Did we have a pre-premortal existence?

[_madeleine]

Yes, it is a gift of the Holy Spirit, given to Christ's Church. It is not the only gift. Individuals are guided by the Holy Spirit as well.

The Prophets and Apostles were moved by the Holy Spirit to give the messages they taught. Jesus gave His Apostles that gift before Pentecost. At Pentecost, the lay members of the church also received the gift of the Holy Ghost. The "gift" of the Holy Ghost is not reserved for Prophets and Apostles only; the Holy Ghost is a gift which is received by baptized members of the church. For a while it appears this gift was received all at the same time by large groups of church members. However, the Bible also teaches that individuals would receive this gift from an Apostle by the laying on of hands. It appears that this latter method of receiving the gift is the way the majority of believers obtained the gift of the Holy Ghost as the church grew (i.e., through the laying on of hands by someone who has the power and authority to do so).

We should not confuse the receiving of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands as the only method whereby mankind can receive Truth via the Holy Ghost. The Light of Christ dwells inside all of us. In some it shines brighter if it is has not been dulled by the choices we make. When we sincerely seek Truth in our lives, the Light of Christ inside of us will be drawn to more Light. When we hear Truth spoken, such as when we hear the Gospel message, if we are seeking Truth at that time, then we will feel the stirrings of the Light of Christ inside of us. If we are not seeking Truth at the time we hear the Gospel message, we will not experience any stirrings within us.

Those who feel the stirrings within them are more likely to decide to exercise faith in the message they have heard. This is when the Holy Ghost will confirm to us that we are making the right choice. Some may experience this confirming witness from the Holy Ghost in a big and profound way. Others may not be aware of the confirming witness other than having a continuing feeling that they are headed in the right direction. It depends upon the person, as each of us make our journey to return to God in a personal and distinct way which is different from anyone else's journey.

What if someone who is seeking Truth does not have anyone to teach them the Gospel message? The Holy Ghost will still guide and direct them. God is not a respector of persons. The Holy Ghost is an equal opportunity messenger so-to-speak.

Your point?

Peter is speaking of the person who gives the prophecy. Read both verses together. When a Prophet speaks God's will, he speaks according to what the Holy Ghost has been instructed by God to reveal. In other words, Peter is teaching that prophecy revealed in scripture (sometimes it has been handed down and taught through oral tradition; and sometimes it has been written down and taught through tradition) came from the influence of God; it did not come from the prophet's imagination or personal innovation.

Peter is teaching members how they can also be taught by the same method: through the Holy Ghost.

2 Peter 1:19 (KJV)
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

You make a distinction where there is none. Scripture is prophecy and is not separate from God.

Consider how we are instructed to let the Light which shines within us be seen by others. The Holy Ghost, as taught by Jesus, leads to all Truth. When we progress on our journey, more and more light replaces the darkness that is in us until such time as the "day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts".

Other people cannot take our journey for us. It is an error to believe that the RCC has had all Truth revealed to them, or that they are the only way to learn Truth. It is the Holy Ghost who reveals Truth. We need our own testimony and experiencing of the Truth which is revealed by the Holy Ghost. Once an individual HAS had ALL Truth revealed to them, then there is no darkness left inside of them. At that time their personal "will" will be in perfect alignment with God's will. Also at that time, that individual will have no further mystery about the Kingdom of God. As long as the RCC teaches in their doctrine that there are mysteries which cannot be understood, then they are manifesting to the world that they have not yet received all Truth.

I never said the RCC or Catholics have exclusive access to God. That would be a Mormon belief. I'm not Mormon.

I would offer that you read what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say about the Book of Daniel and about Revelation (you will find this under "the Apocalypse). The book of Revelation almost did not make it as canon. The RCC claims that John did not know what he was talking about; however they will quote some verses from Revelation when it suits their needs.

Hi, I've read that entry in the old encyclopedia before. It doesn't say what you are saying. You've applied an erroneous interpretation to it.

I see Sola Scriptura as a concept that if a person holds to a belief that in their opinion is not supported by the Bible, then that belief cannot be True. The Apostles wrote epistles in order to help members stay on the right path. When a person first comes to Christ, they are at a "milk" level of understanding. The Apostles continued to encourage the members to seek for spiritual Truth through the Holy Ghost. Jesus had taught the Apostles not to be concerned with what THEY wanted to say and teach. Rather, Jesus taught them that the Holy Ghost would prompt them on what to say and teach.

This presupposes that the Catholic Church can and has erred in its interpretation. Perhaps you can't see you own bias.

We can even see a learning curve evolving in the teachings of the Apostles, as they did not know everything when they started out. Wisdom and knowledge were continually being added to their understanding through the power of the Holy Ghost. We can see through the examples given by conversations between Peter and Paul, or Peter and the other Apostles, that wisdom, knowledge and Truth which was revealed to each of them was not given to all of them at the same time. They received in accordance with what God thought they were ready to have revealed to them.

Paul spent much of his time trying to teach about how it is the Holy Ghost who is the source of spiritual understanding. But the church was still young, and many members had not yet learned how to listen and hear and discern the Holy Ghost. Thus, Paul tells members how they are not yet ready for the "meat" understandings.

