An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

[sedonaman]

… none would disagree with the notion that salvation is something we can provide ourselves. I think we would all agree salvation is impossible without Christ.

…

Huh? These two statements contradict each other. What do you mean?

 

[dianaiad]

Unless you are Latter Day Saints or Catholic, you are are looking for a buffet religion that you can pick and choose what Christ expects you to do to return to God the Father, thru Jesus Christ the redeemer.

I don’t blame people for looking for the easy way to do things, at the present I am “cramming for my finals.” That is why Latter Day Saints is my religion of choice.

The LDS Church explains to me exactly what is required to obtain God’s presents. Yes it does require me to give up stuff I thought was required to enjoy life(tea, coffee, tobacco, and my dearest friends Jim Beam, Anne Green Springs, Mogan David, etc). Giving God back 10% of what he gives me and then blessing me for it.

Yes I know what Hell is, it is finding out I made the wrong choices in this life that limits my progression in the next. That is after I was explained what the requirements are. Not that I mouth or think Christ is my Redeemer, but meeting certain requirements that are being proven everyday to be just common sense.

I could go on all day about my take on religion, however the answer I am looking for to the question is; does the common phrase “OMG or Oh My God,” violate the third commandment???

(grin)

Welcome in…

and as to your question; my opinion? Yes and no.

Yes, in that it is extremely disrespectful, using His Name as an expression of minor excitement, like "OM…, that’s a GREAT pair of shoes’ or “OM…does that woman NEVER shut up?” or “OM…, that leaf just hit Sandy’s nose!” On the other hand, a heart-felt “Oh, my dear God, that man ran the light and almost t-boned me!” might be forgivable.

I think (my opinion only, here) that the third commandment was about oath taking; if you take God’s name as part of a promise or oath, and then break that promise, then that is a very bad thing.

As for me, while I have been known to use…colorful idioms…, I would rather use the ‘F’ word than use His name in doing so, and I never, EVER use the ‘f’ word.

 

[dreaileen]

JeanMichel;7090498:

We agree. I would go so far as to say that anything we say when trying to explain “God” can only diminish who He truly is.

I admire your humility, JeanMichel. It is a great quality and one that is lacking too often on this forum. Herein lies the problem though. Do you have the training and education to be able to decipher, from books that were written thousands of years ago, by people in a completely different time and culture, who used various genre’s of writing, some poetic, some prophetic, some allegorical, some literal, some purely visionary? I certainly do not. It is why I must depend on some authority, and to be absolutely certain, an infallible authority, to guide me in my interpretation. How can we know that we are taking “the scripture for what it says”

if we cannot be certain we really know what it says? To claim that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is infallible in its interpretation of Sacred Scripture is not a bragging right. It is a gift of the Holy Spirit and is a necessary compliment to an inerrant set of books which comprise Sacred Scripture. What would be the point in giving us truth if we cannot, with certainty, know and understand that truth?

As a great example of what I said above, we are not talking about the same three persons. Mormon theology is polytheistic, claiming that they are three separate gods. Christian theology claims that there is only one God, consisting of three distinct Persons. This is not a trivial difference.

Oh, but they do go beyond it. “God was once as we are now. We will be as God now is.” (my paraphrase). This is still Mormon doctrine. They believe that God progressed from human to divine and that we will follow suit. If I am wrong, I’m sure we’ll hear about it.

If the validity of our beliefs were based upon being nice people I would have headed over to the local ward years ago. Truth does not change. When one speaks as a prophet and is later found to be in error, he is a false prophet. In the days of the Old Testament, he would have been stoned to death. Mormon truth seems to change with every wind, especially when their “truth” is in violation of the law. The early Christians preferred being ripped apart by wild animals rather than changing their beliefs which were in violation of Roman law. They did not claim some “new revelation” in order to save their hides.

The Christ you speak of started a Church. “Upon this rock I will build MY church.” We can trace our heritage, through historical documents, to Peter who received the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This Church has not changed its doctrines since its inception, regardless of claims by those outside of the Church to the contrary. It can be demonstrated that He promised His Church that He would never leave it and would send the Holy Spirit to guide it into all truth. It is not as simple as picking up a Bible (which is a Catholic document by the way) and figuring it out for ourselves.

