HUGE Questions for Mormons

[Catholic_Dude]

I just spent over 4 hours on the LDS web page looking into stuff. I have been told that no Mormon teaching contradicts the Bible so I started this quest of questions and interesting stuff I found to see for myself what was what…

All of the following is taken directly off of the LDS webpage.
(my comments in blue)

---

This stuff deals with the Trinity and nature of God. The accusation was made that the LDS position on the nature of God was Biblically sound.

I found this, scriptures.lds.org/gsg/gdgdhd
The stuff I am listing is way out of line in terms of the Biblical One True God:
1)…the Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bone
2)…Jesus works under the direction of the Father and is in complete harmony with him. All mankind are his brothers and sisters, for he is the eldest of the spirit children of Elohim. Some scripture references refer to him by the word God. For example, the scripture says that “God created the heaven and the earth”, but it was actually Jesus who was the Creator under the direction of God the Father
3)The Holy Ghost is also a God…

Here is another big one I found:
God can be known only by revelation. He must be revealed, or remain forever unknown (cf. Mosiah 4: 9). God first revealed himself to Adam (Moses 5; 6) and has repeatedly made himself known by revelation to chosen patriarchs and prophets since that time. The present translation of John 1: 18 and 1 Jn. 4: 12 is misleading, for these say that no man has ever seen God. However, the scriptures state that there have been
many who have seen him. The JST corrects these items to show that no sinful man has ever seen God, and also that Jesus Christ is the only Way to God. God the Father and his Son have been manifested by voice, sight, or otherwise at various times, as at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3: 16-17); the Transfiguration (Matt. 17: 1-8); to Stephen (Acts 7: 55-56); and to the Nephites (3 Ne. 11: 7). The Father and the Son personally visited Joseph Smith in the Sacred Grove, in the spring of 1820, near Manchester, New York, in the opening of the dispensation of the fulness of times (JS-H 1: 11-20).

Latter-day revelation confirms the biblical account of God as the
literal father of the human family; as a being who is concerned for the welfare of mankind, and a Personage who hears and answers prayers.
(scriptures.lds.org/bdg/god)

14 Behold, I am he who was aprepared from the foundation of the world to bredeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son.
(scriptures.lds.org/ether/3/14#14)

This stuff is not in line in any way to the Bible or historical Jewish AND Christian belief.

---

Here are a few quotes from the Bible that appear outside of the Bible in other LDS scripture. There are many, many more…

9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father who art in
heaven, hallowed be thy name.
(scriptures.lds.org/3_ne/13/9#9)

27 And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me.
(scriptures.lds.org/abr/3/27#27)

---

I stumbled upon these pictures, they have something to do with Abraham, God, and other stuff, I dont really know what to say…
scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_1

http://scriptures.lds.org/images/fac_1.gif
This first one has Abraham laying down on an altar going to be killed.

scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_2
http://scriptures.lds.org/images/fac_2.gif
This has something to do with creation and history.

scriptures.lds.org/abr/fac_3
http://scriptures.lds.org/images/fac_3.gif
This is Abraham on Pharao’s throne.

---

Here is a chronological table soon after the last apostles, why does the timeline end at 96AD?
scriptures.lds.org/bd/chrono,

---

(Cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The following are additions to the Bible, ie these verses are added right to the original text:
(scriptures.lds.org/jst/contents)
Here are a few of the major ones:
-Abraham saw in vision the Son of God and knew of the resurrection.
-The second set of tablets given to Moses contained a lesser law than the first set.
-On the first set of tablets God revealed the everlasting covenant of the holy priesthood.
-Jesus was led by the Spirit, not by Satan. Catholic Dude: a
misunderstanding of the time Jesus was tempted]
-The meaning of the phrase “to take up the cross of Jesus” is to deny ungodliness.
-John the Baptist was on the Mount of Transfiguration.
-Two angels greeted the women at the tomb of the Savior.
-Paul prophesied an apostasy before the Lord returns.​

I have come across many accusations that the original Church Jesus established apostasized after the death of the last Apostle. Regarding the Matt16:18-19 quote a problem arises when it is “lost” and then “ressurected” about 1800 years later, but somehow retains the same truth and authority.