This pattern and process which was established in the New Testament has not changed. We all receive wisdom and knowledge and Truth according to our readiness and ability to receive it. The Bible never teaches that only one person had the power and authority to interpret scripture. The Holy Ghost is available to ALL of mankind.

As you progress in your own personal journey, and if you sincerely seek Truth, the Holy Ghost will reveal more to you. You have already taken a huge step from Atheism to belief in Christ. Right now the Institution of the RCC religion is where you are most comfortable in your journey. This is as it should be. All that I would offer at this time is that you be aware that Truth is everywhere....not just in the RCC. Keep your heart and your mind open....in seeking mode, if you will, so that your spirit can continue to receive more Light. Light exists within and without the box of organized religious institutions. Organized religious institutions tend to place God inside of their own man-created box; thus limiting the members of those institutions to a particular view of what is allowed to be believed.

I trust where God has led me. I don't think it is up to you to tell me God has withheld something from me. You don't know what God has done. God has not been teasing me, dangling a carrot. I rejected that god many decades ago. Neither do I believe I know everything, or even need to. I have trust in Jesus Christ.

I would offer that there are many levels of understanding within the Bible which the Holy Ghost will reveal to you when you are ready. Also, there are many things in the Bible which are not easily understood until we are ready. Yet, when our spirit receives revelation, we need to make sure that what has been revealed fits with the rest of our interpretations. It is more complicated than it may first appear due to our enthusiasm and rejoicing in having come to Christ. We need to progress from milk to meat and to more.

I would offer to you that you are trying my patience, being presumptuous. I have no interest in the false prophets of Mormonism.

This is wonderful!! Again, I would offer that you keep your heart and your mind opened. We are all blind to what has not yet been revealed to us personally. We all have much to learn.

What Frank was referring to which Jesus hates (and this hate is mentioned twice in Revelation) is the Nicolaitans and what they represented. We can learn some of what Jesus meant by looking at the word "nicolaitans" and its definition. Basically, the Nicolaitans had a belief system wherein their claim was that the leaders of this group believed the members had to look to them for direction and guidance. This obviously places the guidance and direction which the Holy Ghost has been given responsibility for into a sub-position of importance. Unfortunately, the Pope now holds that very position and has usurped the power and authority of the Holy Ghost to personally lead each believer individually.

Regardless of what the correct interpretation of what Jesus meant, Peter taught against what the Pope does:

1 Peter 5:1-3 (KJV)

5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock.

Please especially note that Peter is not claiming to be of any higher authority than any other elder. Now, since the RCC claims that you must be a member of their religious institution in order to obtain Salvation,

The RCC claims no such thing.

and that you must believe and agree with everything they teach, they are manifesting constraint over the laity. Thus, they have already disobeyed this teaching of the Apostle whom they claim is their very foundation.

This is your opinion. Catholics are free to engage in the Church how they choose. I can't say I see this or ever knew it in Mormonism. Rigid conformation being the norm for Mormons. There is a wide variety of cultures and people in Catholicism. Mormonism is homogenized.

The Catholic Church proposes, no Catholic is forced to accept anything she has to say. She is the well, where all are free to drink from, or are free to walk a wide birth around.

You seem to have this idea that the Holy Spirit is not active in this process. My own experience causes me to be in disagreement with you.

You believe this is so because that is where you are in your journey. And your journey is now constrained within the RCC institution.

Blessings,

jo

Seriously, you are like the blind trying to tell a person who can see what the sky looks like today.

I was raised LDS, you can be sure, I rejected it all from top to bottom, decades ago. I'd still be an atheist to this day if it weren't for God grabbing me and dragging me into the Catholic Church. I literally, had no intention of converting. Organized religion, because of my Mormon background, was nothing for me but an anxiety attack. I was only curious about what Christians believe. Mormonism still creeps me out at some level. I'm sorry to say, your posts bring out that creeped out feeling. Robotic belief is what I see.

My conversion experience, my life as a Catholic, is more than the falsehoods of Mormonism could ever hope to offer.

[_Franktalk]

Madeleine,

I think it is wonderful that you are strong in your faith. In this you have my respect.

[_gdemetz]

Of course, Christ stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. However, He meant the war, not particular battles of that war. The scriptures clearly state that the beast made war with the saints and overcame them for 42 months as previously explained.

[_Franktalk]

Of course, Christ stated that the gates of hell would not prevail against His church. However, He meant the war, not particular battles of that war. The scriptures clearly state that the beast made war with the saints and overcame them for 42 months as previously explained.

The beast is but one attack on the church. Man is able to destroy many good things with little help from Satan or his followers. If we go back and look at the terrible things the historic church did it makes the argument that it was guided by God a little hard to swallow. Any read of the Bible finds that when a man or group of men fall from God then God gives then all the rope they need to hang themself.

[_jo1952]

Your point?

Just trying to make clear that the Holy Ghost doesn't "belong" to organized religion(s).

You make a distinction where there is none. Scripture is prophecy and is not separate from God.

Scripture has many things in it which are all meant to teach us about God. Some of scripture is the re-telling of mankind's history with God. When we finally learn of Jacob, who is renamed Israel, and his twelve sons, the Bible then focuses on the House of Israel's history and relationship with God. We only get glimpses of what is going on with some of the peoples who are not of the House of Israel. In fact, when the twelve tribes are separated, we lose track of most of the tribes. The Bible then becomes focused on the lineage of David through which Jesus is born. The New Testament focuses on Jesus' ministry and that of the Apostles.

