Like Strevel said Mormons do have a baptism. It is not done until about 2nd grade once past the age of reason (7). It is not done in the Trinitarian (Father/Son/HolySpirit 3 dunks/pours) form so therefor not a valid Christian baptism. It is done in the Temple not the meetinghouse or stake. Thus making it a big deal, like a wedding. they usually have large celebrations and fancy clothes.
That is not right. They are 8. It IS done in the meeting house. The baptisms done in the temple are baptisms for the dead. But yes, it is not a valid baptism and not recognized by the Catholic Church
im just talking about my experience with the LDS I don’t know if they have a canon per se. I meant atleast after 7 not exactly at seven and here in PHX its at the temple
Just wanted to bump this to see if I ever get a response. It seems to me that all of the discussions about Mormonism being valid or not tend to revolve around all the peripheral stuff, i.e. baptism of the dead, celestial marriage, word of wisdom, priesthood, was JS a liar, a cheat, megalomaniac, was BY a racist, etc. When ultimately it simply comes down to whether or not a complete apostasy occurred. If one occurred then maybe the other stuff becomes a matter of discussion. If one didn’t occur then it’s all moot.You’re more than welcome!
So we agree that the LDS view is that there is one church of Christ. We also agree that the LDS view is that there is only one earthly leader (prophet) of that church, any other supposed “leaders (prophets)” are by definition false.
So now that I know my understanding was pretty much correct here is my main question. Who is the false prophet St. Peter or Nephi? We agree that Peter was the first leader of Christ’s church. However the LDS believe that Christ after His crucifixion and before His ascension to heaven, He preached among the Nephites in Bountiful, appointed Nephi to be the head of His church and selected 12 more apostles. All of which supposedly occurred while St. Peter was very much alive along with all the other apostles (save Judas). So which church is false, the one founded in Jerusalem or the one founded in Bountiful? Who is the false prophet St. Peter or Nephi? My guess is that your answer would probably be along the lines of Christ saw fit to preach to the people in the Americas because it was a time of limited travel capabilities and communication and He did not want to make the Nephites wait over a 1000 years before his message was brought to them by the Spaniards.
The problem with that position, that 1000 year wait, is exactly what the CoJCoLDS are telling us Christ imposed on all of us when the keys were lost not once but twice, not only did one church fail in Jerusalem but so did another in Bountiful. But at the same time the CoJCoLDS tells the world that there is and has only ever been one true church that is identified by having 12 apostles and is lead by a prophet. The CoJCoLDS tells the world that any other church that espouses the claims for itself to be the true church must necessarily be false because there can be only one. So to reiterate which church is the false one, the one founded in Jerusalem or the one in Bountiful? Who is the false prophet St. Peter or Nephi?
Protestants do not believe that a restoration is necessary. I don’t know if one could say that Protestants believe in a “Great Apostasy” per se, although. Protestants believe that various aspects of the Catholic Church are no longer being taught correctly. Thus, protestants believe reformation is needed, not restoration.
so then why aren’t you Protestant?
Depends on the reformer. Luther believed reform was needed. However, those churches known as Reformed have founders who sought to restore Christianity to its original essence and form, which is the same goal as restorationists.
I really think that LDS members don’t really rely the much on the BOM for doctrine. The feeling I had impressed on me is that they go by Doctrines and Covenents to a much greater extent, that and the writings 0f the “prophet” de jour.
They pick and choose what it is they want you to hear. Whether it be from the b.o.m, d&c, j.o.d or what their “prophets” say. But if it backfires on them they will simply say its not doctrine, just a teaching. But we all know the doctrine means “a teaching or teaching”
The oddest teachings/beliefs being found in their “Pearl of Great Price”. Gods (plural), Kolob (the star nearest where God dwells), etc. They should have their missionaries passing those out for free, rather than BoMs.
Again…then why aren’t you Protestant?
I am not Protestant because thus far I do not believe any claims to divine authority can be viewed as valid. My personal opinion on divine authority in the various Christian religions is that the only possibly valid claims are the LDS and the Catholic positions. That is, imo, a sufficient explanation as to why I am not Protestant. I am not Catholic because I disagree too fundamentally with much of the Catholic beliefs. Most especially I do not believe in original sin and thus I do not believe in the necessity of infant baptism. Much of Catholic belief conflicts with my view of God as well. My belief holds a very personal and literal Father in Heaven. The logic of this belief conflicts with many aspects of Catholicism. That is the main reason I am not Catholic.
So, to fit your beliefs, you follow a false prophet. Interesting.
Any Protestant has the same claim to authority as any Mormon. They just make it up and claim it to be true. But reason destroys their claim.
The highlighted is my point of interest. So who is valid? If you are a true mormon, then there cant be any validity to the catholic church and vice verse. So you are now contradicting your own prophets with that train of thought. They believe all authority was lost from all churches and was restored with the lds church. So what are you? Do you trully believe what is being taught in your church as truth? And as for your non-beliefs in the CC, fine, but why do you not believe in Holy Scripture? And dont give me that “only if its translated correctly” mess. The CC has had people for 1600 years making sure the text is next to perfect. I think you need to sit back and reflect on what you trully believe LDSYep, do not throw away your soul.
Thank you for all of your polite and respectful commentary.
Oh my. Where does it say it doesnt? Why do you believe in this case more in the OT than in the NT? And household would include all people in the house (cousins, aunts, etc.) So if Jesus came right now with His Apostles and were baptising whole households and you had an infant, you wouldnt allow your infant that blessing from our Lord & Saviour?
No where in the bible does it state not to baptize infants and to wait to the age of reason.
lol…
