Are there ANY traditions or ceremonies that Jesus gave to the Mormon church while he was on this earth?

[Kristine1957]

Thank you everyone who replied to my thread. I still don’t have the answer I was asking.

However, I believe that most Mormons can’t answer my question because there isn’t an answer. There is not any evidence that thier church EVER existed before Joseph Smith’s vision in the 1830.

For myself, we have it all… God’s precious words, the church he left for all of us to hear and to live by until we return to him. I just wish the mormon people would listen:angel1:

 

[rmcmullan]

Now that’s an interesting point of view, one I think about a lot. If you ask me when did the Mormon church start, I would say it started with Adam & Eve. That’s the start of mankind and since his creation, man has always communed with God. Since the fall, not so much face to face. You probably think the same thing about your church.

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi teaches there are save two churches: the church of God and the church of the devil and in that sense, my point of view is correct. That’s in a strict spiritual sense. But churches are also organizations of men, united in a common belief. Some of them claim a priesthood–the authority of God to act in His name. Both Mormons and Catholics claim that: Catholics through the Apostolic Succession and Mormons through ordination by the resurrected Peter, James and John.

In a worldy sense, the church is a separate animal from either the priesthood or the church of God. It is a collection of believers who are both examples of godliness and in need of occasional correction. Their faith and obedience can wax and wane. Paul and the Apostles travelled throughout the local region, teaching the church that rose up after the Resurrection and if you want to limit the Catholic church to that okay, but the Mormon claim is much vaster. We claim that church and all souls who belonged to the church of God throughout the ages. But in worldly sense, only since 1830.

 

[Kristine1957]

rmcmullan;2586193]Now that’s an interesting point of view, one I think about a lot. If you ask me when did the Mormon church start, I would say it started with Adam & Eve. That’s the start of mankind and since his creation, man has always communed with God. Since the fall, not so much face to face. You probably think the same thing about your church.

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi teaches there are save two churches: the church of God and the church of the devil and in that sense, my point of view is correct. That’s in a strict spiritual sense. But churches are also organizations of men, united in a common belief. Some of them claim a priesthood–the authority of God to act in His name. Both Mormons and Catholics claim that: Catholics through the Apostolic Succession and Mormons through ordination by the resurrected Peter, James and John.

In a worldy sense, the church is a separate animal from either the priesthood or the church of God. It is a collection of believers who are both examples of godliness and in need of occasional correction. Their faith and obedience can wax and wane. Paul and the Apostles travelled throughout the local region, teaching the church that rose up after the Resurrection and if you want to limit the Catholic church to that okay, but the Mormon claim is much vaster. We claim that church and all souls who belonged to the church of God throughout the ages. But in worldly sense, only since 1830.

Thank you…I’m wondering Is there any evidence that the Mormon church of today existed back then? Maybe more like bones of Nephi? or the plates of brass?

 

[Dempsey1919]

Christ gave nothing to them. He gave it all to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Anything that Mormons have will be copied from the Catholic Church.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The simple answer is “no”.

Mormonism is an invention of Joseph Smith. To what purpose was this invention concocted? Who knows. But it is an invention nevertheless and the proof of that is widespread.

 

[melvina07]

This looks like the Trinitarian formula to me…
72 Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all those who repent—
73 The person who is called of God and has authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the water with the person who has presented himself or herself for baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
74 Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth again out of the water.

- D&C 20:72-74​

And this looks like the Trinity…
20 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

- D&C 20:28​

I know nothing about Mormonism, but I do know (only because I read it on EWTN Q&A) that this baptism is considered to be invalid in the eyes of the Church because the person doing the baptising must say I baptise you in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit while they are being dunked or sprinkled, not before or after.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The Mormon baptism is invalid because their view/understanding of “Father Son & Holy Ghost” is unlike that of any other Christian religion. Indeed, on that basis some consider them “non-Christian”. At the very least, it is fair to say that THEIR “Father Son & Holy Ghost” is DIFFERENT from others.

It is not the method or ritual of the Baptism that is determinative, it is more than that. Mormons may say the same words, but they don’t mean the same thing when they say those words. Hence, their baptism is not accepted. In some cases, at least in my experience, Mormons have been given conditional baptisms upon conversion. But that was when I was Episcopalian. I don’t know the procedure for Catholic conversion.

 

[rmcmullan]

Kristine1957, I can see my post was in vain. I am trying to draw a distinction between the spiritual church and the temporal church. The spiritual church is eternal and Mormonism claims to embody that church, the Church of Jesus Christ, and to have the authority to act in His name. And you want to see Nephi’s bones?

 

[Kristine1957]

rmcmullan : I understand what your saying. However, my understanding is that the Mormon church claims to be the original church that Christ left so in my mind if it did exist then there would be some proof, or evidence or witnesses from people back in that time and not just rely on what Joseph Smith said 2000 years later.

