparing baptism to someone shooting themselves in the head is a terrible analogy. 

I see you both don't agree. That's fine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, just to clear something up.  My husband is a loving kind faithful man who only has my best interests at heart, if he was abusive he wouldn't even let me attend LDS church or study its teachings.  He is being as supportive as he is able, he is reading everything I bring home (The Gospel Principles book and he even said that if I get really serious about wanting to join he will read the Book Of Mormon also) and we discuss what the missionaries are teaching me at church (out of respect I do not have the missionaries teach me in our home, it would be disrespectful to my husband) 

He is not abusive at all.  He is however, the head of the household and I respect that position, as I should.  And it is not just this life he is worried about, it is eternity, which I'm sure any LDS member can understand.  After all, in your faith if you do not both hold a temple recommend, and are sealed together in the temple then you do not spend eternity together. How would you feel if your spouse abandoned you for eternity, that is the reality of what my husband may be facing. 

Ephesians 5: 21-33

The Christian Household

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Edited by Blossom76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Paul was describing how there are common traits with differing levels.  Heaven and Earth are different.  But they are both thought of as places to be.  Bodies are bodies.  But there are different bodies.  Beasts and men are different even though they both have bodies of some kind.

Just the same, there is a glory that we are raised to (an imperishable body).  However, we can be raised to a glory of the stars in that imperishable body, or we can be raised to a glory of the moon in an imperishable body, or we can be raised to a glory of the sun in an imperishable body.

It helps to consider a premodern view of what flesh is. Today, we have a very chemical view of the world; we know things are made of elements, of which there are really only a small handful, a few dozen that get used. Our bodies are molecules composed of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, phosphorus, hydrogen, and a few other types of atoms. Everything is.

The ancients had no such knowledge. To them, flesh itself was a primitive type of substance. Yet there were different kinds of flesh -- flesh of fish, of birds, of beasts, and of men. Even different men had various kinds of flesh.

So Paul took this idea to fashion his teaching, which was that in the resurrection, we will come forth with a specific kind of flesh, corresponding to our resurrection. Our bodies today are a seed of what we will eventually become. Holy living and divine covenants make our flesh holy, and that will result in our glorious resurrection. If we instead sow corruption, then after the "seed" of our body dies, we will come forth, but unto damnation. Because the law of the harvest is that whatever we plant, we'll reap. You can't plant wheat in a field, then go out into that field six months later and harvest apples.

You can't live in sin and debauchery, without God in the world, and think you'll come forth in the resurrection to the glory you might have had. One will have the glory of the heavens, as the sun, while another has the glory of the earthly, which Paul compares to the moon. Yet others will have the glory of the stars, which are not as luminous and glorious even as the moon is. And the stars themselves differ in beauty and glory, as will those who are resurrected.

YET: The sun is ONE glory. There are not various suns. Just the one. That is the glory we might come forth with. We might be as the stars, with one being brighter than another. Or we might be as the sun, sharing the glory of the Father himself, vastly outshining, by a billion times, the brightness of all the other stars put together.

As Latter-day Saints, we have more insight into Paul's teaching. Yet I think Paul's teaching is pretty clear, even without the benefit of latter-day revelation. The main problem is that people have a preconceived framework into which they fit Biblical teachings, including Paul's. The result is that when Paul proves the resurrection by asking rhetorically why people baptize for their dead if the dead ain't coming back, modern (non-LDS) Christians can't figure it out. They either ignore it altogether or else go to great lengths to explain it, stretching credulity to the breaking point by supposing that Paul was perhaps giving an example of a pagan or heretical practice, but citing it for his own truthful purposes. In any case, I think his teachings on the resurrection are reasonably clear to readers who put aside their personal agendas and try to take his words at face value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Well, for a devout and faithful Catholic, getting baptized into another faith is the same as killing yourself... except, you have a slight chance of redeeming yourself if you don't die before you go back to the faith.  One would assume she has a mental disorder, not thinking rationally, or possessed by the devil.

That's what I've been trying to explain here that non-Catholics don't get.

I think we get it, anatess. We simply reject it. We are (mostly) Americans, after all, so we are repelled by the idea that "anyone who thinks differently than I do about religion must be insane."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vort said:

I think we get it, anatess. We simply reject it. We are (mostly) Americans, after all, so we are repelled by the idea that "anyone who thinks differently than I do about religion must be insane."

But I never said that.  What I said was... "anyone who has been taught the true gospel and rejects it is going to hell".  Very different.  So, I'm still not sure you get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

But I never said that.  What I said was... "anyone who has been taught the true gospel and rejects it is going to hell".  Very different.  So, I'm still not sure you get it.

