| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/27/2008 10:49:46 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by Louis:
Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
This is not true. :) |
Hm, I should have trolled GoogleLand before writing that. God merely hates divorce, preventing communion only until you sincerely repent of the sin. It's the divorced and remarried that can't take communion. |
Repentan$$e through ecclesiastic annulment. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 10:50:51 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by Louis:
Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
This is not true. :) |
An act of conscience to some extent, I have heard of the rule, but how does a priest know if one is divorced, and if he does - will he deny you? |
They can and some will deny you communion for various reasons. The Archbishop in the diocese of St Louis called for all priest to deny communion to any public official who is openly pro-choice. As for marriage, you can get a divorce in the eyes of the law but not the church, an annulment actually states that the marriage never took place and has never existed. So with no annulment, you can never be remarried in the eyes of the church.
Message edited by author 2008-02-27 10:54:28. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 11:26:12 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So interestingly, while I would agree wholeheartedly with Mormons that "faith without works is dead" (nearly always the first verse quoted to me at my doorstep), I also wholeheartedly disagree that works are required for salvation. (For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—) Perhaps I should let the Mormons answer for themselves, but as far as I understand, attaining the highest level of heaven cannot be accomplished without certain specific actions by people on earth (baptism, tithing, following the "words of wisdom" and not doing such things as drinking, smoking, etc).
I'll let others weigh in there though. |
There's an interesting presumption hidden between the lines here. Not necessarily yours, Doc, but a more general, "Christian" presumption: I may be wrong on this, but it's my experience that most American Christians believe in a "one-level" (for lack of a better term) heaven. That is to say, all who have been Saved are equal in heaven, there are no distinctions between them.
The LDS believe a little differently, their heaven, so to speak, is subdivided. You have to "qualify" for the best real estate up there.
Speaking for myself, that makes sense to me. But maybe that's just the way I am... I have no "theological" basis for saying this; it's just a gut feeling.
R.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 11:28:51 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by colyla:
Originally posted by Louis:
Now, they've softened up a bit, and just deny divorced persons communion for the remainder of their lives. |
This is not true. :) |
Hm, I should have trolled GoogleLand before writing that. God merely hates divorce, preventing communion only until you sincerely repent of the sin. It's the divorced and remarried that can't take communion. |
You can get divorced and receive communion. You cannot get divorced and remarried and take communion 'unless' you're previous marriage has been annulled. Your remarriage has to be in a catholic church or (again, after an annullment of prior marriage)or be blessed (forget catholic term) in the church if you got married outside of church (this can't be done until you've been married 6 months, if you did it outside of church).
I hoped I typed this correctly...as I type faster than I think sometimes! :)
ETA: Sorry Doc!! Back to the topic!! (you can pm if you have specific questions and I'll try to answer to the best of my ability)
Message edited by author 2008-02-27 11:30:20. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 11:28:54 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
So while everyone receives a perfected body and in that sense is "saved", those who return to live again with him (in the highest orders of his kingdom), may only do so by living a life according to his word, by repenting, by receiving the saving ordinances (baptism, etc). But even then, if it weren't for his saving grace, it would be impossible to do "enough" to wash the stains of sin from our lives, which is why we emphasize that we are "saved by grace, after all that we can do". |
Getting back on topic, here's something I don't know about. How do Mormons handle sin? I'm quite sure Mormons are not perfect (call it personal experience with my own life...). If getting to heaven is dependent on "all that we can do", how can you ever live up to that? Are you really always doing all that you can do? And if not, what is the mechanism of forgiveness? And if there is a mechanism of forgiveness, then are the deeds really needed to gain highest heaven? |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 11:30:05 AM · #131 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I believe for man to become a god or god like is a dangerous position, Man has always shown the tendency to move into a point of self reliance which creates separation from God. To me becoming god it is contrary to what the Bible teaches so it would be interesting to hear how the Mormon belief system deals with man's sinful nature and if that nature is changed at some point where becoming a god would be beneficial rather than detrimental. In other words, if I become a god will I still truly need God? |
Hmmm... interesting question. Here's my opinion:
If a man truly follows the teachings of Christ, he won't be the kind of man you describe ... a sinful man, one who usurps power for his own needs and glory. That would be quite the opposite of Christ. Such a man would not become exalted (or god-like).
However, one who truly follows Christ will be like Christ. And did Christ still need his Father? Absolutely.
