Irenaeus

Members
  • Posts

    36
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Irenaeus's Achievements

  1. Before delving too deeply into this topic, I should start out by saying that there is a murky quality to it. For example, while the Church will state definitively that certain people are in heaven (i.e. the saints), it has never stated definitively that anybody is in hell. Ultimately, anybody who hasn't been canonized is still something of a question mark. Now then, onto the dogma. Catholics believe that everybody is born with "original sin," meaning that we all share in Adam's sin. Obviously there has been some controversy around this doctrine, but it should be noted that the Judaism of the old testament held that sins of the father were shared by the son, and that this stance makes a certain amount of sense in light of the communal nature both of sin and its remedy, the Church. Moving along, what this ultimately means is that we are born with concupiscence, or an inclination to sin, along with a measure of built in sin. In other words, everybody needs Christ right from the get-go. In Catholicism, sacraments are regarded as outward signs of graces taking place within an individual. When a person is baptized, they take part in Christ's atoning sacrifice, and receive forgiveness for their sins. At this point the person is said to be in a "state of grace," which could be oversimplified as being without sin. There are two kinds of sin a person can commit, venial and mortal, with the latter being more severe. A venial sin is relatively minor. It damages your connection to God, but it doesn't destroy it. Venial sins do not necessarily endanger a persons salvation, and can be forgiven by reception of the Eucharist (i.e. communion). Mortal sins are severe ones, and place the person in a "state of mortal sin." A person who dies in a state of mortal sin is at serious risk of damnation. Mortal sins cannot be forgiven by the Eucharist, and while in a state of mortal sin the person should refrain from taking communion (per Paul's commentary on eating and drinking unworthily). Mortal sins can be forgiven through the sacrament of reconciliation, commonly known as confession, where the individual confesses their sins to a priest, who gives them a penance and absolves of them of their sins. Confession largely has its historical roots in the Church's trying to figure out what to do with people who sinned after baptism. The very early Church would typically impose various restrictions, at a minimum including not partaking of the Eucharist, for periods of time lasting upwards to a decade. That practice is actually where indulgences come from, in that early bishops would often truncate a penance several years of the offending party showed that they had truly repented, allowing them to "indulge" in the Eucharist. There were some early sects, like the Montanists, who argued against there being any forgiveness for sins committed after baptism, but those beliefs were historically condemned by the orthodox Christianity. I feel I would be remiss without pointing out that much of the modern debate of "salvation by faith" versus "faith and works" is a bit overblown. When the Lutheran's first promulgated the Augsburg Confessions, which their doctrine on justification, the Catholic response was something to the extent of "this could use some fleshing out, but we pretty much agree." People who advocate faith alone tend to be worried that people in the other camp are trying to "earn their own salvation" without Christ, while people in the "faith and works" camp are worried that the other group is trying to justify unChristlike behavior by ignoring the significance of their own actions. I would argue that both groups typically reject both extremes. Really, what I think it boils down to is what James said in his epistle, that "faith without works is dead." This isn't saying that you need works to be saved, but rather that a person who claims they have faith without acting on it doesn't really have faith at all. In other words, faith allows salvific graces to work in us, and the outward manifestation of those graces is good works. Anyway, I think that covers anything.
