Do LDS baptize converts immediately?

[eightydeuce82]

I never required perfection from Joseph Smith. I just expected him to behave in a trustworthy and moral manner. When I learned he didn’t, I saw no reason to believe a word he had to say. Claiming to see God is quite a claim and I don’t see a reason for believing it when that person tried to make a living by taking money in exchange for finding treasure with a stone, which treasure conveniently was never found. Nor do I think a “prophet” is all that prophetic when he prophesies that his followers should build him a big house. Nor do I find it moral to send apostles on missions and “marry” their wives while they are gone or to “marry” teenager girls who are one’s legal wards. If there was a man who did all these things today, I would think that you wouldn’t find him all that trustworthy.

this is a profound statement not only did he claim to see God but in the other 10 accounts (I believe) that the story changed it went from God to Peter and not sure who else popped in there.

Lets not forget blood atonement and as you mentioned the polygamy and weird sexual nature to it all…of course one must be a polygamist to obtain heaven as stated by how many prophets now?

 

[iepuras]

What about children? Aren’t children sealed to parents? Can a child be sealed to only one parent? What if children leave the LDS as adults? Are they then no longer sealed? With this concept of “sealing for all time & eternity” do these types of things not bother you?

Children are only sealed to their parents when the parents themselves are sealed to each other. I was “born in the covenant” which means that I was born to parents who were sealed to each other. As such, I was automatically sealed to them at birth. For the living, both parents have to be sealed to each other for the children to be sealed to them, either through birth or a sealing ceremony later. The LDS church does allow the sealing of children to only one parent when done on behalf of the dead. However, the child can only be sealed to a father in this way. If the mother is unknown, the child can be sealed to the father. However, if the father is unknown, the child is cannot be sealed to the mother only. I know this through experience as I have done a bit of family history work.

There is uncertainty surrounding sealings when an adult child or spouse leaves the LDS church. When I formally resigned, I was notified by letter that all ordinances have been revoked, I assume that this means baptism all the way to sealings. However, I have heard of many instances where a man has resigned from the LDS church, but is still required to approve a sealing cancellation when the LDS ex-wife wishes to be sealed in the temple to a new husband. If his sealing was cancelled due to his resignation, why does he have to approve the sealing cancellation later? Sometimes I wonder if LDS leadership has thought all of this through yet.

 

[jane_doe]

After leaving Mormonism, I spent about a month figuring out that there is a God and that Jesus is God. I did a lot of reading, thinking and talking with my husband (he was born and raised Eastern Orthodox but he and his family are very ecumenical EO’s) during that time. Because I have young children, I felt like I needed to figure at least some things out relatively quickly for their sake.

When I decided I needed to be Christian, I wanted to join the church Jesus started, so I looked to Catholicism and Orthodoxy. My husband and I took a somewhat practical approach given where we live and my husband’s cultural background. So we landed in the Catholic Church and eventually landed in a Byzantine Catholic parish last fall.

I started RCIA about a month after I mentally left the LDS church. I wasn’t entirely sure about it at first. I was going to quit about two months into it (when I was still an inquirer and not yet a catechumen) when I had an experience where it was made very clear to me what God wanted me to do despite my own misgivings. So I became a catechumen and focused on the 3 things I needed to believe - the Trinity, the Eucharest and the Marian dogmas. It took me another 4-5 months to get there. At that point, I had a real hunger for the Eucharist but I still had 6 months to wait for the Easter Vigil. It was well worth the wait.

Thank you for sharing Iepuras.

If you don’t mind me asking, what is the exact definition of inquirer and catechumen?

 

[jane_doe]

Jane as I told you in PM Catholics generally have a hard time dialoging with people who base there faith off of a feeling rather than reason (hence the great disdain for Sola Scriptura, its a self defeating principle). That’s a no win proposition for both sides.

Maybe I’m just more optimistic

I know that Catholics and Mormons can be quite different in their beliefs and perspective. However, I don’t believe that means a Catholic and Mormon chatting is an automatic no-win situation. Despite our difference, we still share this world together and I believe that we can still talk, appreciate each other, and share Christ-like love. I know my own life has been enriched by both Mormon, Catholics, and people of many other faiths

 

[iepuras]

Thank you for sharing Iepuras.