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God.
…
And Almighty God decreed that the Devil should not thwart it.
(scriptures.lds.org/od/1)

5 Wherefore, if you shall build up my church, upon the foundation of my gospel and my rock, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you.
(scriptures.lds.org/dc/18/1-5#1)

2 Unto whom I have given the keys of the kingdom, which belong always unto the Presidency of the High Priesthood:
(scriptures.lds.org/dc/81/1-2#1)​

Here is some more apostasy stuff
(scriptures.lds.org/gsa/apostasy)

God’s reestablishment of the truths and ordinances of his gospel among men on earth. The gospel of Jesus Christ was lost from the earth through the apostasy that took place following the earthly ministry of Christ’s Apostles. That apostasy made necessary the restoration of the
gospel. Through visions, the ministering of angels, and revelations to men on the earth, God restored the gospel. The Restoration started with the Prophet Joseph Smith (JS-H 1: 1-75; D&C 128: 20-21) and has continued to the present through the work of the Lord’s living prophets.
(scriptures.lds.org/gsr/rstrtnft)

A gospel dispensation is a period of time in which the Lord has at least one authorized servant on the earth who bears the keys of the holy priesthood.

Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus Christ, Joseph Smith, and others have each started a new gospel dispensation. When the Lord organizes a dispensation, the gospel is revealed anew so that the people of that dispensation do not have to depend on past dispensations for knowledge of the plan of salvation. The dispensation begun by Joseph Smith is known as the “dispensation of the fulness of
times.” (scriptures.lds.org/gsd/dspnstn)

 

[CreosMary]

Well!..
Sad, We must pray for them. I wonder if they are celebrating the Resurrection Today?
When I was 13 I was sucked into the Mormons for a year, Got dunked as well. I asked the 'President" about tithing and where the money goes as the Mormons have NO charities. I was told that all the money goes into a vault in the side of a mountain in Utah. I had mental images of pallets and pallets of green-backs. I asked him what the money was for and he told me that when Jesus comes to build his Kingdom on earth he will have the money to do it with!.. That was it for me, even at the tender age of 13 I could see this was a pack of C…p.
I then went on to spend 20 years as a drug addict, and it was the Catholic Church, 7 years ago, that I came ‘home’ to.
Ask a mormon about Solomon Spalding, he is the Science Fiction Authour that Joseph Smith plagiarised for his ‘Book of mormon’, There is even proof of that in thier archives
Happy Easter everyone!!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

THE CHURCH
The church is the organized body of believers who have taken upon themselves the name of Jesus Christ by baptism and confirmation. To be the true church it must be the Lord’s church, and must have his laws, his name, and be governed by him through representatives whom he has
appointed (3 Ne. 27: 1-12; D&C 115: 4). In this sense, the church began with the days of Adam, and has been on the earth among mankind whenever there were a group of believers who had the priesthood and revelations of heaven. The word church is used only twice in the four Gospels (Matt. 16: 18; Matt. 18: 17) but is frequently mentioned in Acts, the epistles, and Revelation. The O.T. uses the term congregation for church. The word kingdom is often used in the scriptures to mean the church, since the church is literally the kingdom of God on the earth. The Book of Mormon, as it speaks of O.T. events, uses the word church (1 Ne. 4: 26), and the Doctrine and
Covenants speaks of the church in O.T. times (D&C 107: 4).

Principal offices in the church are spoken of by Paul in Eph. 4:
11-16, in which it is pointed out that the church is a means by which the saints (or members) become edified and progress toward the full measure of the stature of Christ. That belonging to the Lord’s church is important is emphasized in Acts 2: 47, where we find that “the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.” In the church there should be unity and oneness, and Paul was greatly concerned that there were divisions in the church at Corinth (1 Cor. 1: 10-13). He
repeatedly explained that all the offices and functions of the church are necessary (Rom. 12: 4-5; 1 Cor. 12; Eph. 4: 1-16), the whole body being fitly joined together. The scriptures contain the prophecies that the church which Jesus established would fall into apostasy. This occurred soon after the death of the Twelve. Consequently, the church, with the same organization, doctrines, and authority, has in the last
days been restored to the earth, preparatory to the second coming of Jesus Christ (2 Thes. 2: 1-9; D&C 20: 1-4; cf. Acts 3: 19-21; A of F 6).
(scriptures.lds.org/bdc/church)

---

cont

 

[Catholic_Dude]

THE BIBLE
… In The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the canonical books are called standard works. The history of the process by which the books of the Bible were collected and recognized as a sacred authority is almost hidden in obscurity. There are several legends extant and these may have some truth in them, but certainly are not complete or totally accurate. Though many of the details have not been preserved, we know that the servants of the Lord have been commanded
to keep records even from the earliest times, and that those records have been revered by the faithful and handed down from generation to generation.