  2. I should start out by making a few minor clarifications/corrections to Anatess' original post. First, the three sacraments of initiation are Baptism, Confimation, and Eucharist. Historically that was also the order in which the sacraments were received, though in the mid 20'th century there was a push to have children receive the Eucharist at a younger age, which caused that sacrament to begin preceeding confirmation. Currently some dioceses are reverting to the earlier model of baptism, confirmation, then Eucharist, though the majority (in the US anyway) still do Eucharist before confirmation. Adult converts always receive Confirmation before first Eucharist. A convert who had been previously validly baptized will typically do reconciliation before being confirmed and receiving the Eucharist (which usually happen during the same mass). Also, nuns do not receive holy orders. Holy orders constituted ordination to the priesthood as a deacon, priest or bishop. People who enter the religious life take special vows to join an order and become a monk or nun, but those vows are not a sacrament. Now to the question at hand. What constitutes a sacrament has been something of a dicey subject in the Church throughout its history. The number has varied a good deal over the years, ranging from 2 (baptism/eucharist) to 40+. While Christianity in the west has tended to set hard fast numbers on the subject, eastern churches (which Catholics regard as having valid sacraments) tend to not have a definitive set in the same way that the west does. A member of an Eastern Orthodox Church may give you a funny look if you asked about the "seven sacraments." Pin-pointing an exact time where the modern seven came into vogue is a bit difficult, as it was a gradual and organic process. They were definitively "set in stone" at the Council of Trent in the 1500's, but they were fairly broadly accepted for several hundred years before that. The main reason it was dogmatically defined at that point was in response to the rejection of many of the sacraments by the Protestant Reformation. Catholics regard the seven sacraments to be outward signs that point to inner graces at work in the individual. They all have a traditional and biblical basis to them, with each having something of its own unique history. On the subject of form, there is a form that must be observed for each sacrament for it to be valid. In addition to form, the proper substance and intent must be observed. For example, in baptism, the proper form is the pouring of water or immersion of the recipient with the proper words being used ("I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). The substance is water (no baptizing with diet coke). The intent is simply to affect a baptism and a proper understanding of what's going on (one criteria is a Trinitarian understanding of God, so Mormon baptisms are not considered valid). Baptisms and matrimony are unique in that the person performing the sacrament does not have to be a priest or bishop (though marriages are generally blessed by a priest or deacon, who acts as a witness to the union on behalf of the church. The sacrament itself is affected by the couple). Each sacrament has its own set of rules. Anyway, I think that covers it. Let me know if you have any follow-ups.
  3. While I will agree that the principle approach taken by the LDS church today is something along the lines of "pray and you'll know we're right," I would say a pretty good argument could be made against the claim that the Church has never relied on evidence. If you go back to the biblical era Church, you can see clear examples of reason being employed in the Acts of the Apostles. A couple good examples would be Paul's sermon on the Unknown God and Apolinaris' preaching in the synagogue. In many places Christ and the Apostles are said to "open the scriptures," which is generally accepted as meaning that they were explaining them in a way that was compelling and pointed towards the truthfulness of Christianity. Another early Church example would be Justin Martyr, who relied rather heavily on reason, though he dates in the mid-second century, placing him in that nebulous time frame that may or may not be a part of the great apostasy by LDS standards. From my perspective, the "prayer standard" of determining the right church has a major flaw in that the church uses a sort of circular logic to justify it. If you pray about the truthfulness of the LDS church, you'll get one of two answer, its true to its not. If you get the former answer, the church will claim its from God, and if you get the latter answer, it'll claim that its from either Satan or yourself. It seems like you could replace Mormonism in that scenario with any other group and get similar results. I would be curious to see if any sort of formal study had been done on that subject, but I doubt it. I guess my position then would be that we have to use our reason to find truth. Admittedly, reason can err, and that's where we do need an assist from divine intervention. The big difference as I see it is that, if you rely only on a feeling given from God, then the testimony dies with the feeling. If you rely on solid reason obtained with God's help, even if God feels far away during a rough patch, the sound reasoning remains sound. Just my take on the matter.