God bless you JeanMichel. You have a wonderful heart and a sincere love for God and because of that He will bless you.

Steve

Nicely said Steve.

 

[1holycatholic]

Unless you are Latter Day Saints or Catholic, you are are looking for a buffet religion that you can pick and choose what Christ expects you to do to return to God the Father, thru Jesus Christ the redeemer.

I don’t blame people for looking for the easy way to do things, at the present I am “cramming for my finals.” That is why Latter Day Saints is my religion of choice.

The LDS Church explains to me exactly what is required to obtain God’s presents. Yes it does require me to give up stuff I thought was required to enjoy life(tea, coffee, tobacco, and my dearest friends Jim Beam, Anne Green Springs, Mogan David, etc). Giving God back 10% of what he gives me and then blessing me for it.

Yes I know what Hell is, it is finding out I made the wrong choices in this life that limits my progression in the next. That is after I was explained what the requirements are. Not that I mouth or think Christ is my Redeemer, but meeting certain requirements that are being proven everyday to be just common sense.

I could go on all day about my take on religion, however the answer I am looking for to the question is; does the common phrase “OMG or Oh My God,” violate the third commandment???

LDS keep changing the set menu - over time it’s just as much a buffet as any strain of Protestantism from which it devolved. :coffeeread:

 

[Being_Brave]

After reading the responses, I feel I have made a mistake.

Apparently Catholic and LDS relations are relatively frictionless and my observation was in error.

My apologies for needlessly inserting myself into a nonexistent situation.

Kind Regards,

Mudcat

Just noticing, a few comments after this “a nonexistent situation” was posted

 

[Esdra]

…that’s the g-g-grandfather that was in the mob that murdered JS? You’re right; it means nothing except our willingness to forgive–and give second chances (or in most cases, real first ones) to pretty much everybody.

After all, someone did the work for Adolf Hitler, too.

I just know from the CofC that they accept ALL baptism (since this year. Confer D&C (RLDS) 164:2).

It could be that other Restoration Churches also accept full immersion (credo) baptism, but I am not sure.

The CofJCofLDS does not accept ANY other baptism. Everyone is rebaptised there! (Just like Baptists, Adventists and so on - although if you were credo baptised, you are normally not baptised again in these Churches. In contrary to the LDS Church)

Yes, as one has said here, in the meantime you could view the CofC as a liberal protestant Church (like the Presbyterians i.e.).
Although, as I have written some mails with various CofC members, not all are happy about this devolopment. - Especially the thing with homosexuality and homosexual priests and homosexual marriages is a point many can’t agree on (cf. D&C (RLDS) 164:5+6) OR also viewing the Book of Mormon as “fiction that is nice to read”.
I have read many parts in the D&C (RLDS) and some relevations of Joseph Smith Jr. simply doesn’t fit into the belief system of the CofC I realized. (i.e. D&C 76 (RLDS and LDS Version)).

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[dianaiad]

I just know from the CofC that they accept ALL baptism (since this year. Confer D&C (RLDS) 164:2).

It could be that other Restoration Churches also accept full immersion (credo) baptism, but I am not sure.

I have no idea, either…there are quite a few churches in the “Restoration” category. The thing that surprises me isn’t that such churches would not accept the baptism of other faiths, but that they WOULD.

Just as it was a surprise to me–not that the Catholics did not accept LDS baptisms, but that they accept anybody else’s at all. My surprise comes from a very basic idea of priesthood function; either there is such a thing (an official priesthood that is authorized to perform these most basic and salvific ordinances, such as baptism, the Sacrament/Communion/Last Supper/Eucharist, weddings and confirmations) or not. If there IS, that is, if it is vital, then something as important as baptism should be restricted to that. If anybody can do it, then there is no need for a priesthood.

Catholics and Mormons share this idea; that an authorized priesthood is on the earth, and there are some very important things that only a priesthood holder can do. We differ on who we think actually holds it.