The scriptures teach us "Be ye therefore perfect". |
Good stuff, thanks for your responses, here are some additional thoughts.
Scriptures also tell us in Romans 3:22-23 we all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
For believers to be made perfect relies on the forgiveness of sins which is something God would not need. So for me it becomes hard to believe we can attain the status of being a god when we struggle to even come close to living a life without sin and are totally reliant on God. I know a lot of what I would consider good God fearing christian people who will tell you they still struggle with sin and are thankful there is a path for forgiveness. We are perfected through forgiveness not through our actions, I agree with your earlier statement that as believers our lives should begin to take on the characteristics of God but to me that should not include becoming God.
I think earlier you said Mormons use the bible also for scripture and teaching in a addition to the book of Mormon, is that true and if so how does this align with Mormon teaching, I would find it fascinating how this is addressed in the Mormon scriptures.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 11:31:27 AM · #132 |
As for marriage, you can get a divorce in the eyes of the law but not the church, an annulment actually states that the marriage never took place and has never existed. So with no annulment, you can never be remarried in the eyes of the church.
You actually can get divorced in the eyes of the church and you can get re-married. You just have to go through the presidency of the church to get it cleared. My aunt was married an sealed in the temple and then got a divorce. When she married my uncle she got it cleared through the presidency and was able to be re-married and sealed to my uncle. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 11:33:18 AM · #133 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There's an interesting presumption hidden between the lines here. Not necessarily yours, Doc, but a more general, "Christian" presumption: I may be wrong on this, but it's my experience that most American Christians believe in a "one-level" (for lack of a better term) heaven. That is to say, all who have been Saved are equal in heaven, there are no distinctions between them.
The LDS believe a little differently, their heaven, so to speak, is subdivided. You have to "qualify" for the best real estate up there.
Speaking for myself, that makes sense to me. But maybe that's just the way I am... I have no "theological" basis for saying this; it's just a gut feeling.
R. |
Most of the churches I've attended believe in a much milder version than separate levels of salvation. They would say all Christians gain salvation (living in heaven with God for eternity), but there will be a second judgement where our acts and deeds are judged and rewarded. How that plays out in heaven is usually left nebulous. So there may be differences in heaven, but we are all there. To differentiate, Mormons believe that only the highest heaven (The Celestial Kingdom) has access to God. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 11:43:30 AM · #134 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
I was baptized over 50 times in one sitting for all the dead souls that were not mormons. |
Is there a way I can protect my name from this extreme act of proselytism?
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 11:44:57 AM · #135 |
Originally posted by battymaddie:
As for marriage, you can get a divorce in the eyes of the law but not the church, an annulment actually states that the marriage never took place and has never existed. So with no annulment, you can never be remarried in the eyes of the church.
You actually can get divorced in the eyes of the church and you can get re-married. You just have to go through the presidency of the church to get it cleared. My aunt was married an sealed in the temple and then got a divorce. When she married my uncle she got it cleared through the presidency and was able to be re-married and sealed to my uncle. |
Sorry to run off topic but I wanted to clarify that I was refering to the Catholic church, not LDS. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:08:06 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Here is another area where I think the LDS doctrines may differ from other religions. We view Christ's final hours as two parts:
1) It is in the garden of Gethsemane, where he prayed to his Father and suffered and sweat drops of blood, that he "atoned" for our sins.
2) And it is on the cross, where he willingly gave his life, that he paid the price that allows all of us to be resurrected.
The first act, the atonement, requires that we repent in order for the atonement to be effective in our lives (grace and works). The second act is a free gift to all. Every person who has come to earth and received a body will be resurrect (grace only, no works required).
