Could The Mormon Church Be The "true Church" Of Christ

[Stephen168]

The parent of the child could do it themselves. I’m not following why they would ask a non-Catholic to perform a baptism.
dianaiad;4780590:

Rebecca…a mother under anesthesia, having just given birth to a child in immediate danger of death, could do it herself?

C-Sections, the anesthesia can be epidural, spinal or general. Only general puts you out completely. The other 2 are regional, and block pain, and all sensation, to a the lower portion of your body. You are completely conscious. But no, baptizing your own child would not be possible.

I was just wondering why anesthesia mattered. Maybe my wife is a wimp but she had three of ours naturally and still was in no shape to baptize them. The one that required an emergency baptism was done by a Catholic priest at the hospital.

I’m sure it is possible that a woman could be in a hospital all by herself with no friends or family and that same woman would desire and require a Christian baptism. I just didn’t see how the fact she was under anesthesia changes your question. Why would someone ask a non-Catholic to perform a baptism. Interesting

 

[dianaiad]

I was just wondering why anesthesia mattered. Maybe my wife is a wimp but she had three of ours naturally and still was in no shape to baptize them. The one that required an emergency baptism was done by a Catholic priest at the hospital.

I’m sure it is possible that a woman could be in a hospital all by herself with no friends or family and that same woman would desire and require a Christian baptism. I just didn’t see how the fact she was under anesthesia changes your question. Why would someone ask a non-Catholic to perform a baptism. Interesting

OK…it’s not that she would specifically ask a non-Catholic. I don’t imagine that in such situations Mom is in any frame of mind or consciousness to worry about WHO does it. It is that her faith requires that her child be baptized; it’s important to her, right? Wouldn’t you make that clear to someone? I’m certain that she would hope that a Catholic priest could take care of the matter, and in most cases that would be true.

However, if everything goes south in a hurry, all we know is that Mom is Catholic and baby just might not make it for another minute, everybody is busy trying to save Mom or baby or both, and the only person with a hand free and the time to deal with it is the lone Mormon nurse, then at least my friend, THAT particular Mormon nurse, would do it. She would do it for Mom, so that if things don’t turn out well, nobody is going to be lying to Mom when they tell her that yes, baby was baptized. If everything goes well, and baby makes it long enough, the situation will be made…whatever it has to be made…by a priest.

I do not believe, and neither does my friend, that anything she does will affect the salvation of that infant one way or the other; we both believe that heaven and all the glories await him or her, baptized or not. However, MOM believes that baptism is required, her church would accept it if the form is correct, so…

So, if there is no other option, she will do it, and has done it–and she does it as I would, understanding the significance of the act and what it means to Mom.

I think it’s safe to say that I will never be in a situation that would require this…but my friend? She is a high risk labor/delivery nurse/midwife in a mostly Hispanic area. It has happened to her.and the odds are that it will happen to her again.

 

[Just_Returned]

MelanieAnne;4754152:

I agree.
We should all join churches we disagree with. That is the true path to salvation.

Dang. I guess I better join Catholicism. I really

disagree with that one.

The only problem is that this means you should be a Mormon!

When I came back to the Catholic Church there was much I disagreed with. Being a student of History, the Fact that Jesus founded ONE Church and that Church Is in Fact the Catholic Church is Undisputed. Except by the ignorant, or the **** Chick , Jimmy Swaggerts of the World…
I realized, Once the Incarnation and the Ressurection became REAL Historical events to me, that if I believe what I said I believed, I must belong to the Church Jesus Founded.

The next Conclusion? My opinion vs. Gods opinion? Well, I’m the one who’s wrong.

Once I started to dig into my Faith and research What the Church Actually taught as opposed to what I thought the Teaching was, and the reasons why certain Doctrines are taught, I overcame the misunderstandings. In cases like Contraception and the Death Penalty, I credit the Holy Spirit with Changing my Heart and attitude.

So, yeah? I guess it’s Kind of Strange that I ended up in the last place i thought, and swore, i would ever be again.