  4. I'm going to go all Catholic here, and argue that heaven still can very much be a question mark. A person who believes can still succumb to temptation, and many stripes of Christian believe that a pattern of sin can endanger a person's salvation. When contemplating my salvation or that of others, I personally partial to taking the position that we all deserve hell, and that it's for God to decide which I'll get. Back to the question at had. As far as theological virtues goes, I'm reminded of Paul's discourse on the three theological virtues in first Corinthians: "And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity. (1 Cor 13:13 KJV)." As such, I'm inclined to favor charity. It's a tough call between it and humility, since pride has always occupied a special place amongst the cardinal sins. Just the same, John the Evangelist was keen to point out the fact that God is love, which gives love a certain degree of Godliness. Besides, when I think about it, I'd rather be around an overly prideful person who loved everybody than a extremely humble person who hates everybody. The former would probably be nice if a bit stubborn, while the latter would probably be mopey and all-around unpleasant
  5. I certainly agree that Joseph Smith having pride issues would be a stumbling block to people, though I disagree about is being as much of one as obfuscation. In the case of the former, on a gut level we have a tough time relating to people we feel negatively about, so feeling negative about Joseph Smith would make it hard for somebody to join the Church he founded. That being said, a person could not like Joseph Smith and still believe he's a prophet if the evident for his being one is compelling. Denial of a statement that appears to be legitimate, however, leaves a person only with the opposing sides interpretation, which usually isn't going to be favorable. I appreciate that some people will never be convinced no matter how convincing the evidence. That being said, I also firmly believe that there are people who can be convinced if the evidence is compelling. I would also argue that it is possible for a prophet to be simultaneously prideful and a prophet. I again would like to cite the example of Jonah, who spends much of his titular book in the bible defying and/or complaining to God. I'm sure the doctrine he preached to the Ninevites was spot on, but he was still kind of a whiny jerk. My point wasn't that Joseph was a bad or prideful guy, only that that was the worst interpretation that one could take away from the verse, and that that fact alone wouldn't necessarily disprove anything. It could pose a stumbling block for some people in the same way that bad rhetoric makes any argument less persuasive, but the persuasiveness of an argument doesn't necessarily track with the truthfulness of it. Also, you mentioned that the church's stance was that Joseph Smith didn't say he was greater than Jesus. While I'm sure that is the position the church would take, part of the issue here is not that the church denies his having said it, but rather that fact that I haven't found any place where a general authority or anybody within the institutional church has addressed the issue at all. I appreciate that the church doesn't want to legitimize every wild accusation by officially responding to every one that pops up, but this seems like a case where a person of good faith could legitimately interpret the quote in an unfavorable way, and it is oft cited enough that it should probably warrant some response. I guess my point is that I'm saying that the church should "fess up." Rather, I'm saying that it would seem prudent to at least address the accusations and offer up counter-interpretations. Then, a person who is on the fence about what Joseph Smith meant there has a church-friendly interpretation they can weight the merits of opposed to the more hostile interpretation. As always, these are merely my opinions and should be regarded as such :)
  6. One common critique directed towards Mormon faith is that they will ignore or deny things that cast a negative light on their church. I bring this up because that is kind of the impression I've gotten from this thread thus far. I'm not saying that the possibility that Joseph Smith didn't say what was attributed to him isn't a possibility. What I am saying is that, when you have a quote from a book that was written agent's of the church Joseph Smith founded, published by his successor, and currently found on a website run by that church's university, it seems prudent to suppose that there's a good chance he did say it. Even if he didn't say it, its something the church was willing to attribute to him, which makes the church still somewhat accountable for the sentiments contained within it. I should mention that this isn't a critique against the truthfulness of Mormonism. As I mentioned earlier, the worst thing that this quote can be taken as meaning is that Joseph Smith had pride issues, which has nothing to do with whether or not he was a prophet. My point is that, if a non-member or questioning member comes across a quote that seems to be legitimate, and the only response they can find to it within the church is denying it, then their impression of the church is unlikely to improve in the exchange. I should also make clear this isn't directed at any one person. All the points raised here were fair ones. My point only is that nobody within the church seemed to be dealing with the possibility of it being legitimate.