So while everyone receives a perfected body and in that sense is "saved", those who return to live again with him (in the highest orders of his kingdom), may only do so by living a life according to his word, by repenting, by receiving the saving ordinances (baptism, etc). But even then, if it weren't for his saving grace, it would be impossible to do "enough" to wash the stains of sin from our lives, which is why we emphasize that we are "saved by grace, after all that we can do". |
David, I assume that "everyone" at the beginning of the last paragraph actually means "people who have accepted Christ as the savior"? Just a clarification, not an argument about whether that's correct or not. We just have to careful about words like "everyone" where religion is concerned. :)
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:31:48 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Kali:
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
I was baptized over 50 times in one sitting for all the dead souls that were not mormons. |
Is there a way I can protect my name from this extreme act of proselytism? |
Not to worry, the work is done for everyone. You have what is called "FREE AGENCY", it is your choice whether to accept it or not. It is not an automatic....you are in.....type of situation. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:47:29 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by PhotoCatcher:
Originally posted by Kali:
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
I was baptized over 50 times in one sitting for all the dead souls that were not mormons. |
Is there a way I can protect my name from this extreme act of proselytism? |
Not to worry, the work is done for everyone. You have what is called "FREE AGENCY", it is your choice whether to accept it or not. It is not an automatic....you are in.....type of situation. |
There was a big hubbub when some Jews took exception to holocaust victims being baptized by proxy. As a result, their names were removed from the archival records and, I believe, there is a mechanism for having your name removed if you want.
Baptism for the Dead is the root of why Mormons are keenly interested in geneology. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 12:51:53 PM · #139 |
My mormon friend in college also told us that we were baptized so that we could be sealed with a Mormon husband in eternity.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:00:46 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by PhotoCatcher:
Originally posted by Kali:
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
I was baptized over 50 times in one sitting for all the dead souls that were not mormons. |
Is there a way I can protect my name from this extreme act of proselytism? |
Not to worry, the work is done for everyone. You have what is called "FREE AGENCY", it is your choice whether to accept it or not. It is not an automatic....you are in.....type of situation. |
There was a big hubbub when some Jews took exception to holocaust victims being baptized by proxy. As a result, their names were removed from the archival records and, I believe, there is a mechanism for having your name removed if you want.
Baptism for the Dead is the root of why Mormons are keenly interested in geneology. |
YES, Mormons are keenly interested in geneology so that we may do this work for our ancestors. We (and I) believe that this work most be completed on this earth. I have done work for my ancestors but it is still up to them whether to accept or reject the baptism. Their choice not mine. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:07:28 PM · #141 |
This is an amazingly civil conversation -- possibly one of the most civil in the history of the Internet -- and I don't want to be the one to soil it. When dealing with Mormonism, however, I think there are some very difficult points that need to be brought up.
To me, the litmus test of anything worth believing is the evidence for it. Religion should be no different. If you are unwilling to question your beliefs, you'll believe anything.
You can see throughout this thread various comments along the lines of "all religions are basically a matter of preference and/or upbringing but they're all basically good." But if a belief has no basis in historical fact to go along with its pragmatic value, then any thinking person should rejected it. All religions can be wrong, but they can't all be right.
The Bible is a collection of writings from dozens of authors written over thousands of years that come together to form a cohesive story about God's redemptive plan for humanity. Where the New Testament is concerned, we have thousands of early copies verifying its historical accuracy -- some that can be dated to well within 100 years of their original writing. No other ancient document comes anywhere close to being this imperically verifiable. These are clearly actual letters of coorespondence between actual people, some who actually witnessed the crucifixion of Christ. Nearly all of them went on to die for their belief that Christ had risen from the dead. If your "messiah" claimed divinity and was then killed and did not rise again, would you go on perpetuating a lie, only to suffer constant persecution and paying with your life? When all the evidence is laid out before you it is not a question of whether or not this document says what its original authors intended. It is simply a question of whether or not you believe the history that its authors wrote down, and whether or not you believe the evidence is strong enough to prove divine inspiration.
In contrast, what do we have with the Book of Mormon? The word of a single witness that an angel led him to find golden plates (which are gone) and a magical translating device (also gone) which inexplicably allowed him to translate these plates into King James English (as if that were the "official" language of scripture), and told the story of an ancient North American civilization for which there is absolutely no archaeological evidence and that couldn't possibly have arisen without beasts of burden (which did not exist on this continent until European settlers brought them), and teaches doctrine that not only unnecessarily supplements the clear teaching of all Judeo-Christian scripture but completely changes its meaning into what all of Christendom considers heresy.
Also, Joseph Smith claimed to have translated an ancient Egyptian text from heiroglyphics into something containing proper names such as "Moses" (literally impossible to do with idiograms). This original text was recently rediscovered (including Joseph Smith's original notes in the margins), and under later study at Brigham Young University was found to be nothing more than a collection of ancient Egyptian funeral instructions. I have heard that several LDS scientists left their church when this was learned.