 

[Stephen168]

Do Mormons have anything like Confession? A means for sin to be forgiven.

 

[why_me]

Do Mormons have anything like Confession? A means for sin to be forgiven.

For grevious sins, they go to their bishop. For non-grevious sins, it is between them and heavenly father. Griveous sins are usually sins of a sexual nature but they can be others too.

 

[Stephen168]

I understand why Catholics believe that infants need to be baptized. You don’t need to defend it. I disagree with it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t ‘get’ it, Paul.

We believe that it is not required because we believe that Jesus Christ took away all hint of any original sin that Adam and Eve may have left us, and He took it for all humans. He paid that price, period. Therefore, -]as do Catholics/-], we believe that infants are born sinless–and more importantly, they are born utterly innocent. Baptism IS necessary–but not until a child is actually old enough to make choices that would result in sin–and to understand what sin actually is.

For grevious sins, they go to their bishop. For non-grevious sins, it is between them and heavenly father. Griveous sins are usually sins of a sexual nature but they can be others too.

Why do Mormons baptize?

 

[dianaiad]

Why do Mormons baptize?

dianaiad:

I understand why Catholics believe that infants need to be baptized. You don’t need to defend it. I disagree with it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t ‘get’ it, Paul.

We believe that it is not required because we believe that Jesus Christ took away all hint of any original sin that Adam and Eve may have left us, and He took it for all humans. He paid that price, period. Therefore, -]as do Catholics/-], we believe that infants are born sinless–and more importantly, they are born utterly innocent. Baptism IS necessary–but not until a child is actually old enough to make choices that would result in sin–and to understand what sin actually is.

why me:

For grevious sins, they go to their bishop. For non-grevious sins, it is between them and heavenly father. Griveous sins are usually sins of a sexual nature but they can be others too.

Why did you strike out “as Catholics do?” I understand that Catholics believe that infants are born free of personal sin, burdened only by “Original Sin”? Am I wrong about this? Do Catholics by into the Calvinist view of predestination and reprobate babies? Just curious.

At any rate, Mormons baptize because Christ told us to, and the purpose is…for the remission of sins. Our fourth “Article of Faith” states: “We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

 

[Stephen168]

A summary of Mormon baptism:
A. Mankind is born sinless
B. Sins can be forgiven
Therefore: Baptize for the forgiveness of sin. Baptize at eight years old, because given point A and B, baptizing an infant would be silly.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Here’s the thing MEgus, those websites don’t teach what many Mormons actually believe. “Jesus is the God of this world” is something I was taught in LDS seminary. I was taught a lot of things in LDS seminary that Mormons tell me are not Mormon beliefs. Yet, I was certainly taught by Mormons who believed what they were teaching me.

It may well be the Mormons who alanjeddy knows, believe this stuff. Maybe you don’t, which doesn’t really mean anything in the Mormon world as you can pretty much believe anything you like within a certain framework, if it is at those websites, or not.

You certainly can be a very devout, card carrying Mormon, who read these sort of teachings from a previous Mormon prophet, or a book on early Mormon writings you found on the internet last week, say you prayed about them and say you received a witness that those teachings are correct.

There is no orthodoxy in Mormonism.

I agree with Rebecca. There is apparently no orthodoxy, no overarching belief system, with Mormonism. Diana and Bukowski are refuting things and essentially saying “Mormons don’t believe that” about things that I have heard over and over again from Mormons, including high ranking Mormons, and Missionaries.

The most startling conversation ~ I was more of a listener than a participant ~ was the time I heard Missionaries discuss whether they would, as part of becoming Gods of their own worlds, have to follow the same path as Jesus ~ i.e. be born again as a baby (which is PRECISELY reincarnation ~ just on another world) and have to endure crucifixion there just as Jesus did here. The idea that Jesus is the God of this world and they had the opportunity to become Gods of their own world was very definitely part of the deal.