You also said that, in the Catholic view (I'm paraphrasing here), no rational person would choose hell by suicide -- or by leaving Catholicism. Therefore, anyone who contemplates leaving Catholicism must by definition not be in his or her right mind, and a loving spouse would do anything to prevent that evil from happening.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but it was just this family of thinking that largely drove the creation of the American state. Early European Americans were just as religious as their English and continental brethren, but they held that everyone could believe as they chose, without being locked up, exiled, or otherwise treated as insane and dangerous. If a man forbids his wife from joining another religion, he is exercising a privilege he does not rightly possess. That's the point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Blossom76 said:

He is not abusive at all.  He is however, the head of the household and I respect that position, as I should.  And it is not just this life he is worried about, it is eternity, which I'm sure any LDS member can understand.  After all, in your faith if you do not both hold a temple recommend, and are sealed together in the temple then you do not spend eternity together. How would you feel if your spouse abandoned you for eternity, that is the reality of what my husband may be facing. 

Ephesians 5: 21-33

The Christian Household

21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” 32 This is a great mystery, and I mean in reference to Christ and the church; 33 however, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

Blossom76, I commend your willingness to live faithfully by the Christian household ideal. I think it is absolutely wonderful and awesome to see someone not of the LDS faith striving to live their life and family life according to this model.  We could use a lot more people in the LDS church such as you and your husband.

I don't know how the Catholic Church is weathering the current hellish onslaught against the Scriptures, but it is certainly an interesting time to be in the LDS Church. 15-20 years ago, the LDS Church teachings were very, very strong in the traditional family model (and they still are to a large extent). See https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng&old=true.

Now if you read this document put out by the Prophet and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles in 1995 and compare it to what has culturally happened over the last 20 years it is quite stunning.  IMO, only individuals with a prophetic vision would have the knowledge, the foresight, the strength to have written a document such as the above.  Certainly, the teachings of the Church during my upbringing (and I'm fairly young) have made a heavy, heavy emphasis on the traditional family model with husbands at the head, wives as the scriptures say, children next.  Plenty of General Conference talks from Prophets and Apostles have described that the traditional family model works, husbands are to provide, wives are to nurture.

Unfortunately, as the world has become more wicked and gone away from God's laws it has also drawn many members of the LDS church too. The messages from the top are still by and large the same . . .unfortunately many of the membership no longer want to hear how the traditional family model is the God ordained model. People claim and want an exception to the rule.  There is a cultural shift that has occurred within the LDS church (and anyone who denies it is just blind to the facts). 

You will generally find that the over 35+ are by and large pretty conservative, but not quite as conservative as the over 50+ and under 35 starts to get very, very culturally liberal.  And this is why you will see quite a bit of discussion on this topic on LDS forum boards (forums tend to skew a little more liberal than the general Church populace).  Too many of the under 35 have been raised with more the world's view of marriage rather than God's view . . .but it's still better than the world's view so I guess that counts for something.

One thing that I have always admired of Catholics is their view on divorce; personally I subscribe more to that view than the cultural LDS view and unfortunately culturally in the LDS Church divorce has become way, way to common (but it is still much, much lower than the world).

So boy, we could sure use your families strength (this is besides the fact that the LDS Church was put in place by a legit no kidding Prophet of God :-).  Sidenote to the board, IMO these are the types of individuals the Church needs more of (humble followers of Christ). . . not the politically correct crud put out by articles that will remain anonymous on this website that have a socially liberal ideological bent.    

Edited by JoCa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/1/2017 at 3:55 PM, Vort said:

Apparently, you and the mouse in your pocket are. The scriptures are unambiguous about the degrees of glory.

AMEN!

The three degrees of glory, as commonly understood and as unambiguously taught by the Church, represents one of the best, most amazing, most profound truths restored by the restoration.

Without the doctrine of the three degrees of glory, people are either forced to choose between believing in a God who burns sinners in hell for eternity for finite mistakes often committed in ignorance or because the person was born into the wrong family or culture (which is utterly at odds with the ministry of Christ and the assertion that God is love and begs the question why God did not end humanity in Genesis with the flood as an act of basic mercy to save the 90% of humanity destined to go to hell under such a setup, as He clearly contemplated in Genesis), or people have the choice of choosing universalism (in which case, why do we have the Bible, the ten commandments, etc., if everyone is going to heaven anyways?)