Some of scripture records prophecies which have already been fulfilled. Some of scripture records prophecies which have yet to be fulfilled.

Scripture is not all prophecy. God is NOT scripture. Scripture can help us find God and learn about God; it is NOT God.

I never said the RCC or Catholics have exclusive access to God. That would be a Mormon belief. I'm not Mormon.

The LDS does NOT claim to have exclusive access to God. Joseph Smith taught us to look for Truth everywhere. If we had exclusive access to God, we wouldn’t need to seek elsewhere. You didn't have to say that the RCC has exclusive access to God; the institution of the RCC says that. From this page alone there are several statements which make this claim:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Emphasis is mine:

"We teach, moreover, and declare that, by the disposition of God, the Roman Church possesses supreme ordinary authority over all Churches, and that the jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is true Episcopal jurisdiction is immediate in its character (Enchir., n. 1827)."

and:

"This claim to exercise coercive jurisdiction has, as might be expected been denied by various heterodox writers. Thus Marsilius Patavinus (Defensor Pacis 2:4), Antonius de Dominis (De rep. eccl. 4:6-7, 9), Richer (De eccl. et pol. potestate, 11-12), and later the Synod of Pistoia, all alike maintained that coercive jurisdiction of every kind belongs to the civil power alone, and sought to restrict the Church to the use of moral means. This error has always been condemned by the Holy See. Thus, in the Bull "Auctorem Fidei", Pius VI makes the following pronouncement regarding one of the Pistoian propositions:

[The aforesaid proposition] in respect of its insinuation that the Church does not possess authority to exact subjection to her decrees otherwise than by means dependent on persuasion: so far as this signifies that the Church "has not received from God power, not merely to direct by counsel and persuasion but further to command by laws, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and contumacious by external and salutary penalties" [from the brief "Ad assiduas" (1755) of Benedict XIV], leads to a system already condemned as heretical."

In other words, the RCC is making the claim that they have received power from God to direct by counsel and to command by laws, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and contumacious by external and salutary penalties.

The above is in direct opposition to what Peter taught:

"1 Peter 5:1-3 (KJV)

5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock."

Even the RCC’s demand that a person MUST accept the Trinity Dogma or a person cannot be saved is an example of constraint over what a person is allowed to believe in order to be saved. They have become lords over God’s heritage! Incredibly, the RCC still admits that the Trinity Dogma is a mystery which cannot be comprehended! Yet they insist you accept this Dogma, which mystery cannot be comprehended, in order to be saved. In fact, if a person refuses to accept this incomprehensible mystery, the RCC, as well as most Protestant denominations, proclaim that person is not a Christian.

Following are just a few additional concerns I have about legitimacy concerning the Pope:

Tiara

The pope is distinguished by the use of the tiara or triple crown. At what date the custom of crowning the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly previous to the forged donation of Constantine, which dates from the commencement of the ninth century, for mention is there made of the pope's coronation. The triple crown is of much later origin.

The above is completely inconsistent with teachings and examples set in the Bible. If ANYONE should be allowed to wear any type of crown, I would think that Christ alone would/should be given this honor.

Kiss

The kissing of the pope's foot — the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of Christ — is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P.L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523-6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.

Before discussing the “kiss”, let’s look at: “The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.”

This is in complete opposition to Jesus’ teaching:

Matthew 22:17-22 (KJV) (Jesus’ words are bolded; the other words are from the Pharisees)
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Additionally, we have been taught to submit to governments, employers, even slaves were told to submit to their masters. Nowhere did the church establish a civil government. The only “government” created was within the church for the purpose of delegating responsibility so that there would be order among the members. And at that, those put into leadership roles were to serve the members; not to be served BY the members. Yet the RCC, in their desire to have supremacy not only over the souls of mankind, but also to have supremacy in governing the earth, has made itself to be both a spiritual and temporal government. Even the Vatican is in its own earthly principality; something which it lost for a while, and then had returned to them. (And you say there is no evidence of Apostasy? This is actually a fulfillment of prophecy.)

Now, let’s look at the “kiss”. Again I will use a teaching of Peter’s to show that the RCC is in complete opposition to what was taught. Also, I will include a passage from John’s Revelation.

Acts 10:25-26 (KJV)
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Note that Peter has taught he is a man like any other man; he has also taught that he is an Elder, just like the other Elders. In fact the noun “Pope” translates into “Father”. Jesus taught us to call none Father but His Father. It was okay to call our paternal parent “father” (with a small “f”). This is yet another RCC tradition which is in complete opposition to Jesus’ teaching. Now let’s look at the passage in Revelation:

Revelation 19:10 (KJV)
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.[i]

So, why, when even Peter did not allow anyone to worship him, and John was not allowed to worship an angel, do the Popes allow themselves to be worshipped? Do they think they are superior to Peter? Or perhaps it is an issue of pride and lust for the power they have given themselves? Since church leaders are supposed to be servants to the members of the church, why does the Pope desire to be worshipped at all?

Another subject which greatly disturbs me can be found here (again from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning baptism):

[i]The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

Now, I would ask you, hasn’t the RCC, by making such doctrine, taken away the free will of an infant who cannot yet make or even understand his own choices? Additionally, yet another teaching of Peter’s is in complete opposition to this RCC doctrine:

2 Peter 2:14 (KJV)
Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

Peter even goes to say that those who do this have gone astray.