  7. I hope you are well too yjacket. The third option was actually left off intentionally, and that is generally how I feel about the topic. I omitted it because I'd yet to meet a Mormon who would acknowledge the possibility that God would advocate leaving the LDS church. Congratulations on breaking the mold! My one critique of your position is that you still appear to put feelings at a bit higher of a premium than I would necessarily think is prudent. I recognize that you advocated using scripture and reason as a check to feelings one receives in prayer (which I agree with, assuming that some reason for using the scripture in question was previously devised). My problem comes in when you said that "the ultimate judge of whether we are in accordance with His will or not on this earth is us." The problem with holding up the individual as the ultimate judge is that individual err, a lot. If you have two people that hold opposing positions, and they both testify to a sense of peace about that, then the sense of peace one of them is feeling is misplaced. It may be that the wrong person isn't liable for their position due to unavoidable ignorance caused by their circumstances, but that doesn't make them right, it only makes them not at fault for being wrong. An interesting example of the problem of relying on contentment is Mother Theresa. Unsurprisingly, the Catholic Church has been processing her for canonization, and one interesting development is that apparently she was quite miserable for her last several decades. According to her journals, she felt as though God had abandoned her. Even though she lacked peace of mind, I'd dare say that she was probably doing God's will. The Church has attributed Mother Theresa's sentiment to "the dark night of the soul," a term coined by Saint John of the Cross back in the sixteenth century. The concept is that sometimes God will withdraw from a person with the intention of drawing them deeper into communion with Him. The idea is that when God takes a step back into the shadows, the person has to reach out to God instead. When they find Him, they are closer to him than when they began. I personally like this theory, because it seems to jive with what I've seen and experienced in life. No matter how certain I am of what's true, or how good I'm feeling about my current spiritual trajectory, dry spells will eventually pop up where I just don't feel at peace, or that God is present. I don't think I'm unique in this respect, since it seems everybody goes through these spells. I guess my concern is that, if I base what I hold to be true on peace of mind, and I lose that peace of mind, then that would mean the truth has changed. Because the things of God constitute eternal, immutable truths, that simply isn't possible. I guess in the end I just put a very high value on reason, and a pretty low value on visceral feelings. I do feel I should make a distinction here between faith and feelings. I am of the opinion that both our ability to reason and the evidence we have to work with are flawed (both possibly as a consequence to the fall), so we do need some measure of divine intervention in order for our reason to function properly. That being said, even if for a time we have to function without divine assistance, the sound reason will remain sound, and at least mostly recognizable as such. As evident by the fact that I've converted a couple times, I've been wrong before, and I may yet be wrong now, so I certainly don't have any grounds to judge anybody else for their beliefs. If they are in any error, it's likely an error I've been in before. That being said, I like to think that I'm at least getting righter in the whole process :)
  8. My problem with relying on direct communique from God to make a decision about faith is that He very rarely seems to respond in a completely unambiguous way. For me, I got a similar response from God both when I joined the LDS church and when I left it. Both experiences seemed quite similar to me, but other members were quick to assume that the former was from God and the latter from either Satan or myself. Some may also argue that it was me both times, and I just happened to make the right decision once and the wrong decision once. Ultimately, what I'm say that is that the Mormon philosophy towards prayer is that "if it agrees with us, its from God, and if it doesn't agree with us, then its not." This philosophy is perfectly fine if you know for a certainty that you're correct, but for those of us who struggle with these sorts of questions it doesn't provide much of a metric. Personally, I think a greater deal of reason has to go into the decision of which faith to follow. We have to examine the evidence that each religion presents as to why their correct, and judge them on the merits of that evidence. Admittedly, the problem with this approach is that it leaves us open to human error. We don't always have all the necessary evidence. Sometimes we're biased or just can't draw forth the necessary conclusion. Ultimately then I'd say the best approach is a combination of prayer and reason. If we pray to God for a feeling as to what's right and what's wrong, then at best we end up with only a feeling to justify our conclusion. A feeling can't be tested against the evidence or presented as proof to others. If we lose the feeling, then we lose with it the bedrock for your faith. If we pray for God's help in discerning the truth for ourselves, however, then we are left with both the right choice and sound reasoning for that choice. I can share my rationale with others. If my faith is waning, I can recall the reasoning, and if the argument remains sound it offers some comfort. This path requires more effort, both for us and for God (I'd imagine it would be easier to just tell us the answer than to help us to work it out). That being said, the rewards to me seem to be worth it (though God may disagree, as I need a LOT of help). As always, that remains my opinion on the matter. Wherever the truth lies, hopefully we all figure it out before it's too late.