Much of the information we now have on this subject has come to us through latter-day revelation. For example, we learn that Adam was an intelligent being who could read and write and had a pure and perfect language. Sacred records were kept by him and handed down to succeeding patriarchs, even to Enoch and Abraham, who also added their own writings to the collection (Moses 6: 3-6, 46; Abr. 1: 31). Likewise Moses kept a record in his day (Moses 1: 40-41). A collection of Old Testament documents and other writings was available in
Jerusalem in 600 B.C., written upon plates of brass, and was obtained by Nephi from Laban (1 Ne. 4; 1 Ne. 5: 10-19).

…In New Testament times the apostles and prophets kept records, giving an official testimony of the earthly ministry of the Savior and the progress and teachings of the Church. Many of the details, such as time and place involved in the production and the preservation of the records, are not available, but the general concept is clear that the servants of the Lord wrote what they knew to be true of Jesus.** Thus came the Gospels**. The epistles were primarily written to regulate affairs among the members of the Church.
…

…Councils were held in early Christianity to determine which of the writings were authoritative and which were heretical. Some good judgment was used, and many spurious books were rejected, while our present New Testament was preserved. …

…No doubt many writings, of both Old and New Testament times, have been lost, and perhaps even willfully destroyed (see Lost Books). When the Church was in apostasy, whether before or after the time of Christ, some valuable writings were misjudged to be in error (because the judges lacked the truth) and so were discarded. Likewise some books of lesser value may have bee judged to be good. In the main, however, sound guidelines were established that helped to preserve the
authoritative books. Among these rules were the following

(1) Is it claimed that the document was written by a prophet or an apostle?

(2)** Is the content of the writing consistent with known and accepted doctrines of the faith**?

(3) Is the document already used and accepted in the Church?

** By application of these tests the books now contained in the Bible have been preserved**.

Although the decisions were made in the past as to which writings are authoritative, that does not mean that the canon of scripture is complete and that no more can be added. True prophets and apostles will continue to receive new revelation, and from time to time the legal authorities of the Church will see fit to formally add to the collection of scripture.
(scriptures.lds.org/bdc/canon)

 

[crazyage3]

Thank you Catholic dude…this is very interesting. I’ll bring it to my missionaries attention and see what they say

 

[BJ_Colbert]

CreosMary:

Well!..
Sad, We must pray for them. I wonder if they are celebrating the Resurrection Today?
When I was 13 I was sucked into the Mormons for a year, Got dunked as well. I asked the 'President" about tithing and where the money goes as the Mormons have NO charities. I was told that all the money goes into a vault in the side of a mountain in Utah. I had mental images of pallets and pallets of green-backs. I asked him what the money was for and he told me that when Jesus comes to build his Kingdom on earth he will have the money to do it with!.. That was it for me, even at the tender age of 13 I could see this was a pack of C…p.
I then went on to spend 20 years as a drug addict, and it was the Catholic Church, 7 years ago, that I came ‘home’ to.
Ask a mormon about Solomon Spalding, he is the Science Fiction Authour that Joseph Smith plagiarised for his ‘Book of mormon’, There is even proof of that in thier archives
Happy Easter everyone!!

You must have been in some other church, or had your head stuck somewhere.  Everyone knows the LDS church is famous for their Deseret Industries and for the food, clothing, money and charitable donations of all kinds that they give all over the world, they are first on the scene at any disaster and give help where ever and when ever it is needed to all people.  They have their own welfare system where their members do not need to go on public welfare. They work with Catholic Charities in many instances together with the Red Cross and Salvation Army.  One week after the Tsunami hit Asia, the LDS church shipped 2 tons of medical, and needed supplies to the people and took up a special offering from the whole church to send cash directly to the Tsunami victims.   My husband donated through his parish and I donated through the LDS church.  What President did you talk to when you asked where all the money went?  The President of the USA.