Thank you for your comments as I can see your very respectful of most of us here and I hope you get that in return.

 

[rmcmullan]

Okay Kristine1957, I guess I can skip all the bluster. Although the bluster is fun from time to time! I think there’s a similar topic that passed through these hallowed forums not so long ago and I’ll just summarise my position. The subject was where are all the archeological proofs of the Book of Mormon. Is that about right?

My main point on this is that these sort of proofs are ineffective because people come to know God through faith. Their intellect may constrain them if there’s an obvious contradiction. One man will read the gospels and see a fairy tail, another man will see the Son of God. But I think it’s rare for a person to develop faith through archeological studies. Not very many Egyptian archeologists feel compelled to worship Ramsees.

The other point is, although I suppose this is more of a personal failing, is that I know very little about archeology, particularly American archeology between the years 600 BC to 400 AD, the years covered by the book of Mormon. I don’t even know if much is known about any of the people who lived in the Americas during those years.

I guess I misunderstood your topic, or at least where it was headed. I thought you were claiming all the Christian traditions and ceremonies as Catholic and all the rest of us wannabees. That is what Dempsey1919 claimed but you didn’t.

 

[robert_ambrose]

what Jesus didn’t give the mormons. “The okay to allow abortions, as they are now doing.”

 

[Kristine1957]

Okay Kristine1957, I guess I can skip all the bluster. Although the bluster is fun from time to time! I think there’s a similar topic that passed through these hallowed forums not so long ago and I’ll just summarise my position. The subject was where are all the archeological proofs of the Book of Mormon. Is that about right?

Not so much archeological proof. I would like to find anything that could link the mormon church to the early days of Christ.

So far this thread has come up empty-handed which leads me to believe there isn’t any proof in the first place. But thanks for trying.

My main point on this is that these sort of proofs are ineffective because people come to know God through faith. Their intellect may constrain them if there’s an obvious contradiction. One man will read the gospels and see a fairy tail, another man will see the Son of God. But I think it’s rare for a person to develop faith through archeological studies. Not very many Egyptian archeologists feel compelled to worship Ramsees.

The other point is, although I suppose this is more of a personal failing, is that I know very little about archeology, particularly American archeology between the years 600 BC to 400 AD, the years covered by the book of Mormon. I don’t even know if much is known about any of the people who lived in the Americas during those years.

I guess I misunderstood your topic, or at least where it was headed. I thought you were claiming all the Christian traditions and ceremonies as Catholic and all the rest of us wannabees. That is what Dempsey1919 claimed but you didn’t.

 

[Megatron]

:harp: Can someone tell me if there are ANY traditions that Christ himself gave to the early mormon church while he was here on this earth. If so what are they?

If this were the case, than Hebrews 1:1-2 is a lie. Since we know that the Bible is inerrant, we know that the ‘good news’ of the Gospel finds its completion in Jesus Christ. Any things else given as new public revelation falls outside of that and therefore isn’t part of Christ’s Gospel. So even those LDS scriptures report that certain ordinances revealed in this ‘dispensation’ (i.e. the latter-days) (cf. D&C 124:9), it’s something to be VERY skeptical of.

 

[mercygate]

The Book of Mormon prophet Nephi teaches there are save two churches: the church of God and the church of the devil and in that sense, my point of view is correct.

Wow. Now that’s an eye-opener!

That’s in a strict spiritual sense. But churches are also organizations of men, united in a common belief.

The Catholic view does not separate the spiritual from the physical sense. The Church is a Resurrection phenomenon (although all of creation was made for her) and therefore her spiritual and physical body are united.

Some of them claim a priesthood–the authority of God to act in His name. Both Mormons and Catholics claim that: Catholics through the Apostolic Succession and Mormons through ordination by the resurrected Peter, James and John.

I just learned of the resurrection of Peter, but you also believe that James and John were resurrected?

In a worldy sense, the church is a separate animal from either the priesthood or the church of God. It is a collection of believers who are both examples of godliness and in need of occasional correction. Their faith and obedience can wax and wane.

Catholic belief does not separate the priesthood from the Church. It is integral to the Church, an essential Order, ordained by Christ for the Church and it leaves an indelible mark upon the soul of the Priest.

Paul and the Apostles travelled throughout the local region, teaching the church that rose up after the Resurrection and if you want to limit the Catholic church to that okay, but the Mormon claim is much vaster. We claim that church and all souls who belonged to the church of God throughout the ages. But in worldly sense, only since 1830.

I am not sure what you mean by “limiting the Catholic Church.” Although we affirm Apostolic Succession through the laying on of hands, which is a “limitation,” it is also the assurance that the passing on of the faith is authentic.