If you don’t mind me asking, what is the exact definition of inquirer and catechumen?

Here is a good summary of the RCIA process.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/who-we-teach/rite-of-christian-initiation-of-adults/

 

[zaffiroborant]

The LDS church does allow the sealing of children to only one parent when done on behalf of the dead. However, the child can only be sealed to a father in this way. If the mother is unknown, the child can be sealed to the father. However, if the father is unknown, the child is cannot be sealed to the mother only. I know this through experience as I have done a bit of family history work.

I find that truly awful.

 

[Horton]

Horton, I’m unsure of where you’re going with your posts. Did you want to share your thoughts, have me listen, and then you listen to mine? That’s why I’m here.

Did you want to talk about LDS sealing practices in general? Or my beliefs in particular? I’m good either way, if you want to listen (otherwise the point is kind of mote…)

Did you want to talk about exploring faith with questions and answers? If so, I’d love to join you in that discussion! Exploring faith is a major passion of mine.

I’ve heard you declare your love of Peter and the rock. I’m glad you have faith, I hope it brings you great happiness.

So, as to this forum that, what do you want to talk about?

Jane - I get my questions make you uncomfortable and that you either don’t know the answer or you just don’t want to talk about it. There were several lines in my post with a question mark at the end. This typically signifies a question. I believe I asked you specifically what you thought or believed.

The topic of this thread is do the LDS do baptism of converts very soon after initial contact. There seems to b some consensus of those on the this thread that the main difference between LDS & Catholic conversion is level of catechesis.

My faith brings me great joy but your dig on my comment regarding Matt 16:18-19 is uncalled for but expected from LDS when they can’t defend their position.

 

[Stephen168]

I wholeheartedly agree!

Brandon Cal has certainly done his homework, to the point of putting this Cradle Catholic to shame by his knowledge and deep understanding of the Catholic Faith. His posts, particularly his last few in this thread, are a true inspiration to me, to become a better Catholic. Bravo!

:clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

The exchange between jane_doe and Brandon Cal in post #250 made me think:

1. It is possible to understand something without believing. I think many Christians believe without understanding.
2. Philosophy is the foundation of theology, so if philosophy isn’t your thing, understanding somethings would be difficult.
3. It seems odd that someone who claims to “love” the Greek philosophers would not be about to understand; not believe, but understand with some help.
4. Those same philosophers would reject the Mormon teachings on many gods, and creation ex material, so it also seems odd to claim they would “resonated deeply with Mormonism.”
   Just my thoughts.

 

[eightydeuce82]

The exchange between jane_doe and Brandon Cal in post #250 made me think:

1. It is possible to understand something without believing. I think many Christians believe without understanding.
2. Philosophy is the foundation of theology, so if philosophy isn’t your thing, understanding somethings would be difficult.
3. It seems odd that someone who claims to “love” the Greek philosophers would not be about to understand; not believe, but understand with some help.
4. Those same philosophers would reject the Mormon teachings on many gods, and creation ex material, so it also seems odd to claim they would “resonated deeply with Mormonism.”
   Just my thoughts.

All of us have the call to believe some heed it some do not.

We all get to a point where we simply must believe that’s a fact. In something that transcends us however leaving it in the realm of simply believing its true simply because your feeling says it is well dishonest.

I could say the same thing about Protestants who believe “because the holy spirit leads them to truth” That the bible is a literal thing and everything happened exactly as described.

Then I could be honest about it and realize that science has disproven many things in regard to bible timelines and I can be intellectually honest and say ok maybe I shouldn’t take the bible from a fundamentalist mind. Usually this isn’t the path most take and they dig in their heals no matter the evidence presented.

Since I consider Mormonism just an Protestantism to the extreme they don’t disappoint in the logic realm. DNA evidence has proven NO Israelites came to the US. Natives are not ancient from anywhere but Asia. That’s just one of the issues there are tons more. Yet the denial game continues and people choose to ignore these literally faith shattering facts.

This mindset is rampant in cults. Arguing over a feeling someone gets is a mute argument. Arguing over historic facts and science to support a claim or event now we are getting somewhere. Unfortunately this cant be dome from the Mormon side. Histories silence isn’t a victory sorry to tell you.