Imagine yourself to be the mother of a child who dies before a Priest can baptize him/her. The mother has been taught by the RCC that their infant cannot be saved; but will spend eternity in hell. How many mothers have suffered with this erroneous teaching, agonizing over their infant; not only because it died and the mother was unable to raise it, but because she has the additional knowledge it is going to spend eternity in hell? Now try to reconcile this with a loving and merciful God. And what happened to the free will of the infant who was not yet able to exercise any? Do you honestly believe that God would eternally damn a child who is not yet able to exercise understanding? What about those who are hindered in other ways, such as mental retardation, who cannot understand well enough to make free will choices? The RCC damns them as well should they not be baptized before they die.

Hi, I've read that entry in the old encyclopedia before. It doesn't say what you are saying. You've applied an erroneous interpretation to it.

Did you see the links which Frank gave??? by the way, please note that the Original Catholic Encyclopedia has had many alterations and complete sections deleted from it; so it does not compare well with the modern version.

This presupposes that the Catholic Church can and has erred in its interpretation. Perhaps you can't see you own bias.

I believe wholeheartedly that the RCC has erred in many of its interpretations. All one has to do is compare the Bible with their interpretations. In fact, I have noticed that in many, many instances in the Catholic Encyclopedia the RCC does not make references to scripture at all to explain where they got their dogmas. Rather they reference creeds, councils, etc. Thus, there is no connection at all to scripture; nor can they be reconciled with scripture.

I trust where God has led me. I don't think it is up to you to tell me God has withheld something from me. You don't know what God has done. God has not been teasing me, dangling a carrot. I rejected that god many decades ago. Neither do I believe I know everything, or even need to. I have trust in Jesus Christ.

This is not my teaching. It is Jesus’ teaching directly from the Bible.

I would offer to you that you are trying my patience, being presumptuous. I have no interest in the false prophets of Mormonism.

I have never once referred to the teachings of the LDS Church. I have used only the Bible and what it teaches. You know nothing about me. It may interest you to know that even though I am LDS (though I was raised Lutheran), I do not believe the LDS Church has all Truth, nor is she the only path to take on our journey returning to God, nor does she have all of the answers, nor do I believe you have to be a member of the LDS Church in order to be saved.

The RCC claims no such thing.

I have shown you only a few examples from the Catholic Encyclopedia which disagree with your assessment. However, I do not think you are an ignorant person. Rather, the RCC has had 2000 years to perfect their methods. They do not tell members everything; nor do they teach from the pulpit what can be found in such resources as the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Catechisms are not in harmony with the Bible. If a member of the RCC wants to really see what their beliefs look like, much time and effort is required.

This is your opinion. Catholics are free to engage in the Church how they choose. I can't say I see this or ever knew it in Mormonism. Rigid conformation being the norm for Mormons. There is a wide variety of cultures and people in Catholicism. Mormonism is homogenized.

It is not my opinion. I have been studying other religions for many years. It is the institutions of religion and their leaders which fail their members. Fortunately, God does not have the same concern about those who love Him and keep His commandments, as the various institutions have about their followers. God will count our righteousness in accordance to our faithfulness to what we believe is True; even if we are wrong.

The LDS Church seems to be unique in that the lay person is extremely involved with everything in the Church; and that it is actually a way of life. As such, it can appear that rigid conformation is required. It can be quite consuming; and members can be downright uncharitable when they think another member is not “pulling their weight”. However, I have seen the same type of offensive judgment going on in all churches….it is a weakness of mankind. It can just appear more intense in the LDS Church for the very reason that every active member is called upon to participate. The purpose is to help us grow through experience; it is not to overwhelm us. However, it can easily become overwhelming. This does not mean that you cannot find a great deal of Truth in the Church.

God does not want us to become discouraged; no matter the cause. I would guess that you left the Church because you more than likely were faced by conflicting actions of members who had taken things too far through their own misunderstandings. On top of that, Bishops and others can get carried away when handing out callings; I don’t believe that they are always in-tuned with the Holy Ghost when doing so. They are as fallible as the next person. This is very stressful and can create unimaginable anxiety in someone who needs to be nurtured. When they feel they are not being understood, or that they are being abused by the system, the next step is naturally disillusionment. But not until many, many years later, if ever while in this estate, can they begin to see that this is what was happening. Meanwhile, to try to heal from their experiences, it is only natural to start blaming Joseph Smith or the other Prophets. It is easy to then succumb to anti-LDS positions. Even, as in your case, to become an Atheist.

Joyfully, the Light of Christ was still shining inside of you; as you have overcome your anger and disillusionment, and found safety and comfort where you can again worship God. As I said before, this is as it should be. I do not believe that God cares where you hang your hat. He is just happy when a person’s spirit has turned to Him.

My only purpose in showing the errors I have seen within the institution of the RCC, and NOT with the members, is to encourage you to not close your mind and heart to only what the RCC is teaching you. I sincerely believe the RCC institution has strayed. And I present my reasons as to why I believe this. My purpose is NOT to talk you into returning to the LDS Church; as I have said before, I do NOT believe a person must be a member of the LDS Church in order to be saved. While we are still in this estate whatever Truth we can find, regardless of where we find it, can enhance our experiencing of the Holy Ghost; thus gaining further Truth. This experiencing fills our cups with joy and rejoicing. You have found joy in the RCC; you can find even more when you think and seek outside of the RCC box. However, if you are happy enough to stay in the RCC; then stay.