Frankly, I think Mormons hold the most logical position; if they have the priesthood, then of course no baptism is valid except that which is performed by someone who holds it. It’s not a judgment regarding the Christianity of any other group; not a statement of disaprobation or an attempt to push the nerd out of the A group. It’s a frank statement: we have the priesthood. If you want a valid baptism, this is the only place you are going to get one.

Catholics, on the other hand, claim to have the priesthood…yet seem to share with their Protestant descendents the idea that it’s not really necessary. They accept baptisms and other holy ordinances as valid when they are performed by people other than someone who holds it. They refuse to acknowledge the baptisms only of those folks who have annoyed them in some fashion.

 

[LongJourney]

If anybody can do it, then there is no need for a priesthood.

Baptism can be done by anyone, even a non-Christian, in case of emergency. Other sacraments must be done by a priest or bishop. Of course, anyone can pray for a person, or bless a person. That is everyone’s right.

It is the meaning of the Mormon perception of the Trinity that makes Mormon baptism non-sacramental.

 

[dianaiad]

Baptism can be done by anyone, even a non-Christian, in case of emergency. Other sacraments must be done by a priest or bishop. Of course, anyone can pray for a person, or bless a person. That is everyone’s right.

It is the meaning of the Mormon perception of the Trinity that makes Mormon baptism non-sacramental.

You do realize that what you just said is very self contradictory, right?

 

[LongJourney]

You do realize that what you just said is very self contradictory, right?

Yes, I see the contradiction. Maybe someone can help me with it.

 

[JHow]

…After all, someone did the work for Adolf Hitler, too.

Honest question: has Hitler received Mormon baptism?

 

[Todd520]

Baptism can be done by anyone, even a non-Christian, in case of emergency. Other sacraments must be done by a priest or bishop. Of course, anyone can pray for a person, or bless a person. That is everyone’s right.

It is the meaning of the Mormon perception of the Trinity that makes Mormon baptism non-sacramental.

This is too much - almost spit my herbal tea on the keyboard

So anybody off the street who reads the formula from a card can baptize, even if they have no clue about Jesus or what the Holy Spirit is, let alone the complex Catholic definition of trinity?

But an LDS who believes in God and the bible, but not the Nicene definition, will be ignored by God for this error, and thus damn the falsely baptized soul to hell?

You need to explain this one to me

The LDS God is not this vindictive and cruel.

 

[1holycatholic]

Baptism can be done by anyone, even a non-Christian, in case of emergency. Other sacraments must be done by a priest or bishop. Of course, anyone can pray for a person, or bless a person. That is everyone’s right.

It is the meaning of the Mormon perception of the Trinity that makes Mormon baptism non-sacramental.

The Catholic Church is the custodian of the Sacraments. It does not matter what those outside the Church (LDS, Protestants, etc.) think regarding the validity of the Sacraments.

Baptism by LDS is not valid. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

 

[dianaiad]

Honest question: has Hitler received Mormon baptism?

yes. Someone did his work. It’s a favorite anti-Mormon slam, actually, that the Mormons actually did the proxy work for Adolf Hitler.

He just showed up in someone’s genealogy.

As to why–why not?

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholic Church is the custodian of the Sacraments. It does not matter what those outside the Church (LDS, Protestants, etc.) think regarding the validity of the Sacraments.

Baptism by LDS is not valid. Roma locuta est, causa finita est.

As I said, it doesn’t surprise me that Catholicism does not allow LDS baptisms to stand. The problem from my perspective is that they allow any baptism but those performed by Catholic priests TO stand.

 

[Todd520]

I’m still hoping a Catholic can explain this one to me - how someone reading a 3x5 notecard can get it right, with no understanding of God, the Trinity or the sacrifice made by Jesus.

This is too much - almost spit my herbal tea on the keyboard

So anybody off the street who reads the formula from a card can baptize, even if they have no clue about Jesus or what the Holy Spirit is, let alone the complex Catholic definition of trinity?

But an LDS who believes in God and the bible, but not the Nicene definition, will be ignored by God for this error, and thus damn the falsely baptized soul to hell?

You need to explain this one to me

The LDS God is not this vindictive and cruel.

 

[Esdra]

I’m still hoping a Catholic can explain this one to me - how someone reading a 3x5 notecard can get it right, with no understanding of God, the Trinity or the sacrifice made by Jesus.