I don't mean this to be an attack. But it seems to me that the evidence for Mormonism is no more credible than that of a UFO or bigfoot sighting. If I have made any factual errors, please feel free to correct me. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:18:18 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by grigrigirl:
sorry mom, but personally, I think joseph smith was in the woods eating those "mushrooms" when the hallucination of light and angels appeared to him. The guy was wacko. |
When I read about Joseph Smith, the only difference I see between him and Warren Jeffs is the year.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:20:40 PM · #143 |
Here's the problem superpope. While I actually agree with you (at the end of the day, I do think Mormonism is based on a fallacy), our own religion seems preposterous to others. So where do you draw the line? While I understand the feelings behind it, I think it's pretty hard to discount another religion because it "doesn't make sense".
That being said, you do bring up some tough points. Perhaps we can ask classycam. Why believe in the precepts of a religion if there is evidence to directly counter the historical data?
Be aware though, this question can be somewhat turned on Christianity itself. We've had to deal with an earth that is far older than 6,000 years, odd and amazing stories in the first seven chapters of Genesis, etc.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:20:55 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There was a big hubbub when some Jews took exception to holocaust victims being baptized by proxy. |
Huh? Mormons baptize other people? I guess I didn't understand what grigrigirl meant about being baptized 50 times for dead souls.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:23:27 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
There was a big hubbub when some Jews took exception to holocaust victims being baptized by proxy. |
Huh? Mormons baptize other people? I guess I didn't understand what grigrigirl meant about being baptized 50 times for dead souls. |
According to the documentary, their hope is to baptize the (insert large number that is somewhere from 100 million to a billion) names that exist in their geneological catalog. If you are already dead, this baptism will allow you the choice of whether to accept the Mormon faith if you would like.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:27:31 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by superpope:
I don't mean this to be an attack. But it seems to me that the evidence for Mormonism is no more credible than that of a UFO or bigfoot sighting. If I have made any factual errors, please feel free to correct me. |
Umm. As opposed to all of Christianity, which is based on the idea that a body was missing, so naturally he must have risen? Regardless of how many texts you can trace to that time, that's not a logical conclusion. Or Judaism, which is based on the idea that some higher being talked to Abraham? Again, was it real or a hallucination? Or ... well, you see my point, I hope.
All religions are based on things that are taken on faith. I think it's a pretty tough argument to make that any one of them is somehow more logical than another. Note that I'm not making the atheist argument here, either. Just that you can't really distinguish based solely on evidence and logic.
As an aside, I recommend Robert Heinlein's "Job: A Comedy of Justice" for an amusing take on the world's religions.
Message edited by author 2008-02-27 13:29:18.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:29:25 PM · #147 |
| i'm failing to understand why god would need someone to get baptized for someone else just to offer them the choice to accept the faith. why cant he just offer them the choice once they have died? |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:35:49 PM · #148 |
Sorry, I keep popping in an out. I need to get some work done at work.
Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf. |
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:42:33 PM · #149 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
i'm failing to understand why god would need someone to get baptized for someone else just to offer them the choice to accept the faith. why cant he just offer them the choice once they have died? |
Personally, I fail to understand why any god would require humans to worship it/him/her either. You'd think they'd have better things to concern them. It seems to make more sense in the context of glorification for the particular leadership of any given religion than the deity.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2008 01:43:39 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Haha, those are good examples SP. Certainly Christianity has collected its share of baggage over the years.
Tell me, in your view, which way it is. Mormons seem to like to include themselves with Christians when speaking in generalities ("hey, we believe in Jesus too!"), but like to separate themselves when speaking in specifics ("hey, we're really the only true church!"). Which do you see yourself as and where do you place the rest of us? |
For me personally, this is not an issue. I was raised Mormon, but am no longer a member, nor a member of any church or creed. I hold no animosity toward the LDS Church. I don't think they are correct, doctrinally, but I don't think they are any less incorrect than any other religion -- there is much to criticize in regard to Mormons, but there is also much to credit.
As to the general question: Your ecumenical stance is quite laudatory, but it is also quite uncommon. My experience has been that, except for rare exceptions, all religions attempt to lay claim to ownership of specific truths. While they vary in the level of tolerance they are willing to extend to competitors, virtually all claim "truth" in their own beliefs and practices. Ecumenicalism is a modern concept, and hardly a concept that is universally accepted or even thought of as desireable. |
|