The Catholic Church proposes, no Catholic is forced to accept anything she has to say. She is the well, where all are free to drink from, or are free to walk a wide birth around.

You seem to have this idea that the Holy Spirit is not active in this process. My own experience causes me to be in disagreement with you.

[/quote]

This is only true of some dogmas. There are other dogmas you must accept. If they did not make this clear to you before you were baptized, then they were not practicing their own beliefs.

As I have said before, the Holy Ghost belongs to all of God’s children. I have no doubt you are experiencing Him; otherwise you would never have tried to seek God again.

Peace,

jo

[_gdemetz]

That historic church was the beast which exercised all the power of the Roman beast before it.

[_madeleine]

Just trying to make clear that the Holy Ghost doesn't "belong" to organized religion(s).

I don't know why you presume I believe such a thing to begin with.

Scripture has many things in it which are all meant to teach us about God.... blah blah blah

Sorry, but you're doing it again. Not paying to what I said, but instead preaching.

Please be aware, Mormons are woefully ignorant about the meaning of the Bible. I know you think that isn't so, but it is so.

What I said was, she scriptures are prophecy. I had in mind the phrase that is used often in the New Testament to name the Hebrew scriptures: the law and the prophets.

Of course not everything is prophetic, but what is, is. And we were discussing prophecy not history. You changed the subject.

Scripture is not all prophecy. God is NOT scripture. Scripture can help us find God and learn about God; it is NOT God.

The prophecies from God in the Scriptures are the WORD OF GOD. God's Word is not something that is separate from Him, no more than your word is separate from you. If you give your word, is it binding or not? Is it yours or not?

I never said the RCC or Catholics have exclusive access to God. That would be a Mormon belief. I'm not Mormon.

Your quotes are in regards to the Catholic Church, not the world.

In other words, the RCC is making the claim that they have received power from God to direct by counsel and to command by laws, and to coerce and compel the delinquent and contumacious by external and salutary penalties.

You are reading Canonical Law(s). You can think of Canonical Law as the counterpart to the Mormon's Church Handbook of Instructions.

[The above is in direct opposition to what Peter taught:

"1 Peter 5:1-3 (KJV)

5 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

2 Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

3 Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock."[/i]

Well this is always a conundrum for Mormons, isn't it? A claim that Christ's Church failed while all the while, pointing out where it hasn't. i.e., you just pointed out the continuity of the priesthood. Please tell me you don't believe your Mormon priesthood holders don't have oversight.

In the Catholic Church, it is an oversight of service. Our Bishops are the successors to the Apostles, and are our shepherds. Their oversight is in the way that Jesus gave oversight to Peter: "FEED MY SHEEP".

Even the RCC’s demand that a person MUST accept the Trinity Dogma or a person cannot be saved is an example of constraint over what a person is allowed to believe in order to be saved.

Catholics accept the doctrines of the Trinity because they convey truth. Your attempt at demonizing all things Catholics aside, let me step you through the conversion process:

- a person comes to a Catholic Church and says "hi, I would like to learn what Catholicism teaches"
- they are taught, freely, no one chains them inside of a church a forces them to listen. A person can leave anytime they like. No one will guilt them into coming back. It is the Holy Spirit who converts people.
- instructions for most people takes 9-12 months. Some people take less time, if they are coming from mainstream Protestantism. Some take more, as a personal choice. I've known people who have stayed in the instructional process of conversion for three years or more.
- the process defines baptism as occurring for most at the Easter Vigil (the night before Easter Sunday). A person CHOOSES to be baptized. No one coerces anyone to become baptized.
- people who convert come to an understanding and acceptance, of all Christian teaching including the Trinity, by the Holy Spirit. No ne forces anyone to believe anything they don't want to believe. If a person doesn't believe, well then, they choose to not be baptized, right?

They have become lords over God’s heritage! Incredibly, the RCC still admits that the Trinity Dogma is a mystery which cannot be comprehended! Yet they insist you accept this Dogma, which mystery cannot be comprehended, in order to be saved. In fact, if a person refuses to accept this incomprehensible mystery, the RCC, as well as most Protestant denominations, proclaim that person is not a Christian.

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that Christ died for ALL. It is clear teaching that even a person who never heard of Jesus Christ in their entire lives will be judged according to what they understand about God, and how they live what they understand. So even the most remote cannibal will be judged, and can be judged to live with God in heaven. This is only possible because of Jesus Christ!

Christ's Church exists for the sole purpose of bringing people to Salvation. So in a supernatural sense, any who come Salvation do so through His Church. Even those who are not Catholic.

Tiara

The pope is distinguished by the use of the tiara or triple crown. At what date the custom of crowning the pope was introduced is unknown. It was certainly previous to the forged donation of Constantine, which dates from the commencement of the ninth century, for mention is there made of the pope's coronation. The triple crown is of much later origin.

The above is completely inconsistent with teachings and examples set in the Bible. If ANYONE should be allowed to wear any type of crown, I would think that Christ alone would/should be given this honor.