Hi

I am not really a Catholic (anymore). - But what the CC teaches refers to an absolute emergency.
If there would be a family in the wilderness and there is a baby who is not yet baptised and is about to die, then ANYONE, even atheists (and maybe also LDS, I am not sure about that point - but since it says ANYONE…) can baptise this child - because Catholic belief is that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (and not simply an outward sign that you belong to Jesus - and that only repentance and accepting Jesus as one’s savior is necessary for salvation - but that’s another topic. sigh)!

But IF in this case even a LDS baptism would be valid, I don’t know. That’s a question for apologetics (maybe you could ask an apologists here on CAF?)

Well, and in general the CC teaches that there is only ONE baptism, therefore baptisms of ALL denominations (when wanting to become a Catholic) are valid (apparently accept the one of LDS [With the RLDS Churches I am not sure…] because the LDS has another view to the godhood of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. (Again a very apologetic question - Anyone help me out? )

In Christ,
Esdra

 

[JHow]

Hi

I am not really a Catholic (anymore). - But what the CC teaches refers to an absolute emergency.
If there would be a family in the wilderness and there is a baby who is not yet baptised and is about to die, then ANYONE, even atheists (and maybe also LDS, I am not sure about that point - but since it says ANYONE…) can baptise this child - because Catholic belief is that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (and not simply an outward sign that you belong to Jesus - and that only repentance and accepting Jesus as one’s savior is necessary for salvation - but that’s another topic. sigh)!

But IF in this case even a LDS baptism would be valid, I don’t know. That’s a question for apologetics (maybe you could ask an apologists here on CAF?)

Well, and in general the CC teaches that there is only ONE baptism, therefore baptisms of ALL denominations (when wanting to become a Catholic) are valid (apparently accept the one of LDS [With the RLDS Churches I am not sure…] because the LDS has another view to the godhood of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. (Again a very apologetic question - Anyone help me out? )

In Christ,
Esdra

Here is the catechism on this:

1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58 , by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59

1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Here is the Encyclopedia:

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Baptism

"From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs”.

 

[dianaiad]

Hi

I am not really a Catholic (anymore). - But what the CC teaches refers to an absolute emergency.
If there would be a family in the wilderness and there is a baby who is not yet baptised and is about to die, then ANYONE, even atheists (and maybe also LDS, I am not sure about that point - but since it says ANYONE…) can baptise this child - because Catholic belief is that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation (and not simply an outward sign that you belong to Jesus - and that only repentance and accepting Jesus as one’s savior is necessary for salvation - but that’s another topic. sigh)!
Well, and in general the CC teaches that there is only ONE baptism, therefore baptisms of ALL denominations (when wanting to become a Catholic) are valid (apparently accept the one of LDS [With the RLDS Churches I am not sure…] because the LDS has another view to the godhood of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. (A very apologetic question - Anyone help me out? )

But IF in this case even a LDS baptism would be valid, I don’t know. That’s again a question for the apologetics (maybe you could ask an apologists here on CAF?)

In Christ,
Esdra

this is…interesting…

Though I’m not all that certain that LDS baptisms are the only ones disallowed.

I do know that in such instances of extreme need, a Mormon can baptize an infant. I have a friend who is a labor and delivery nurse who has done it–I think, twice–in her two decades-long service as a nurse. She only did it to comfort the mom. I can’t remember if she did it more than once, but those two I do remember; in both cases, though, the children survived and was eventually baptized by a priest.

…and that raises even more questions.

 

[LongJourney]

"From the foregoing it is evident that not all baptism administered by heretics or schismatics is invalid. On the contrary, if the proper matter and form be used and the one conferring the sacrament really “intends to perform what the Church performs”.

Thank you, JHow.

Diana, that re-baptism was “provisional,” just in case the first one didn’t “take.” It is often done, because baptism is such a special thing, people want to have sponsors, and all the other celebration that families want. There is nothing questionable about the practice, and it would have happened the same as if a Catholic doctor had done the first, emergency one.

We renew our baptismal vows for several weeks after Easter, with the priest throwing drops of water on all the parishioners.