If you reach back into that sort of theology, the inescapable conclusion, since God/Heavenly Father is an exalted man according to Mormonism, is that God Himself was once an ordinary mortal, progressed to His current status and is God now. So who was His God? And how can he He “eternal” if He was once the creation of some predecessor God? I used to ask that sort of question when these things were discussed but never got a clear answer. This is all part of the “Eternal Progression” concept and if this ISN’T the Mormonism of today, then that just means it’s been changed/discarded. Or maybe it’s just one of the weird things that is hidden from potential converts? Because a lot of the weird stuff is hidden.

Maybe Bukowski and Diana are some different faction of LDS?
But the LDS I have had contact with I have heard repeatedly discussing Eternal progression, becoming Gods of their own planets if they are sufficiently “worthy”, men having multiple wives in Heaven, Jesus is the God of this Planet, etc. etc. etc. It is this heresy ~ that we can become Gods ~ that is, in my opinion, one of the big “lies”. The first time Adam and Eve fell for that lie, they were kicked out of Eden. We cannot become Gods. It is arrogant and prideful to even think it’s possible. Being a God was a lie then, it’s a lie when a Mormon tells it to you now. Reflecting on the source of the lie can be very instructive.

 

[dianaiad]

A summary of Mormon baptism:
A. Mankind is born sinless
B. Sins can be forgiven
Therefore: Baptize for the forgiveness of sin. Baptize at eight years old, because given point A and B, baptizing an infant would be silly.

(thinking…looking for a trap in there somewhere and figuring…if there’s one in there it’s too deeply buried for me, and so if I step into it I deserve it…)

Pretty much, yes.

 

[dianaiad]

I agree with Rebecca. There is apparently no orthodoxy, no overarching belief system, with Mormonism.

Well yes. There IS. It is found in the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants…find it on lds.org.

It’s simple.

It ALSO leaves room for a great deal of speculation, and speculation is a church wide pastime.

See, here’s the thing: one of the perceptions that non-Mormons have of the CoJCoLDS is that we are welded to a specific set of dogma/doctrine, that it is intricate and weird, and that if one of our leaders (no matter who he is or what position he holds) says something, that we MUST, therefore. all believe it. Lockstep marching…when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

A prime example of this is the theory of evolution. Official LDS doctrine on this is…there isn’t one. Or rather, it is that God created man in His own image–and that we do not believe in creation ex nihilo. That’s it.

I have, in my own family, people who hold tight to the literal 7 24 hour day creation complete with Adam and Eve from the side rib. There are those who say no, that each ‘day’ equals a thousand years. Others say no–the eras were longer than that. Some believe in a guided evolution where God just stuck people in there somewhere in the middle. Some believe that God began the “Big Bang” and that scientists are beginning to understand the processes of creation…if not to recreate them, at least to describe them; that God guided the evolution of man until a time came when the humans He designed actually showed up.

I lean toward the latter. My mother is a biblical literalist. We are both just fine with the church.

All the other stuff? Doesn’t matter any more than all the speculation about the ‘Rapture’ or the ‘End of Days’ or ‘what the Book of Revelation REALLY means’ does. The important, salvific beliefs, are the stuff you find in the scriptures. All of them.

 

[Stephen168]

(thinking…looking for a trap in there somewhere and figuring…if there’s one in there it’s too deeply buried for me, and so if I step into it I deserve it…)

Pretty much, yes.

I’m not sure what you mean by trap but this is what I’m thinking:

Mormon Missionary: “Mankind is without sin and God will forgive your sins when you ask him. If it is a big sin you’ll have to tell the Bishop first but your sins will be forgiven. Understand?

Potential Convert: “Yep, I understand.”

Mormon Missionary: “Ok, Let me baptize you.”

Potential Convert: “Why?”

Mormon Missionary: “For the forgiveness of sin.”

Potential Convert: “But I can just ask God for forgiveness”

Mormon: Missionary: “Christ told us to baptize for the forgiveness of sin”

Potential Convert: “Baptism seems pointless. It seems there is more to baptism then you are telling me, more to sin than you are telling, or Christ is a flake.”