Your post just shows your ignorance and you had better study a lot more before you embarass your Catholic Church with your illiterate postings. Sorry, you are very wrong about your ideas, and you have no right to espouse that garbage in a serious discussion of religion. We have differences, but we do not attack each other’s beliefs the way you have done here. America is about freedom to believe in God in our own way, and allowing others the same priviledge. The answer to your question are we celebrating the resurrection today, is NO we celebrate the resurrection tomorrow on Easter Sunday. If you are celebrating on Saturday you must be mixed up about what church you belong to now maybe it is Seventh Day Adventist, not Catholic. Now which is it?
BJ

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Catholic Dude,
I too have been studying the Catholic website, and one of the Catholic posters named FCEGM told me a site that had the answer to my question about which scripture tells about Mary being assumed into heaven. He gave me something called the Marian doctrines which tells that Mary may or may not have died in the normal way and that whether she did or didn’t she was assumed into heaven because there were no bones found. There is no scripture that tells of this. It was written and set forth as a true belief of the Catholic church by Pope Pius IX in 1854. There were rumors going around and seeing as how no one had ever seen her bones and did not know where or when she died, he decided to settle it once and for all and officially proclaimed that she had been assumed.
That seems to me to be as farfetched as you claim the Joseph Smith stories are, and the fact that he saw God and His Son Jesus Christ and translated the Gold Plates into the Book of Mormon.
Does the Catholic Church have the bones of all the disciples? I know they claim to have Peter and Paul, but did they do DNA testing or how do they know for sure whose bones these are, since they supposedly found them several hundred years after death. Also, why did Jesus call His church the Catholic church?
Why didn’t He call it the Church of Jesus Christ? Why did he call His representative of the church a Pope and not a Prophet? Why did he call the Pope’s next in line Cardinals and not Apostles. Who changed these names after Jesus died? Did He tell the person to change the names from what He originally called them?
Why did he change the form of baptism from emersion as He himself was baptized, to sprinkling as it is done now.
This Marian doctrine says the church can write anything it wants to as long as it does not contradict scripture, so therefore if it does not appear anywhere in scripture it can be written and the mere fact that the church teaches something is definitely true(such as Mary’s assumption) is a guarantee that it is true.

That means that any Pope can write anything no matter how far fetched and it is true. Another question, my Catholic husband asked me to find out what happened to St Christopher, he says something happened and he doesn’t know what, but all of a sudden St Christopher is not a saint anymore. So does anyone know how this happened.
I hope I have not offended anyone by my comments in this post, but I have a lot of questions and as you can see some of your beliefs seem as far out to me as mine do to you. I think that is why we must have faith, or none of us would believe in God or religion. It is by faith that we believe in the unseen. You believe in people who have seen Mary and I believe the testimony of a man who claims to have seen God and His Son Jesus Christ.
Happy Easter Everyone,
BJ

 

[Catholic_Dude]

BJ Colbert:

Catholic Dude,
…my question about which scripture tells about Mary being assumed into heaven. He gave me something called the Marian doctrines … There is no scripture that tells of this. … .

Im not 100% sure of the Marian doctrines, I will look into that now. There is such a thing as The Assumption, and you seem to have described it the best I know. I never heard of the “no bones found” part of it though.
As for a scriptural reference, I usually see this verse quoted and I am convinced that there was more to the story:
Rev11:19-12::

1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. 6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

This text al the very least brings up some points for debate. I will also have to look into what some early writings say.

That seems to me to be as farfetched as you claim the Joseph Smith stories are, and the fact that he saw God and His Son …

The Bible, especially the OT is very clear that no one has ever seen God the Father. There were many times when the Father talked with people, but they never involved direct man to man dialog.

Does the Catholic Church have the bones of all the disciples? … did they do DNA testing …

I dont know if they have the bones, im pretty sure they know where some graves of important people are. As for the DNA, that is such a joke to me, I dont know why people came up with that. As for what happened to almost any apostle, the Bible doesnt say, we must rely on tradition.