Only the three degrees of glory, as taught unambiguously by the Church, allows for a balancing of interests, that what we do in this life matters as well as the fact that God is kind, loving, and has a place and plan for even His disobedient children who are not worthy of the Celestial Kingdom.  Binary doctrines regarding heaven and hell do not, and can not, be reconciled with the mission of Christ as revealed in the New Testament.  Only the degrees of glory, as taught in the mainstream of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is consistent with the overall message of Christ.

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

AMEN!

The three degrees of glory, as commonly understood and as unambiguously taught by the Church, represents one of the best, most amazing, most profound truths restored by the restoration.

Without the doctrine of the three degrees of glory, people are either forced to choose between believing in a God who burns sinners in hell for eternity for finite mistakes often committed in ignorance or because the person was born into the wrong family or culture (which is utterly at odds with the ministry of Christ and the assertion that God is love and begs the question why God did not end humanity in Genesis with the flood as an act of basic mercy to save the 90% of humanity destined to go to hell under such a setup, as He clearly contemplated in Genesis), or people have the choice of choosing universalism (in which case, why do we have the Bible, the ten commandments, etc., if everyone is going to heaven anyways?)

Only the three degrees of glory, as taught unambiguously by the Church, allows for a balancing of interests, that what we do in this life matters as well as the fact that God is kind, loving, and has a place and plan for even His disobedient children who are not worthy of the Celestial Kingdom.  Binary doctrines regarding heaven and hell do not, and can not, be reconciled with the mission of Christ as revealed in the New Testament.  Only the degrees of glory, as taught in the mainstream of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, is consistent with the overall message of Christ.

I disagree. You should look into the NT and Book of Mormon as to what Christ himself teally taught. Its as binary as binary can get!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2017 at 8:18 PM, JoCa said:

Unfortunately, as the world has become more wicked and gone away from God's laws it has also drawn many members of the LDS church too. The messages from the top are still by and large the same . . .unfortunately many of the membership no longer want to hear how the traditional family model is the God ordained model. People claim and want an exception to the rule.  There is a cultural shift that has occurred within the LDS church (and anyone who denies it is just blind to the facts).    

I agree with your sentiment in a limited sense but with the worldwide growth of the Church I don't think we can make these generalized statements anymore. Our level of exposure to LDS cultural is actually quite limited anymore. We may have some insight in how things look here in the US and perhaps in some of the more westernized nations but that's half or less than half of the total Church membership. It would not surprise me that we eventually see a repeat of scripture where those members of Lamanite descent form much of the backbone of the Church because of their total dedication to the gospel, including the family unit. I could also see this taking place in Africa and some of the other humbler nations of the world.

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, laronius said:

I agree with your sentiment in a limited sense but with the worldwide growth of the Church I don't think we can make these generalized statements anymore. Our level of exposure to LDS cultural is actually quite limited anymore. We may have some insight in how things look here in the US and perhaps in some of the more westernized nations but that's half or less than half of the total Church membership. It would not surprise me that we eventually see a repeat of scripture where those members of Lamanite descent form much of the backbone of the Church because of their total dedication to the gospel, including the family unit. I could also see this taking place in Africa and some of the other humbler nations of the world.

Good point; yes I should have clarified inside the US portion of the Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 12:01 PM, anatess2 said:

No, the Catholic believes the spouse is about to make a terrible mistake (like killing herself) that will send her straight to hell.  A loving husband would do everything in his power within righteousness to prevent that (his wife going to hell) from happening in the same manner that a husband will do everything in his power to prevent a wife from shooting herself in the head (which will also send her to hell).  Both actions will lead to the breakdown of his family as well so, from his perspective, everything is about to go to hell in a handbasket.  Yes, it is a nightmare for a husband who went into a marriage, where divorce is not an option, believing his wife is Catholic.  It is different for a Catholic husband who went into an interfaith marriage with his eyes wide open.  This has nothing to do with control and everything to do with the salvation of his family's souls that he is obligated to protect under his marital covenant. 

Unless you believe that a husband stopping his wife from killing herself is just a control-freak... I really don't know how else to explain the dire seriousness of this situation in the perspective of a devout Catholic.

 

This may be a tough thing for LDS to understand, but Anatess is absolutely correct on this.  For all of you who were never Catholic...there is a chance (however slight) that you will get to heaven.

For those who had the truth in the Catholic church, but then reject it or choose a different faith, their fate is sealed. 

The best parallel would be akin to the LDS belief that those who did not hear the gospel but would have accepted it if given the chance will receive celestial glory.  Contrast that to those who willingly choose to support another church, promote it, and then get excommunicated. 

Those who are Catholic and then join another religion, rejecting Catholicism are akin (though maybe even a tad worse) that the excommunicated member as per Catholicism.  At least how I understand it and has been explained to me in regards to my own salvation or not.