Mormon: Missionary: “No, sin is sin, Baptism washes away sin, and Christ is not a flake.

Potential Convert: “I think there is more to sin than you are telling me, Bye”

 

[MelanieAnne]

Diana,

What do you think we should do, agree with you? Your church’s very purpose and mission, whether you can see it or not, is to try and take people away from the church established by Christ Himself and teach them another ‘gospel’, from an unholy source.

That’s how I see it. Nothing against you personally at all

Tami

Tami, as someone who has been posting to various places on this forum for a while now, I can tell you that it is very common for Mormons to personalize any disagreement with the Mormon faith and to characterize any disagreement as an “attack”. There is often a sort of paranoia that seems to go hand in hand with Mormonism.

As such, it can be a challenge to have a rational discussion when every point of intellectual disagreement is viewed emotionally and taken as a personal attack.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m not sure what you mean by trap but this is what I’m thinking:

Mormon Missionary: “Mankind is without sin and God will forgive your sins when you ask him. If it is a big sin you’ll have to tell the Bishop first but your sins will be forgiven. Understand?

Potential Convert: “Yep, I understand.”

Mormon Missionary: “Ok, Let me baptize you.”

Potential Convert: “Why?”

Mormon Missionary: “For the forgiveness of sin.”

Potential Convert: “But I can just ask God for forgiveness”

Mormon: Missionary: “Christ told us to baptize for the forgiveness of sin”

Potential Convert: “Baptism seems pointless. It seems there is more to baptism then you are telling me, more to sin than you are telling, or Christ is a flake.”

Mormon: Missionary: “No, sin is sin, Baptism washes away sin, and Christ is not a flake.

Potential Convert: “I think there is more to sin than you are telling me, Bye”

I was afraid of that. why can’t it ever be simple?

Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…it is an ordinance that is required for salvation. It need not be done for anybody who is innocent–that is, children under the age of 8 or for people who are incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong; if they aren’t responsible for their actions, then it is not required.

However, the vast majority of us DO become aware of the difference between right and wrong, and thus capable of sin, of making the wrong choices. We believe that these must be baptized as Christ commanded; by immersion and by someone with the authority to do it. It only needs to be done once. After that, the process of repentance, constantly ongoing, is what deals with sin.

I’m not quite certain what direction you are aiming for here. The Catholic conception of personal sin and the LDS conception of it is pretty much the same as far as I can see; the difference between us isn’t about personal sin; it’s about ‘original’ sin. We believe that in as far as there was ‘original sin,’ Christ’s Atonement took care of that. For everybody.You believe that the Atonement took care of it for everyone who has been baptized according to the requirements of the Catholic church.

So I guess the question is…I don’t quite know what your question is.

 

[dianaiad]

Tami, as someone who has been posting to various places on this forum for a while now, I can tell you that it is very common for Mormons to personalize any disagreement with the Mormon faith and to characterize any disagreement as an “attack”. There is often a sort of paranoia that seems to go hand in hand with Mormonism.

As such, it can be a challenge to have a rational discussion when every point of intellectual disagreement is viewed emotionally and taken as a personal attack.

Melanie…

I only see attacks when:’

a: we are invited into a forum through deceitful means; that is, a promise of civil discourse only to have that promise broken. In other words, the use of ad hominems and other personal attacks.
b; when the person disagreeing with us insists that we believe what they think we do, and will not accept correction–and goes on to criticize us for beliefs that we don’t actually hold.
c: when they see our presence in the forum as ‘proselyting’ when the only thing we are doing is correcting erroneous information about what our beliefs actually are.

You want to discuss what I ACTUALLY BELIEVE? Come ahead. I will happily explain why I believe what I do. I’m not going to mock your beliefs. I’m not going to argue with you about them, and I’m not going to tell you what you “Really” believe and then call you a liar if you correct me.