Also, why did Jesus call His church the Catholic church?
Why did he call His representative of the church a Pope and not a Prophet? Why did he call the Pope’s next in line Cardinals and not Apostles. Who changed these names after Jesus died?

He didnt give it any formal name other than The Church, that was all that was needed, there was never supposed to be more than one. The word “catholic” means global, the big “C” in Catholic and Roman Catholic was tacked on recently because there was so much confusion with names flying around. The Creed mentions “one holy catholic and apostolic Church”, that was all that was needed, the only formal name was the word Church and that is what is was called. As for the representatives, that is the wrong terminology. Christ never intended to have “representatives” or a “presidency” that is all modern history terminology/ideology. The capital “P”, Prophets were OT figures, not NT. Christ called them “apostles” and the CC is the only church that rightly uses the term “apostolic succession” when referring to authority being passed down. From what I have read the term pope means “papa” and in his position he is the papa to all the faithful, as for cardinals, I read that that is due to the vestments they wear, other than that I dont know much. As for changing names that was kind of open to do, the “offices” werent changed and their titles didnt indicate a wrong form of role they took.

Why did he change the form of baptism from emersion as He himself was baptized, to sprinkling as it is done now.
This Marian doctrine says the church can write anything it wants to as long as it does not contradict scripture

I dont believe He said anything more than the formula to use. That is a good question and I will look into it. As for the “if its not mentioned in the Bible its open season” talk, to me that is out of context. The CC has never just written stuff to write something, and it doesnt go making up stuff. In the end Mary is a side issue in the real heart of all of this. The heart is the key teachings concerning the Nature of God, Sacraments, Scriptures, Church, etc, that is where the foundations sit.

… all of a sudden St Christopher is not a saint anymore. So does anyone know how this happened.

The St Christopher thing I have heard about, but I have also heard that it is not true, I will look into it.

 

[crazyage3]

I am a person who sticks up for others. BJ i think you could have put that a little bit nicer. Maybe she doesnt know about all of your church’s teachings. I know I dont. Rather than knock her down, defend your faith.

 

[TNT]

**CATHOLIC DUDE:

****UNLESS You’ve got relatives that are LDS…

****You are hereby ordered to
** "get a life"

**or at least a productive Hobby**

**

4 hours on an LDS site ! Sheeesh

**I have many relatives that are LDS. You can sling all those contradictions at them. They are PROGRAMMED.
Plus the peer pressure from all family, friends, the church, is unbelieveable. They have to give up all to switch out of LDS. It is a cult of mind and life control in every sense of the meaning.

It’s like talking to a machine. Or space alien.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I see what your saying about wasting my time, no lds have responded. I went on for a quick trip to the Trinity section, and found all this other stuff that I couldnt believe.

I dont have any LDS in the family, so Ill take your word. I dont know what else to say, I try to show the historical and true way to look at Christianity and I guess it has no effect.

 

[Exporter]

C.D. , Right, it has no effect. Even though they may believe part of what you say they will not tell you that they believe you. To do that would make them have a shakey faith in LDS. When I have seen LDS missionaries asked about the multiple Gods and the “spirit children” they dont answer and they leave, not to return. That is supposed to be inner circle stuff.

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

I see what your saying about wasting my time, no lds have responded. I went on for a quick trip to the Trinity section, and found all this other stuff that I couldnt believe.

I dont have any LDS in the family, so Ill take your word. I dont know what else to say, I try to show the historical and true way to look at Christianity and I guess it has no effect.

I don’t think you are wasting your time. I think it is admirable you are doing your own investigation. I read your post, but was at a loss for how to respond. What exactly are your questions? What I see is some quotes from the church website. Did you pick them because you disagree with them?