Good Lord, I wish you would read something that has all the responses to these very old Protestant accusation.

You are assuming first that because someone wears a crown that they are doing with the intent of usurping Jesus Christ. That is your assumption, because that is how you want to view the Catholic Church. No Catholic assumes or believes the Pope is above Christ. Christ is King.

Kiss

The kissing of the pope's foot — the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of Christ — is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P.L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523-6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.

Before discussing the “kiss”, let’s look at: “The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.”

This is in complete opposition to Jesus’ teaching:

Matthew 22:17-22 (KJV) (Jesus’ words are bolded; the other words are from the Pharisees)
17 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
18 But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
19 Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny.
20 And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?
21 They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
22 When they had heard these words, they marvelled, and left him, and went their way.

Additionally, we have been taught to submit to governments, employers, even slaves were told to submit to their masters. Nowhere did the church establish a civil government. The only “government” created was within the church for the purpose of delegating responsibility so that there would be order among the members. And at that, those put into leadership roles were to serve the members; not to be served BY the members. Yet the RCC, in their desire to have supremacy not only over the souls of mankind, but also to have supremacy in governing the earth, has made itself to be both a spiritual and temporal government. Even the Vatican is in its own earthly principality; something which it lost for a while, and then had returned to them. (And you say there is no evidence of Apostasy? This is actually a fulfillment of prophecy.)

Now, let’s look at the “kiss”. Again I will use a teaching of Peter’s to show that the RCC is in complete opposition to what was taught. Also, I will include a passage from John’s Revelation.

Acts 10:25-26 (KJV)
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Note that Peter has taught he is a man like any other man; he has also taught that he is an Elder, just like the other Elders. In fact the noun “Pope” translates into “Father”. Jesus taught us to call none Father but His Father. It was okay to call our paternal parent “father” (with a small “f”). This is yet another RCC tradition which is in complete opposition to Jesus’ teaching. Now let’s look at the passage in Revelation:

Revelation 19:10 (KJV)
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.[i]

So, why, when even Peter did not allow anyone to worship him, and John was not allowed to worship an angel, do the Popes allow themselves to be worshipped? Do they think they are superior to Peter? Or perhaps it is an issue of pride and lust for the power they have given themselves? Since church leaders are supposed to be servants to the members of the church, why does the Pope desire to be worshipped at all?

NO ONE IS WORSHIPPING THE POPE. I swear, you'd see someone shaking the Pope's hand and find some scripture to come up with that says we shouldn't shake the Pope's hand and doing so is an offense to Jesus Christ.

Catholics love our Pope, why do you think this is for the sake of the Pope? We love our Pope because he is a sign of God's love in the world. God didn't leave us without our shepherds. The Pope is just one Bishop, that of Rome. People love the Pope because of what God has done for us. Kissing him is showing our understanding of what Christ has down for us, through His Church. God showers his love on the world. The Pope is for us, a sign of God's love.

Another subject which greatly disturbs me can be found here (again from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning baptism):

[i]The absolute necessity of this sacrament is often insisted on by the Fathers of the Church, especially when they speak of infant baptism. Thus St. Irenæus (Against Heresies 2.22): "Christ came to save all who are reborn through Him to God — infants, children, and youths" (infantes et parvulos et pueros). St. Augustine (On the Soul, Book III) says "If you wish to be a Catholic, do not believe, nor say, nor teach, that infants who die before baptism can obtain the remission of original sin." A still stronger passage from the same doctor (Epistle 28) reads:"Whoever says that even infants are vivified in Christ when they depart this life without the participation of His Sacrament (Baptism), both opposes the Apostolic preaching and condemns the whole Church which hastens to baptize infants, because it unhesitatingly believes that otherwise they can not possibly be vivified in Christ," St. Ambrose (II De Abraham., c. xi) speaking of the necessity of baptism, says:" No one is excepted, not the infant, not the one hindered by any necessity."

Now, I would ask you, hasn’t the RCC, by making such doctrine, taken away the free will of an infant who cannot yet make or even understand his own choices? Additionally, yet another teaching of Peter’s is in complete opposition to this RCC doctrine:

2 Peter 2:14 (KJV)
Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children:

Peter even goes to say that those who do this have gone astray.

Imagine yourself to be the mother of a child who dies before a Priest can baptize him/her. The mother has been taught by the RCC that their infant cannot be saved; but will spend eternity in hell. How many mothers have suffered with this erroneous teaching, agonizing over their infant; not only because it died and the mother was unable to raise it, but because she has the additional knowledge it is going to spend eternity in hell? Now try to reconcile this with a loving and merciful God. And what happened to the free will of the infant who was not yet able to exercise any? Do you honestly believe that God would eternally damn a child who is not yet able to exercise understanding? What about those who are hindered in other ways, such as mental retardation, who cannot understand well enough to make free will choices? The RCC damns them as well should they not be baptized before they die.

Most certainly we'll never agree on infant baptism. So, I'll only let you know that we believe baptism is how a person is made new, in Jesus Christ. Baptizing our children is one of the most joyous occasions for the parents and family. They are given the gifts of the Holy Spirit at the baptism, that can help them to grow strong in their faith. It is the responsibility of the parents and godparents to raise a child in their faith. When they are of an age where they can understand and consent, they receive more formal church training, and then are fully received into the Church with Confirmation and Eucharist.