 

[jane_doe]

Here is a good summary of the RCIA process.

usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/who-we-teach/rite-of-christian-initiation-of-adults/

Great link!

 

[eightydeuce82]

Great link!

catechumen and mystagogy these are terms from the 1-2nd century when describing teaching or passing on the faith. I believe this is before the “so called apostasy” so I’m sure you will accept them as authentic. Wonder why you all don’t do this or use these terms?

 

[Telstar]

The exchange between jane_doe and Brandon Cal in post #250 made me think:

1. It is possible to understand something without believing. I think many Christians believe without understanding.

Sometimes, the Mysteries of God are so profound that they are impossible for our limited intellect to ever fully understand. That’s when we have to rely on faith, and accept them as being beyond all human understanding. We might be able to grasp the basics, but the fullness of the Mystery will always remain out of our reach. The Trinity is one of those Mysteries. So is the Holy Eucharist. There are some things we just can’t understand, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t believe in them. Sometimes, we just have to make a leap of faith to do so.

1. Philosophy is the foundation of theology, so if philosophy isn’t your thing, understanding somethings would be difficult.

Exactly. Spirituality is only understood through philosophy. What Jesus taught us was that the spiritual world is just as much a reality as the natural world, and, it’s actually much more important to us than this natural world that we can see and touch. We have to look at everything He said and did through the lens of spirituality, or it will never really make any sense to us.

1. It seems odd that someone who claims to “love” the Greek philosophers would not be about to understand; not believe, but understand with some help.

I think Brandon is right when he says that those who tend to look at philosophical (spiritual) issues from a materialistic point of view, have a really hard time grasping it, correctly. Mormons have this problem because of what JS and BY taught about the nature of God and the spiritual world. I think a lot of non-Catholic Christians, and even some Catholics, have a similar problem when it comes to understanding spirituality, too. We’re surrounded by materialistic views in the world around us, so we have a difficult time understanding and believing in the spiritual world. I also think it tends to scare some people to even consider it.

1. Those same philosophers would reject the Mormon teachings on many gods, and creation ex material, so it also seems odd to claim they would “resonated deeply with Mormonism.”
   Just my thoughts.

Absolutely. Philosophy really boggles my mind. I’m not very well educated (I never finished 9th grade in high school), so it takes me some serious effort to understand some of it. When I read about Aristotle’s work in defining the “Unmoved Mover”, I was blown away. Considering the fact that this was coming from a polytheistic Greek, it was amazing to me how he could produce such a near perfect description of the one God of Christianity (minus the Trinity, of course). But, that theory is totally incompatible with all of Mormon theology. I don’t know how anyone could think that it was.

 

[mamagoose]

When I first started investigating Catholicism a couple decades ago I found that the two teachings that completely boggled my mind were the Trinity and the Eucharist. Almost everything else I was learning about Catholic doctrine made logical sense and was internally consistent. I didn’t necessarily believe any of it, but it was at least sensible to me. The Trinity and the Eucharist were just… bizarre; seemingly illogical…

This was so perfectly explained. I have been trying to verbalize this very concept but have been unable to. Thank you so much for the explanation.

I was a cradle Mormon (“born to goodly parents who love the Lord”), from a long line of Latter-Day Saints. Indeed, my pioneer ancestors beat Brigham Young to Salt Lake City.

But I come from a very skeptical family as well. My grandparents were very critical of the Church, were never sealed in the temple, and I think my grandfather was ultimately an atheist and I know that my grandmother currently is. My parents were sealed in the Temple, but the skeptical tendencies began to emerge and both of my parents left the Church, along with my siblings for various reasons, and we are/were all agnostic/atheist. My dad is loosely Lutheran but he really has no clue and, if grilled, I think would say he is agnostic with a lot of Mormon culture/guilt.

I started learning about the Catholic Church when I met my now-husband who is a cradle Catholic. We were getting more serious and I figured if we were heading down the road that seemed to be to marriage, I should at least know something about Catholicism. I downloaded “Catholicism for Dummies” and it was hard to understand. Primarily because of the reason you give above. So much of it is taken on faith, immaterial faith. A lot of the words did not make sense to me. So I stumbled into the RCIA program purely to learn, not to convert. I was a devout agnostic (that really isn’t an oxymoron).