If you want to find things about the trinity, look for stuff about “Godhead” or “Nature of God”. The basics are covered in the first few chapters of Gospel Principles:
library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Curriculum/home%20and%20family.htm/gospel%20principles.htm?fn=document-frameset.htm$f=templates$3.0

later,
fool

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Catholic Dude,
Thank you for your very fair and thoughtful response, I appreciate your taking the time to respond to me and my questions. I think a lot of your answers make sense and I understand there is a lot of written material that is impossible to keep up with, this forum has certainly caused me to study the Catholic and the LDS religion.
I must admit that the one who was a Mormon briefly at age 13 rattled me a bit when she said all the money collected is kept in a vault in a mountain in Utah, and the church does no charitable work. After thinking about it, at age 13, she probably mistook the Geneology microfilm which is kept in the vault in the mountain for money. Perfectly logical mistake for a 13 year old who has not been a member of the LDS church for over 20 years. Also, after posting I noticed she is in Australia, so that would explain her asking if we celebrated the resurrection on Saturday. It was Sunday in her part of the world. I apologize to all for my lapse and for jumping on her the way I did.
Again to Catholic Dude the reason LDS did not respond to what you have written above, is there is no question, you simply wrote what you found in the LDS web site and we agree. Also, it was Easter Sunday and I for one spent the morning in Church and the afternoon with my family and friends, so had no time to respond.
Sorry you thought we didn’t read your post. If you have a question about what you read and copied above please ask. I am sure someone will try to answer you.
BJ

 

[Tmaque]

BJ Colbert:

Also, why did Jesus call His church the Catholic church?
Why didn’t He call it the Church of Jesus Christ?

If the Catholic Church was called the Church of Jesus Christ would it make one speck of difference to you? Would you suddenly believe that it’s true? No, you wouldn’t. Why? Because what’s in a name? There are hundreds of churches named after Jesus Christ, are any true but yours? This accusation is ultimately meaningless. The LDS Church has to put Jesus Christ in the name because otherwise how would any one know that they believe in Jesus? You reject that most necessary symbolic standard of Christianity, the cross. The name is a necessity for you, it would be redundant for us. It would be overstating the obvious. Christ is at the very center of everything we do. Your church is at the very center of everything you do. We look to Christ, you look to the church. Christ is our salvation, the church is yours. Just to be clear Christ didn’t call his church anything but the “church”. All we did was add “universal” in front of it. Who changed his original words more??? We all know the answer.
BJ Colbert:

Why did he call His representative of the church a Pope and not a Prophet? Why did he call the Pope’s next in line Cardinals and not Apostles. Who changed these names after Jesus died? Did He tell the person to change the names from what He originally called them?

I’m confused. Where in the NT can I find Jesus setting up a church president(prophet) with two counselors? Where can I find him setting up 12 year old deacons, 14 year old teachers(rabbis) and 16 year old priests? Which chapter and verse? I CAN find in the Bible where the requirement for apostleship is to have seen the risen Christ. Are you suggesting that every LDS apostle has seen the risen Lord? We do know that Jesus set Peter apart, as the first among equals. That is exactly what the Pope is. Again, we have the LDS heirarchy far more removed from the ancient Church than the Catholic heirarchy.
BJ Colbert:

Why did he change the form of baptism from emersion as He himself was baptized, to sprinkling as it is done now.

First of all it’s “immersion”. Let me be clear, there is NO evidence whatsoever that suggests that the LDS methodology for an efficacious baptism existed in the ancient Church. The LDS require more than a simple immersion, more than a simple dunking. NO part of the body may be out of the water, not even a one toe. In fact, there are baptismal witnesses on hand to make sure this doesn’t happen. If it does the person must be rebaptized. Where is there mention of such a requirement? There is none. If the baptism is still valid with part of your body out of the water then a baptism by pouring would be no less valid. The Didache(100 A.D.) specifically says that pouring is efficacious. This would only make sense. They didn’t have custom designed baptismal fonts back then. And, many people lived far away from rivers, lakes and the oceans, and many people were too old or too ill to be immersed. So, it would be necessary to baptize by pouring. The requirement for total immersion is another LDS invention.
BJ Colbert:

This Marian doctrine says the church can write anything it wants to as long as it does not contradict scripture, so therefore if it does not appear anywhere in scripture it can be written and the mere fact that the church teaches something is definitely true(such as Mary’s assumption) is a guarantee that it is true.
You believe in people who have seen Mary and I believe the testimony of a man who claims to have seen God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Actually thousands of people have seen Mary over the years. There is a certain credibility with large numbers of witnesses. A credibility that can’t be found with a man who told many different versions of the “first vision”.