It would be a rather nice change, actually, to have a conversation about what my beliefs actually are; why I believe in modern public revelation that results in scripture (an open canon), for instance, or why I believe in baptism for the dead, or why some aspects of the Word of Wisdom are requirements for Temple Recommends and others are not…

It would REALLY be a nice change if, once in awhile, I would say that I believed this or that, and be believed–and had THOSE beliefs actually addressed.

 

[pismopal]

I’d love to.

If I could find one.

Please excuse me, part of this is about me having a really nasty flu/cold bug and being home from work.

Part of it is because I honestly do not remember a post in here that addresses Mormonism that does not have a negative twist to it.

No, I’m not talking about simple disagreements with doctrine. For instance, I don’t wear the cross, ask for intercession with Mary or repeat memorized prayers in my personal prayer time. However, I understand the value of symbols, the idea of reverence vs. worship…the sort of awe for God that asking Mary to intercede for you represents, and the value of the meditative, receptive state that people who say the Rosary obtain; it is valuable and I don’t see anything horrific, idol worshiping or useless about any of it. Which is why you don’t see me making fun of such things, attacking them or claiming that people who participate in them are somehow more cultish, less intelligent, less valuable, or Christian, than me.

I’m talking about…(and this is classic, short and a perfect example) “dianaiad what do mormons believe about jesus christ and the trinity its not christian”

Now give me one good reason why I should address this request with any civility? If I were to ask you “Rebecca, what to Catholics believe about Mary and worshiping idols its not christian.” would you feel all that accommodating?

Even those posts that restrict themselves…for instance, if Bill had written 'dianaiad what do mormons believe about jesus christ and the trinity?" You can guarantee that, if I answered it, the response would be a sort of 'A HA! I GOT YOU!" sort of thing. Either “No you don’t either, I was told that you believe this and it’s not Christian” or “Mormons lie, that’s not what you mean when you use the words” or something.

I can’t remember the last time someone asked me a question like that and responded to my answer with “thank you, I didn’t know that,” or "thank you, that clears a question up,’ or just “thank you…”

On the other hand, you’ve given me an idea. This forum is a great deal more civil than usenet. If it is possible to find a simple, positive post about Mormonism, it might be so in here. I don’t feel good enough to do anything else, anyway, and it might make me feel better to find one or two.

My requirements for ‘positive’ are pretty simple: any comment or request about Mormonism that isn’t hiding a thorn in it, or isn’t a set up for a trap. Doesn’t have to praise us. Doesn’t have to agree with us. It just has to …not be an ambush.

I will say it again because you persist in your over the top responses to any perceived slight, real or imagined, and I have read a lot of your “over the top” responses and most of them are not even responses…they seem to be an excuse for you to pontificate and show everyone how brilliant you are. Most of your so called arguments are just letting off steam and hard to read, let alone make logic from. The last full page blast from you regarding what I said wasn’t even on topic…just a broadside. Lots of words do not necessarilly make a point and your complaints about nastiness are the pot calling the kettle…shall we say “cursed by G-d”. I can hardly wait…go ahead

 

[Stephen168]

So I guess the question is…I don’t quite know what your question is.

I don’t have a question. I have an observation. When credo-baptism was invented in the 16th century it logically rejected the reason for baptism.

Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…it is an ordinance that is required for salvation.

But why? If mankind is born without sin, and there are other means to forgive sin, then logically there is no reason to get baptized. Selecting eight years as the age for baptism has no reason. Why not 12 or 18? It logically does not matter because there is no reason to get baptized at all.

 

[Arandur]

Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins…it is an ordinance that is required for salvation. It need not be done for anybody who is innocent–that is, children under the age of 8 or for people who are incapable of knowing the difference between right and wrong; if they aren’t responsible for their actions, then it is not required.

However, the vast majority of us DO become aware of the difference between right and wrong, and thus capable of sin, of making the wrong choices. We believe that these must be baptized as Christ commanded; by immersion and by someone with the authority to do it. It only needs to be done once. After that, the process of repentance, constantly ongoing, is what deals with sin.