At a certain point, I decided to check my beliefs at the door and play around with Catholic ideas. Purely entertain Catholic thought. Slowly, very slowly I began to get it. I am still figuring things out, but it is all so rich and fascinating. Even though I am nominally Catholic, I am still in the process of converting. Fortunately, I have the graces of baptism, confirmation, and communion to guide me along in my continual conversion.

So I have a recommendation for Jane Doe. Find a parish that offers inquiry (first step in RCIA) and really pitches it as “Come find out and ask questions about the Catholic Church”. You do not have to convert and you will never been pushed to do so. I went there purely to learn what the Catholic Church teaches and not what I should believe. Be up front with the RCIA team about why you are there. You will be welcome.

I feel like these forums are helpful, but the face-to-face conversation with someone that doesn’t have a personal relationship with you will be so helpful in understanding Catholicism. Friends have a way of wanting what they think is best for you, so I think learning from more or less strangers is the way to go.

 

[mamagoose]

A lot of LDS folks see the final Degrees of Glory being differentiated by address: the most righteous live here, the lesser living here, etc. But I don’t see it that way. Rather, I see a person’s final Degree of Glory being the degree of glory they have within themselves: how much do YOU reflect God? A person whom embraces God with every fiber of their being shines in a Celestial glory, being brighter than the sun, and entrusted as a joint-heir in Christ. A person whom resists God and retains some of their lesser qualities, shines with only a lesser glory, and is entrusted to a lesser degree (cause that’s all God can give). I find this belief, because the end goal of God’s plan is for us to be like Him, not to have a fancy residence.

Continuing with my own beliefs, I see no reason why two siblings should ever stop loving each other or being together, even if one is more like God than the other. I also think that our current mortal understanding of what a divine sealing is extremely poor. I sure don’t think it’s copy-paste from what we have on Earth today.

How does this fit in with the Parable of the Prodigal Son and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard?

My husband is not LDS. Never has been, and probably never will be. When he and I first started talking about marriage, I brought my concerns about that to the Lord. The Lord told me very distinctly that “it’ll be ok”. Well, I can’t very well argue with that, can I? So we married, and I do not fret about a sealing, even though I don’t know how things will work out. I think the Catholic phrasing for it would be that it’s a mystery of faith.

This goes against very important LDS teaching! According to the LDS Church’s website, “Marriage is and should be a sacrament. The word sacrament is variously defined, but among Christian people it signifies a religious act or ceremony, solemnized by one having proper authority. It is a pledge, or solemn covenant, a spiritual sign or bond between the contracting parties themselves and between them and God.” The link above that statement says, “To a Latter-day Saint, there is only one kind of marriage that is wholly acceptable: temple or celestial marriage, which is performed only in the temples of the Church.”

Because of this, the little Young Woman that still remains in me is kind of offended by saying that your marriage will somehow, someway be taken care of. No! There is only one wholly acceptable way. And this has been revealed through the prophets!

Of course, I am comforted that the Lord spoke to you and said, “It will be OK.” Because it will be. Temple marriage, either in the here and now or in eternity, is not necessary for salvation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Reminds me of a neighbor when I was growing up, who was active LDS but her husband was not. The story goes, he said to her one day, that after he died, she could have the proxy temple work done for him, and everything would be OK. She said, no, she wouldn’t do that. If he didn’t want a temple marriage in this life, she wouldn’t be interested in the next! He took her response to heart and became an active Mormon in this life.

Now, whether or not that really happened…who knows.

 

[Horton]

How does this fit in with the Parable of the Prodigal Son and the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard?

This goes against very important LDS teaching! According to the LDS Church’s website, “Marriage is and should be a sacrament. The word sacrament is variously defined, but among Christian people it signifies a religious act or ceremony, solemnized by one having proper authority. It is a pledge, or solemn covenant, a spiritual sign or bond between the contracting parties themselves and between them and God.” The link above that statement says, “To a Latter-day Saint, there is only one kind of marriage that is wholly acceptable: temple or celestial marriage, which is performed only in the temples of the Church.”