 

[BDawg]

I’m with fool,

What, exactly, is the question that Mormons are supposed to respond to? These are all topics that you can find freely discussed by Mormons all over the internet, so the charge that this is “inner-circle stuff” is absurd.

Here’s a bit of advice. When you are studying another religion, the easiest thing in the world is to go “contradiction hunting.” It is easy because everyone takes certain statements literally, and others figuratively. That’s just the way humans talk to each other. All one has to do is take all of them literally, and voila!!!, you have contradictions. A more productive way to proceed is to ask how the group in question harmonizes the seemingly contradictory statements, because (unless they are brainwashed Mobots like some of you delightful people seem to think we are) you can pretty much count on the fact that they noticed the problem before you did. I know, I know, you did a whole 4 hours of research on the LDS web site. But believe it or not, some Mormons have done even MORE (gasp!!!) research into their religion.

Let me give you an example. The Bible says that there is ONE God. It also presents 3 obviously separate individuals as God. How can this possibly be reconciled? There are different ways.

Mormons believe that God is ONE. They are one in that they are bound in a deep, eternal unity that is so profound that humans cannot fully understand it. It is so profound that we can sometimes say that they are one God, or that the Jesus is both the Father and Son, because they are completely unified in will, love, purpose, and covenant. On the other hand, we believe they are all separate anthropomorphic beings, so in another sense they can be called “Gods.”

Catholics must reconcile the same kinds of things. However, for you God is one in that God is defined is a unique and eternal spiritual substance without any internal division whatsoever. Therefore, for you God is one in Being, but three in that there are different Persons involved. How there can be 3 different persons who exist as a single, indivisible Being? This is a mystery for humans.

So there you have it–two different ways to reconcile the oneness and plurality of God. Thus, the real question between us is not whether God is “one” or “more than one,” but HOW God is “one” AND “more than one.”

Another pertinent question between us is whether God is an indivisible, eternal, unique spiritual substance, or whether God is an anthropomorphic being.

How about we discuss the point about HOW God is one and plural first?

BDawg

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Tmaque:

If the Catholic Church was called the Church of Jesus Christ would it make one speck of difference to you? Would you suddenly believe that it’s true? No, you wouldn’t. Why? Because what’s in a name? There are hundreds of churches named after Jesus Christ, are any true but yours? This accusation is ultimately meaningless. The LDS Church has to put Jesus Christ in the name because otherwise how would any one know that they believe in Jesus? You reject that most necessary symbolic standard of Christianity, the cross. The name is a necessity for you, it would be redundant for us. It would be overstating the obvious. Christ is at the very center of everything we do. Your church is at the very center of everything you do. We look to Christ, you look to the church. Christ is our salvation, the church is yours. Just to be clear Christ didn’t call his church anything but the “church”. All we did was add “universal” in front of it. Who changed his original words more??? We all know the answer.

 I think I would believe it because if the Catholic church was named the Church of Jesus Christ then all of the others would be copies and Catholics would be the first and original. I was told in another thread that Catholic means Chair as in the Chair of Peter.  Does it also mean Universal?

I’m confused. Where in the NT can I find Jesus setting up a church president(prophet) with two counselors? Where can I find him setting up 12 year old deacons, 14 year old teachers(rabbis) and 16 year old priests? Which chapter and verse? I CAN find in the Bible where the requirement for apostleship is to have seen the risen Christ. Are you suggesting that every LDS apostle has seen the risen Lord? We do know that Jesus set Peter apart, as the first among equals. That is exactly what the Pope is. Again, we have the LDS heirarchy far more removed from the ancient Church than the Catholic heirarchy.Quote

We have our Doctrine and Covenants you have your Didache and Marian Doctrines and other writings that add to or clarify or modernize your Catholic doctine.