If you will read your New Testament more carefully, you will see that baptism replaces circumcision. Do you think the Israelites were forcing their children into something? We don't. Think of it this way. When the Hebrews crossed the river to the promised land, did they leave their young children, including infants, behind until they could make that crossing decision for themselves?

The crossing of the river is one of those Bible events that prefigures baptism. We see no reason to keep our children from the gifts of God.

On the other hand, the Mormon idea of children somehow losing the Kingdom of God because they turned 8 years old, and all of the sudden baptism is necessary, is problematic.

Hi, I've read that entry in the old encyclopedia before. It doesn't say what you are saying. You've applied an erroneous interpretation to it.

Did you see the links which Frank gave??? by the way, please note that the Original Catholic Encyclopedia has had many alterations and complete sections deleted from it; so it does not compare well with the modern version.[/quote]

Yes, I am Catholic, I know about the encyclopedia. It is called the "old" encyclopedia for a reason. It was written before Vatican II, and so does not have current information.

I believe wholeheartedly that the RCC has erred in many of its interpretations. All one has to do is compare the Bible with their interpretations. In fact, I have noticed that in many, many instances in the Catholic Encyclopedia the RCC does not make references to scripture at all to explain where they got their dogmas. Rather they reference creeds, councils, etc. Thus, there is no connection at all to scripture; nor can they be reconciled with scripture.

You should dig deeper. But also, as I've already stated, Catholicism is not sola scriptura. Jesus established a Church, and gave to it the gift of the Holy Spirit in order that it could be guided. Scripture and Sacred Tradition are not at odds, they are the two legs of revelation.

It is your interpretation that is at odds.

This is not my teaching. It is Jesus’ teaching directly from the Bible.

You are teaching Mormonism, not Christianity.

I have never once referred to the teachings of the LDS Church. I have used only the Bible and what it teaches. You know nothing about me. It may interest you to know that even though I am LDS (though I was raised Lutheran), I do not believe the LDS Church has all Truth, nor is she the only path to take on our journey returning to God, nor does she have all of the answers, nor do I believe you have to be a member of the LDS Church in order to be saved.

Doesn't matter. You have Mormon written all over your posts.

I have shown you only a few examples from the Catholic Encyclopedia which disagree with your assessment. However, I do not think you are an ignorant person. Rather, the RCC has had 2000 years to perfect their methods. They do not tell members everything; nor do they teach from the pulpit what can be found in such resources as the Catholic Encyclopedia, and the Catechisms are not in harmony with the Bible. If a member of the RCC wants to really see what their beliefs look like, much time and effort is required.

Seriously, can I tell you one more time that you are ignorant of Catholic teaching. You have your own idea going of what it is or what it isn't but you haven't grasped it, at all. Please, at least read something that has already gone over these very old Protestant claims. There's a few hundreds years worth of response to them. Two more modern books are "Catholics for Dummies" or "Rome Sweet Home" by Scott Hahn (or anything by Scott Hahn for that matter.)

It is not my opinion. I have been studying other religions for many years. It is the institutions of religion and their leaders which fail their members.

No doubt! Christ's Church is like Christ Himself. Fully human (us) and full divine (Jesus). Humans fail, Christ does not. He is there to lift us up. That is the whole message of the Cross.

Fortunately, God does not have the same concern about those who love Him and keep His commandments, as the various institutions have about their followers. God will count our righteousness in accordance to our faithfulness to what we believe is True; even if we are wrong.

I agree.

The LDS Church seems to be unique in that the lay person is extremely involved with everything in the Church; and that it is actually a way of life. As such, it can appear that rigid conformation is required. It can be quite consuming; and members can be downright uncharitable when they think another member is not “pulling their weight”. However, I have seen the same type of offensive judgment going on in all churches….it is a weakness of mankind.

Yes, I agree.

It can just appear more intense in the LDS Church for the very reason that every active member is called upon to participate. The purpose is to help us grow through experience; it is not to overwhelm us. However, it can easily become overwhelming. This does not mean that you cannot find a great deal of Truth in the Church.

God does not want us to become discouraged; no matter the cause. I would guess that you left the Church because you more than likely were faced by conflicting actions of members who had taken things too far through their own misunderstandings. On top of that, Bishops and others can get carried away when handing out callings; I don’t believe that they are always in-tuned with the Holy Ghost when doing so. They are as fallible as the next person. This is very stressful and can create unimaginable anxiety in someone who needs to be nurtured. When they feel they are not being understood, or that they are being abused by the system, the next step is naturally disillusionment. But not until many, many years later, if ever while in this estate, can they begin to see that this is what was happening. Meanwhile, to try to heal from their experiences, it is only natural to start blaming Joseph Smith or the other Prophets. It is easy to then succumb to anti-LDS positions. Even, as in your case, to become an Atheist.

I think that LDS like to simplify those who have left, in terms like this that they can understand. It is much more complex. My exit started when I was very young. I remember thinking "what?" as young as third grade. By the time I was in my teens, I didn't believe any of what I was being taught. Was going to church just to please my parents. As soon as I was old enough to move out on my own, I left Mormonism for good.

It wasn't the people. I have very good memories of the people. Of course there are instances I remember of sketchy behavior and belief, but that isn't what defines my Mormon experience.