Because of this, the little Young Woman that still remains in me is kind of offended by saying that your marriage will somehow, someway be taken care of. No! There is only one wholly acceptable way. And this has been revealed through the prophets!

Of course, I am comforted that the Lord spoke to you and said, “It will be OK.” Because it will be. Temple marriage, either in the here and now or in eternity, is not necessary for salvation.

Wonder why Jane hasn’t responded to this post yet?

 

[XuDan]

Wonder why Jane hasn’t responded to this post yet?

I don’t think she will be. From my understanding via PM she is done with CAF.

 

[Stevenrushing]

I don’t think she will be. From my understanding via PM she is done with CAF.

I am not surprised. I have lurked, but not posted in a week or so. I don’t think that the folk here really understand that we are so much more alike than we are different. I may not believe anything that the Mormon church teaches that is outside mainstream Christianity, and I may (do) believe it to be outside Christianity, but I don’t hate them. I don’t attack them, in person or here. And of course most of you have already stopped reading.

It seems so contentious here. There is so little trust. Honestly, Mormons aren’t inherently bad people. They are just wrong. They ARE speaking a different language. Mormon speak is a thing. But to the every day Mormon, it isn’t spoken to deceive or to confuse or manipulate, it is spoken because that is how they (we) speak to each other! It is the only way they know how to speak!

I don’t blame a true-believing Mormon for leaving here. I didn’t post for so long because there just seems to be so many hard feelings towards Mormons.

 

[Marie5890]

I am not surprised. I have lurked, but not posted in a week or so. I don’t think that the folk here really understand that we are so much more alike than we are different. I may not believe anything that the Mormon church teaches that is outside mainstream Christianity, and I may (do) believe it to be outside Christianity, but I don’t hate them. I don’t attack them, in person or here. And of course most of you have already stopped reading.

It seems so contentious here. There is so little trust. Honestly, Mormons aren’t inherently bad people. They are just wrong. They ARE speaking a different language. Mormon speak is a thing. But to the every day Mormon, it isn’t spoken to deceive or to confuse or manipulate, it is spoken because that is how they (we) speak to each other! It is the only way they know how to speak!

I don’t blame a true-believing Mormon for leaving here. I didn’t post for so long because there just seems to be so many hard feelings towards Mormons.

Yes. Whether rightly or wrongly so, I can understand why a Mormon may chose not to stick around here for very long.

I know that over the recent past, the Mormon views on Catholicism has softened a great deal.

But historically, anti-Catholic sentiment was deeply steeped in Mormon thought.
(For those of us former Mormons who went thru the temple prior to the pre-1990 changes, you know, if you remember, exactly what I am talking about. Doesnt get much more anti-Catholic than what the character of Lucifer says in the endowment ceremony)

 

[Horton]

I am not surprised. I have lurked, but not posted in a week or so. I don’t think that the folk here really understand that we are so much more alike than we are different. I may not believe anything that the Mormon church teaches that is outside mainstream Christianity, and I may (do) believe it to be outside Christianity, but I don’t hate them. I don’t attack them, in person or here. And of course most of you have already stopped reading.

It seems so contentious here. There is so little trust. Honestly, Mormons aren’t inherently bad people. They are just wrong. They ARE speaking a different language. Mormon speak is a thing. But to the every day Mormon, it isn’t spoken to deceive or to confuse or manipulate, it is spoken because that is how they (we) speak to each other! It is the only way they know how to speak!

I don’t blame a true-believing Mormon for leaving here. I didn’t post for so long because there just seems to be so many hard feelings towards Mormons.

I feel there is so little trust because many of us have had so many negative interactions with the LDS. For me, the negative interactions have pertained to religion mostly, not everyday life. I used to live in an area with a high concentration of LDS. Worked with many LDS. The problems always came up in relation to religion. There appeared to be an inherent need to want to be the only right faith and no desire to listen to what those of a different faith say.

On the flip side, I wouldn’t even know where to find a LDS discussion forum and even if I did I wouldn’t go there pretending to be something I’m not, making claims I can’t back up, and basically acting as though I’m communicating with a bunch of people who don’t know their faith.

I’m all for open dialog and asking & answering questions, having a discussion. I appreciate those of a different faith coming over here to discuss issues. I’ve learned a lot from some of these discussions.