First of all it’s “immersion”. Let me be clear, there is NO evidence whatsoever that suggests that the LDS methodology for an efficacious baptism existed in the ancient Church. The LDS require more than a simple immersion, more than a simple dunking. NO part of the body may be out of the water, not even a one toe. In fact, there are baptismal witnesses on hand to make sure this doesn’t happen. If it does the person must be rebaptized. Where is there mention of such a requirement? There is none. If the baptism is still valid with part of your body out of the water then a baptism by pouring would be no less valid. The Didache(100 A.D.) specifically says that pouring is efficacious. This would only make sense. They didn’t have custom designed baptismal fonts back then. And, many people lived far away from rivers, lakes and the oceans, and many people were too old or too ill to be immersed. So, it would be necessary to baptize by pouring. The requirement for total immersion is another LDS
invention."Quote

It is a new birth with sins washed away, as a baby emerging from the birth sack of water, the baby is completely emmersed in water before birth.
I remember now the reason for the change, it was lack of water nearby. You are right they only had enough for sprinkling so they changed it for convenience. What is Didache? Sorry for my ignorance, but that is the first time I have heard that word.

Actually thousands of people have seen Mary over the years. There is a certain credibility with large numbers of witnesses. A credibility that can’t be found with a man who told many different versions of the “first vision”.

I do not think Mary would appear thousands of times, I think that any holy personage sighting would be very rare and to very special people for special reasons. Such as Moses receiving the 10 commandments, etc etc. My Catholic daughter-in-law saw Mary in the dirt of an abandoned store window in Tampa, Florida and she drove me by to see the miracle. So I guess I have seen Mary too.
BJ
PS…These quotes did not separate so please read my answers or questions after each of your quotes…I still don’t know the how too for separating the quotes.

 

[Subrosa]

BJ Colbert:

What is Didache? Sorry for my ignorance, but that is the first time I have heard that word.

Hi BJ Colbert,

Let me say upfront that I won’t pretend to have any knowledge of LDS theology. I live on the east coast and have never met a member of the Morman faith.

I can answer the above question for you, though.

Throughout Catholic Church history a library of documents has been accumulated. There are many writings by “The Fathers” of the church that exist. (The Fathers are considered to be those who knew the apostles, usually as students) Many more have been lost. They serve to give insight to the very earliest practices of the Church. These writings are not considered scriptural, but referential.

The Didache (did AH key) is the first of these documents. It is also called “The Teaching of the Apostles.” It may have been written as early as 65 AD. It is believed to have come from the first church council mentioned in ACTS 15. It has specific teachings on baptism, which I will post. I hope this helps to answer this question.

From the Didache:

CHAPTER 7

**Baptism **

1 Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, “baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water; 2 but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” 4 And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.

Jerry

earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html

 

[Tmaque]

BJ Colbert:

I do not think Mary would appear thousands of times, I think that any holy personage sighting would be very rare and to very special people for special reasons. Such as Moses receiving the 10 commandments, etc etc. My Catholic daughter-in-law saw Mary in the dirt of an abandoned store window in Tampa, Florida and she drove me by to see the miracle. So I guess I have seen Mary too.
BJ
PS…These quotes did not separate so please read my answers or questions after each of your quotes…I still don’t know the how too for separating the quotes.

The Blessed Virgin Mary has appeared, and still does appear, and speak to people around the world. If you’re interested you could look into the following sightings:

The sightings at Medjugorje which continue to this day.

Fatima, where a miracle was foretold and witneessed by hundreds: fatima.org/essentials/facts/miracle.asp.

And in Egypt the Marian sightings by thousands of people at Zeitun on April 2, 1968 at the Coptic Orthodox church.

These have all been extensively investigated and have convinced even some of the fiercest skeptics that there is indeed something supernatural occuring. I agree that many people erroneously think that it’s a miracle when the “image” of Jesus or Mary ends up on a grilled cheese sandwich. That can be dismissed as coincidence. These miracles are something else entirely.

I’m not suggesting you believe every single thing put forth by the witnesses to these events. But, they can’t simply be dismissed either. I think Father Benedict Groeschel said It best:

“If you no more than dismiss these things, you’re simple an obscurantist. If you mindlessly embrace them, you’re just a dope. we have to resist the obsessive-compulsive demand for a clear, definitive answer to these questions. This is a field for people who don’t have to have it all figured out, who don’t need it cast in black and white. There’s a lotta gray mist around this stuff, and you have to be prepared to deal with that. Once in a while a bright, shining lightcomes through, and we should be grateful for it. Because the rest of the time we have to feel our way through the twilight.”