Is it the Mormon view that the Church existed without a physical presence in the world from the Apostolic age until 1830?

 

[rmcmullan]

MercyGate: Sorry, I went on vacation but I am interested in this topic. It is the Mormon belief that the priesthood was restored by the resurrected Peter, James and John so yes, they were all resurrected. Why did they need to do it? It’s tied into the Apostolic Succession. The church from the ministry of Christ to the death of the Apostles would be the Church of Jesus Christ of Former Day Saints. A Catholic would ask then what about the period between the death of the Apostles to the so-called restoration? Well that’s a church in a different sense of the word to Mormons. That’s why I went through all that mumbo jumbo about the different meanings the word “Church” could have.

I guess from your post the “Church” is the church from the time of Christ to the Second Coming. Maybe you don’t have a word for it but even in the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it was the same God that strove with man. What do you call the eternal church? The organization of men that from even Adama’s time obeyed the Lord and taught about him?

 

[mercygate]

MercyGate: Sorry, I went on vacation but I am interested in this topic.

Good. Then I didn’t miss anything. I was on vacaton, too!

It is the Mormon belief that the priesthood was restored by the resurrected Peter, James and John so yes, they were all resurrected. Why did they need to do it? It’s tied into the Apostolic Succession. The church from the ministry of Christ to the death of the Apostles would be the Church of Jesus Christ of Former Day Saints. A Catholic would ask then what about the period between the death of the Apostles to the so-called restoration? Well that’s a church in a different sense of the word to Mormons. That’s why I went through all that mumbo jumbo about the different meanings the word “Church” could have.

I guess from your post the “Church” is the church from the time of Christ to the Second Coming.

Actually, in deeper Catholic theology, the Church exists from before time and the whole of creation is made for the Church.

Maybe you don’t have a word for it but even in the days of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, it was the same God that strove with man.

. . . and time and again drew him toward Himself and restored him from his defections.

What do you call the eternal church?

The Church.

The organization of men that from even Adama’s time obeyed the Lord and taught about him?

No. Not exactly. Even from ancient times, the Church has been full of saints and sinners. Some of the greatest saints were the greatest sinners (David, e.g.). It is repentance more than perfect virtue or consistent righteousness that makes a saint. And yes: The Old Testament saints are part of the Church. The teaching on the Harrowing of Hell is that Jesus liberated all the “souls in prison” when he descended to the netherworld between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

In these “latter” times, we can point to the historical core of the Church on earth – the Catholic Church – descended from the Apostles through Apostolic Succession, which is both a physical and a spiritual line.

The Church in its entirety includes the souls of the holy departed under purification and the souls of the Saints in Heaven as well as the struggling, sighing, sacrificing Church in time and space, where sinners work out their salvation with fear and trembling

We believe that just as Christ had a physical body when he walked among us as a Man, so His mystical Body, the Church also has a physical body – the whole world of those who claim the Name of Jesus, with its center the Apostolic Church in union with Peter. Peter is critical because all of the Apostles were given the power of ‘binding and loosing’ but only Peter was promised the Keys of Heaven.

I think the Mormon view that the Church encompasses Adam and Eve is closer to the Catholic view than most of us would have thought. on the subject of the Church.Catechism

 

[rmcmullan]

I am getting a little confused here. Are you drawing a distinction between the Church (everlasting) and the Catholic Church (since Christ)? Are those the two terms you are using?

 

[mercygate]

I am getting a little confused here. Are you drawing a distinction between the Church (everlasting) and the Catholic Church (since Christ)? Are those the two terms you are using?

No. There is only one Church. Since the earthly time of Christ, we can point to its visible organ on earth, which is co-terminous with the Catholic Church.

 

[rmcmullan]

Well what was Judaism then? What about before the Law of Moses? What do you call that? What do you call all the prophets from Adam to John the Baptist? Not Catholic!

 

[mercygate]

Well what was Judaism then? What about before the Law of Moses? What do you call that? What do you call all the prophets from Adam to John the Baptist? Not Catholic!

If you are responding to me, it would be helpful to use the “quote” feature so I can follow.

Why would the patriarchs and prophets not be “Catholic”? Christians have a doxology that dates from the earliest Church:

“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end.” In other words, God’s plan is eternal. Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. The plan unfolds in history, but the plan is ageless. So yes: all those people are part of the Church insofar as they are in the plan.

How could they not be? We believe that they were brought into the fullness of their destiny (i.e., justified and saved) by the Sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, just as we are: by their faith(quoting Paul), which, though incomplete because of their temporal limitations was nevertheless pointing in the right direction. Eastern Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics actually celebrate the feasts of the Patriarchs and Prophets. Elijah, for example, is commemorated on July 20th. Don’tcha love it?