I’d like to ask some clarification of your belief here. I understand that the BoM says infant baptism is an abomination and that either it or the D&C (both, I think) prescribe baptism at the age of 8, but setting aside just taking those things based on your latter day writings alone, can I ask about the reasoning behind the belief?

You seem to say that the difference is that we must “become aware of the difference between right and wrong, and thus capable of sin.” As you say in the previous paragraph, not knowing the difference between right and wrong means you are innocent of your actions.

So you must know the difference in order to sin. I don’t think that reasoning holds up in light of Adam and Eve, since they did not know the difference between right and wrong until they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil–yet they still sinned, big time.

Likewise, children lie long before the age of 8; I can remember knowing what was wrong to do well before the age of 8; and I think most parents will agree that healthy children learn the difference and know guilt and obedience and right and wrong well before the age of 8.

So is this really the reason? It doesn’t seem to me that you can use “knowing the difference between right and wrong” as your foundation for sin and need for baptism.

Perhaps you mean to say that children under the age of 8 are not to be held accountable for right and wrong behavior? God doesn’t hold them responsible for their behavior? What is it, then, that makes the age of 8 so magical?

It doesn’t sound to me like the admonishment to become like little children would fit very well if it means something like being ignorant of the different between right and wrong or the ability to do whatever we wish and not be held responsible for our behavior.

I have also heard Smithians (and fundamentalists) say that around 8 years old children can make a commitment to God, and that’s why they shouldn’t have baptism until then. If this is the reason (and not the sin thing), that enters a whole different area: what exactly constitutes making a commitment; do those criteria need to be met for a valid baptism; what if they weren’t really met; and what about circumcision in the Jewish custom, which involved the faith and commitment of the parents (with the automatic spiritual assent of the child) for the child?

 

[dianaiad]

I will say it again because you persist in your over the top responses to any perceived slight, real or imagined, and I have read a lot of your “over the top” responses and most of them are not even responses…they seem to be an excuse for you to pontificate and show everyone how brilliant you are. Most of your so called arguments are just letting off steam and hard to read, let alone make logic from. The last full page blast from you regarding what I said wasn’t even on topic…just a broadside. Lots of words do not necessarilly make a point and your complaints about nastiness are the pot calling the kettle…shall we say “cursed by G-d”. I can hardly wait…go ahead

Well, I’m pretty much over the cold.

So I have a question…when did I ever say you were 'cursed by God?"
…and when have I ever been nasty to you about your beliefs?

 

[PaulDupre]

b; when the person disagreeing with us insists that we believe what they think we do, and will not accept correction–and goes on to criticize us for beliefs that we don’t actually hold.

That’s really the source of nearly all the conflicts I see here between Mormons and others.

We read LDS publications detailing the teachings of the LDS leadership (i.e.:The Gospel Principles Manual) and bring up a topic spelled out clearly in that publication (i.e.: righteous Mormons will become gods and have spirit children of their own just like Heavenly Father and will have the same relationship with them that we have with Heavenly Father - Gospel Principles Chapter 47).

We know that the major feature of our relationship with Heavenly Father is that we worship Him. So we ask if you really believe you will be worshiped by your spirit children. One Mormon objects and says “We don’t believe we will have spirit children”. Another objects and says “We don’t believe we will be worshiped by our spirit children”. Another says “We don’t believe we will literally become gods in the sense that Heavenly Father is God”.

This leaves us shaking our heads and wondering "Are they lying to us? Do they not know what their church teaches? Or is there simply no theological orthodoxy in Mormonism? If any one of these is so, then it is impossible to have a cogent discussion about Mormon teachings with a Mormon, because we are never discussing what Mormonism believes, only what individual Mormons believe or are willing to admit they believe. And that is nothing but a frustrating waste of time.

As many have said, it is like trying to nail Jello to the wall.

Can you suggest a solution to this communication problem?