  9. BYU was so kind as to provide the History of the Church online https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx The quote can be found in Chapter 19. It's a bit past 2/3 of the way down. It's the second paragraph after the header "Address of the Prophet—His Testimony Against the Dissenters at Nauvoo." As the header's name implies, the context is that Joseph Smith is talking about those who he says are persecuting him. The part of the quote in question, as mentioned in an earlier link, is this: "I will come out on the top at last. I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet." I am personally of the opinion that the quote comes across as rather prideful, but while that doesn't do wonders for one's perception of Joseph Smith's character, it doesn't really serve as proof against his being a prophet or the LDS church being true. Jonah in the Old Testament was not a particularly likable sort and rebelled against God several times, but he was still most certainly a prophet. Just my take on the matter.
  10. Being happy is a good objective. I guess my only point there is that you need to exist to be happy, and if there's nothing after death you're going to not exist, and therefor you will not be happy. I'm also pretty sure everybody agrees that we spend a lot more time dead than alive. I appreciate that you're trying to maximize your happiness by ensuring you have as much of it as possible in this life, which you're sure exists, vice making sacrifices for the slim possibility of happiness in the next life. That being said, I can say with a good amount of certainly that, no matter which of us is right, you're not going to care if you were happy or not in life after you've died. Also, as I mentioned before, I place a high amount of value on this sort of talk. Thanks for having it with me :)
  11. While everybody (with the exception of some left field philosophies) will agree that that life exists, we also have to face the fact that this life ends. Given that truth, we're left with two alternative views to take. We can either assume that our lives hold some meaning that transcends this life, or we can assume that they do not. I'm not going to say that the latter view doesn't have merit. It does. That being said, if there is not transcendent meaning to our lives, then nothing in them matters. A hundred years from now when we're (probably) all dead, we won't care if we wasted our lives serving the unworthy or joining churches that were all wrong. We won't care about anything at all, because we won't exist anymore. To me it seems more prudent to assume there is something else beyond this life, even if it is unlikely. If I'm wrong, then ultimately it won't really make any difference, as the same oblivion awaits me either way. If I'm correct, however, then I can align my actions to achieving the ultimate goal, whatever that may be. Now I'll be the first to admit that none of that proves Christianity any more than it proves Hinduism, Islam, or any other religion/philosophy. My point is that, if there is an objective meaning to life out there, some group is closer to it than the others. As such, it behooves all of us to try to work out who's right and who's wrong, and we're only going to achieve that through frank discussion. This means we need to try to convince others of what we believe to be the truth, while listening when others try to convince us. Refusing to participate in those discussions hurts us if we don't have the truth and hurts everybody else if we do. Again, all of this may be for naught if there is nothing beyond this life, but if that's the case then everything is for naught no matter what we do.