I could never believe in the Mormon God. I spent a few years after I left trying to figure out how to maintain a belief in God. The moment I had the idea that I didn't have to believe in God at all, was a giant relief. I had never felt so happy about a decision in my young life, to that point.

Like you, I studied many religions, as an interest in "belief systems", including circling back around to Mormonism. I was curious in a way to see if it was possible for me to believe it, after so long away. It isn't. I find it hard to understand how anyone can be Mormon. I'd have to put my brain on a shelf in order to be a Mormon.

encourage you to not close your mind and heart to only what the RCC is teaching you.

You should listen to your own advice.

I sincerely believe the RCC institution has strayed. And I present my reasons as to why I believe this.

Your reasoning is flawed. You think you are showing me something I didn't know. Hello. I was raised LDS, which means I raised to understand the RCC as the great and abominable church. I clearly remember whole Sunday school lessons that went through the exact same things you have posted.

When I approached Catholicism, I did so with a clear mind. I started from scratch, as though I had never even heard the word "God" in my life. I had to unlearn a lot of my Mormon upbringing, and there were times I was so floored by what I learned about Catholicism, compared to what I had been taught, and other times I was so angry at Mormonism, for the lies it had taught me.

God pulled me through. It was a struggle, which I can place squarely on the lies of Mormonism.

This is only true of some dogmas. There are other dogmas you must accept. If they did not make this clear to you before you were baptized, then they were not practicing their own beliefs.

Certainly, as a Catholic, there are teachings that must be accepted to be a Catholic. There are teachings that must be accepted to be a Mormon. Why is it that Catholic teachings that must be accepted are forced, but Mormon teachings that must be accepted are not forced?

Don't you have to believe Joseph Smith is a prophet to be a Mormon? Don't you have to believe in an anthropomorphic God. GOD FORBID, you believe God is Triune. You couldn't be a Mormon then, could you?

You go on and on about the Mormon church letting you be free to accept truth. But you can be sure, I can see your chains. You are free to accept anything as truth AS LONG AS IT IS NOT CATHOLIC.

[_Samantabhadra]

You go on and on about the Mormon church letting you be free to accept truth. But you can be sure, I can see your chains. You are free to accept anything as truth AS LONG AS IT IS NOT CATHOLIC.

More like: as long as it is not a part of the Apostolic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or otherwise) and has nothing in common with anything that any of the Church Fathers ever taught or regarded as being authentic.

I also like your admission that the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome ;)

[_madeleine]

You go on and on about the Mormon church letting you be free to accept truth. But you can be sure, I can see your chains. You are free to accept anything as truth AS LONG AS IT IS NOT CATHOLIC.

More like: as long as it is not a part of the Apostolic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Coptic, or otherwise) and has nothing in common with anything that any of the Church Fathers ever taught or regarded as being authentic.

I also like your admission that the Pope is just the Bishop of Rome ;)

Thanks. That is the crux of it.

Well yes, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. That is a fact. Lol. If you are referencing the whole debate of the primacy of the seat of Rome, eh, well, I'm not as passionate about that as some Catholics. I believe it is so, but I also see the practical application of that claim in regards to the Eastern Catholic churches. Sure, the Pope approves their Patriarchs ,but really, would he ever say no? I don't think so, for the very reason that the Patriarchs who appoint new Patriarchs are a council of Bishops, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. They'd have to make a decision that was far outside of Catholic understanding, which,would be highly unlikely.

Also, as a Catholic I am under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of the Salt Lake Diocese. He is the shepherd I follow. His communion with Rome, and our communion with each other, through Jesus Christ, is what ties us together. In practical application, my Bishop can instruct us in local matters that Rome cannot. Each Bishop is a leader of his own church. As reflected in the New Testament, the church in Ephesius the church in Corinth, etc. I am here, where our Bishop is over the church in Salt Lake, which covers all of Utah.

When my Bishop seeks advice of spiritual or moral importance for his church (us) he goes first to the US Council of Catholic Bishops. If he, and/or they, would like further clarification, they seek out the council of the Roman Curia. Which is of course comprised of Bishops, being a council of Bishops as well.

From my view, the Orthodox split over the primacy was only because of egos, coming from both sides. I think eventually they will come together again, perhaps church by church, but it only makes sense to me in the anti-Christian climate of much of the world, that they should.

John Paul II called us the two lungs of the Church. It was his desire that we breath as one. Pope Benedict XVI has the same desire. It would be a good thing. The Eastern churches have a strong spiritual practice and understanding, the west has over thought all things and so has the strength of reason. The two together are absolutely beautiful.

[_subgenius]

On the other hand, the Mormon idea of children somehow losing the Kingdom of God because they turned 8 years old, and all of the sudden baptism is necessary, is problematic.

for the sake of brevity...exactly why do you consider it "problematic"?

first of all, i think that your proposal that at the age of 8 the child somehow "loses" the Kingdom of God is categorically wrong and ill-conceived.
secondly, the doctrine of agency, or "choice", is essential, fundamental, and the foundation to all of Heavenly Father's teachings and character.

(that being said...given your crossing the river analogy....would you not "force" any and everyone to cross the river? why just extend that apparent "love" to your own children? what would be your cause to leave anyone behind?...my point being that your analogy may be a bit off target on this point.