Adding:

How each responds to it probably differs from household to household, but I think the parallel would be to ask what lengths would one go to if they felt the actions of their spouse would condemn that spouse to Hell.  What would they do to prevent that from happening?

For Catholics, the spouse is literally choosing to reject the Lord from a Catholic perspective.  It can be a major disruption.  At least from my understanding.

Hence, the great need to pray and find out whether the Book of Mormon is true directly from the Holy Spirit/Lord.  If one can find the truth of that, then they will know whether the choice they are making is the right choice or not.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

This may be a tough thing for LDS to understand, but Anatess is absolutely correct on this.  For all of you who were never Catholic...there is a chance (however slight) that you will get to heaven.

For those who had the truth in the Catholic church, but then reject it or choose a different faith, their fate is sealed. 

The best parallel would be akin to the LDS belief that those who did not hear the gospel but would have accepted it if given the chance will receive celestial glory.  Contrast that to those who willingly choose to support another church, promote it, and then get excommunicated. 

Those who are Catholic and then join another religion, rejecting Catholicism are akin (though maybe even a tad worse) that the excommunicated member as per Catholicism.  At least how I understand it and has been explained to me in regards to my own salvation or not.

Adding:

How each responds to it probably differs from household to household, but I think the parallel would be to ask what lengths would one go to if they felt the actions of their spouse would condemn that spouse to Hell.  What would they do to prevent that from happening?

For Catholics, the spouse is literally choosing to reject the Lord from a Catholic perspective.  It can be a major disruption.  At least from my understanding.

Hence, the great need to pray and find out whether the Book of Mormon is true directly from the Holy Spirit/Lord.  If one can find the truth of that, then they will know whether the choice they are making is the right choice or not.

Man I'm glad we are Mormons and we don't go about our lives, thinking that most of the people around us are doomed to burning in hell for all of eternity for the great and horrible crime of being born into the wrong family/culture . . . it sadly seems most religious people (protestants, catholics, muslims, etc.) take on this depressing (and frankly medieval and tribal) mindset.  I also don't think you can have this mindset without it having at least some effect on how you treat others . . . 

Edited by DoctorLemon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

Man I'm glad we are Mormons and we don't go about our lives, thinking that most of the people around us are doomed to burning in hell for the great and horrible crime of being born into the wrong family/culture . . . it sadly seems most religious people take on this depressing (and frankly medieval and tribal) mindset.  I also don't think you can have this mindset without it having at least some effect on how you treat others . . . 

Well, with the modern Catholics, they do believe that those who are not Catholic also have a chance to go to heaven.  It is in a nutshell, very similar to the LDS idea.  If one would have accepted Catholicism (clarification: but not in all instances, very limited, depending on what their beliefs and thoughts are), or are Catholics in their hearts, they will be saved.  They may even have the Catholic church right there, but for some mortal reason, it is impossible for them to reasonably join, and as such may be subject to being saved.

It is those that ARE catholic and reject Catholicism that are doomed. 

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DoctorLemon said:

Man I'm glad we are Mormons and we don't go about our lives, thinking that most of the people around us are doomed to burning in hell for all of eternity for the great and horrible crime of being born into the wrong family/culture . . . it sadly seems most religious people (protestants, catholics, muslims, etc.) take on this depressing (and frankly medieval and tribal) mindset.  I also don't think you can have this mindset without it having at least some effect on how you treat others . . . 

I frankly believe that a non-trivial part of the rampant atheism around us is a reaction to the teachings of many religions that indescribable, never-ending suffering is the lot of most of the world's people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

Man I'm glad we are Mormons and we don't go about our lives, thinking that most of the people around us are doomed to burning in hell for all of eternity for the great and horrible crime of being born into the wrong family/culture . . . it sadly seems most religious people (protestants, catholics, muslims, etc.) take on this depressing (and frankly medieval and tribal) mindset.  I also don't think you can have this mindset without it having at least some effect on how you treat others . . . 

This is an incorrect interpretation of what I and Johnson Jones said.  Most of the people who are not born and raised by a Catholic parent are more than likely unbaptized and un-chatechized in the Catholic faith.  What we are talking about, therefore, does not apply to them.  Those who have not received the Catholic sacraments by no fault of their own can be saved by Christ's mercy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vort said:

I frankly believe that a non-trivial part of the rampant atheism around us is a reaction to the teachings of many religions that indescribable, never-ending suffering is the lot of most of the world's people.

That is no fault of the Catholic Church nor its teachings.  Catholics have taught since the days of Christ that repentance is free to all people (yes, there was a small time in its vast history where you can buy absolution).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share