  12. I hope you enjoy your time both on these boards and in Mormonism! I won't bog down your introduction by giving you my take on your various points. Just know that anybody here is likely willing to answer any questions you may have :)
  13. I would agree that being nice isn't enough to convert somebody. My point there was rather that you're more likely to listen to people who are friendly vice people who aren't. Ultimately, if the arguments for a religion aren't convincing based on their own merits, they won't convince you. That being said, people are much more likely to listen to the arguments in the first place if they like the people who are making them. The most convincing argument in the world won't do you any good if the other person isn't receptive in the first place. I would argue that a person that is friendly and who wants to convert you is doing both because they sincerely care about you. One person wants to convert another because they are worried about the salvation of the other. From their perspective, you're in danger and they want to help. You may not think that you are in any real danger, but that doesn't affect the sincerity of their sentiment. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think there are many people out there who are friendly only due to a desire to convert. Rather, I think both the friendliness and desire to convert stem from an underlying love for the other person. The problem with leaving non-believers to their own devices is that salvation is always time sensitive. While this may vary from faith to faith, most religions will agree that you need to be converted before you die. Coupled with the fact that we never really know when we're going to go, there's always a certain sense of urgency with evangelization. I appreciate that people can go out and find information on religion easy enough, but if they die before they get the inclination to do so, then they are very possibly lost. As far as fear goes, every world-view has something to fear in death. For Christianity its damnation. For atheism its oblivion. Ultimately, those fears are something that has to be a part of any dialogue on faith and the afterlife. They don't necessarily have to dominate the conversation, and the emphasis very much can (and often should) be shifted to focus on hope. A Christian may find that hope in salvation, while a atheist may find it in the legacy they leave behind. That being said, even a conversation that focuses on hope can result in fear. If a Christian is convinced that there is not salvation, or an atheist is convinced that their legacy is meaningless, this can (and often will) result in fear. Hopefully, then, the victorious worldview's source of hope will fill the void and assuage the fear. Ultimately, my point here is that we should all care about each other. To the faithful, caring about somebody necessarily has to include wanting them to be saved. Its up to us to figure out the best way of going about "saving them" in any given situation, be it overt preaching or simply being a friend to the person. As always, these are just my thoughts on the subject. Feel free to vociferously disagree :)
  14. Retreats are awesome. I've never gone on one with Jesuits, but I've done a few with Benedictines, and they've always been great experiences. Are there any other Mormons going on the retreat with you? If there are at least two of you, and one of you is a priesthood holder, you may be able to pull-off a mini sacrament service. I remember looking into this when I was in the navy, but I always ran afoul of the "at least two people" rule. There may be other restrictions as well that stop you, but it's something to look into. Besides that, since your big concern is missing church, perhaps taking as many elements from church as you can is the way to go. Maybe see what they're going to be talking about in the meetings that day, and try to do some reading on the same topics. An ensign could be good as well, since the articles are similar to talks you might get in sacrament meeting. While obviously quite different, you may want to go to mass there as well. Its not the same as a sacrament meeting, but it could help make of for the communal worship aspect. Anyway, have fun on your retreat!
  15. To be honest, I don't entirely agree with this. As a society, we have no issue intervening in the lives of other adults if they're physically harming themselves (alcoholism, suicidal behavior, drug abuse, ect), but we shy away from it when it comes to matters of spiritual harm. I recognize that much of the reason for this is that the multitude of faiths makes a lot of people view the causes or existence of spiritual harm something of an open question, but the individual who believes who has an absolute conviction in their faith won't share that opinion. If somebody knows that I'm going to hell, and knows how to save me, then I have no problem with them trying to do so. Ultimately I may disagree with their reasoning, but I certainly appreciate the sentiment. The fact of the matter is that, based on the multitude of different faiths, many of us are very likely wrong on very important topics. If we never engage those who differ in beliefs, we'll never figure out who's right and who's wrong. This means that an individual is either wrong, and then very likely damned, or they're right, and letting their fellow man go off to their damnation. Neither is a particularly appealing scenario. I agree that many people are in a place where attempting to overtly evangelize them may serve only to alienate them, and that prudentially it may be wise to hold off for a time. Never-the-less, we should never stop working toward their salvation. Simply being a kind and charitable friend helps, since it may make the person more open to future discussions. If every Baptist you ever met was a great person, you may be more inclined to hear what the Baptists as a whole have to say. Anyway, just my thought on the matter.