K
Karin
Guest
LOL!
- Status
Z
zerinus
Guest
For your information, the LDS Church refused to accept the validity of Catholic baptism long before the Catholics decided it might be a good idea not to accept the validity of LDS baptism. The LDS Church has been around for neary 180 years. What took the Catholic Church so long to come to the realization of the invalidity of LDS Baptism? We have never accepted Catholic, or any other baptism except LDS, because we beleive that they do not have the divine authority to do so.
zerinus
T
tequilamac
Guest
The LDS Church has been around for nearly 180 years? That long? Wow. 180 years - imagine that.
Z
zerinus
Guest
Yes, and it took that long for the Catholic Church to figure that the LDS baptisms are not valid. Amazing! And guess what, LDS never accepted Catholic baptism from the start. LDS Church has been consistent. Catholic Church has not been.
zerinus
T
tequilamac
Guest
180 years! 180 years of consistency too.
Is the promised land in Illinois, Missouri or Utah?
To baptise the dead or not to baptise the dead, that is the question.
To polygamize or not to polygamize? That is the question.
To allow black deacons or not to allow black deacons? That is the question.
180 years of consistency. Let me know when it starts.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Z,
When the LDS Church first started, it presented its theology as very Protestant. The Book of Mormon and the Articles of Faith seem very Protestant. The only difference was that they had a living prophet to tell them that their Protestant theology was correct. The Catholic Church has always accepted the baptisms of our Protestant brethren, and so there was need to worry about this wacky new brand of Protestantism until there appeared a need to do so. The Catholic Church does not go around looking for baptisms to deny or for ecclesiastical communities to alienate. Besides, until the 1970s, the LDS were such a tiny group that no one noticed or paid any attention to them. In 1975, I had never heard of them, nor had most people.
It was only when, in the 1980’s, after LDS had started converting to Catholicism in large numbers, that the ex-LDS converts themselves, who knew just how far old Joe had gone 'round the bend, began to query their priests about the validity of their baptisms. The priests referred the questions to their bishops, and the bishops referred them to Rome.
The Catholic Church moves very slowly and studies a problem out for a long time before making an official pronouncement. They do a lot of fact-gathering and invite position papers from many theologians, historians and other experts. The Vatican makes careful, well-informed decisions. That is why, unlike the LDS, the positions of the Catholic Church do not flip-flop from decade to decade.
God bless,
Paul
When the LDS Church first started, it presented its theology as very Protestant. The Book of Mormon and the Articles of Faith seem very Protestant. The only difference was that they had a living prophet to tell them that their Protestant theology was correct. The Catholic Church has always accepted the baptisms of our Protestant brethren, and so there was need to worry about this wacky new brand of Protestantism until there appeared a need to do so. The Catholic Church does not go around looking for baptisms to deny or for ecclesiastical communities to alienate. Besides, until the 1970s, the LDS were such a tiny group that no one noticed or paid any attention to them. In 1975, I had never heard of them, nor had most people.
It was only when, in the 1980’s, after LDS had started converting to Catholicism in large numbers, that the ex-LDS converts themselves, who knew just how far old Joe had gone 'round the bend, began to query their priests about the validity of their baptisms. The priests referred the questions to their bishops, and the bishops referred them to Rome.
The Catholic Church moves very slowly and studies a problem out for a long time before making an official pronouncement. They do a lot of fact-gathering and invite position papers from many theologians, historians and other experts. The Vatican makes careful, well-informed decisions. That is why, unlike the LDS, the positions of the Catholic Church do not flip-flop from decade to decade.
God bless,
Paul
Z
zerinus
Guest
That is not the question at all. The subject of this thread is baptism for the dead.180 years! 180 years of consistency too.
Is the promised land in Illinois, Missouri or Utah?
To baptise the dead or not to baptise the dead, that is the question.
To polygamize or not to polygamize? That is the question.
To allow black deacons or not to allow black deacons? That is the question.
180 years of consistency. Let me know when it starts.
zerinus
R
rmcmullan
Guest
What? Is that so? Catholics accept Protestant baptisms but not Mormon baptisms because they have a disagreement about the Trinity? That’s not very nice. The Catholics & Protestants disagree on so many other things but this one is a show stopper? Really? 
M
Megatron
Guest
With all due respect, this has absolutely nothing to do with “not being very nice.”What? Is that so? Catholics accept Protestant baptisms but not Mormon baptisms because they have a disagreement about the Trinity? That’s not very nice. The Catholics & Protestants disagree on so many other things but this one is a show stopper? Really?
Sure, Catholics and Protestants may dispute other aspects of doctrine and dogma, but the nature and formula of baptism is clearly not one of them.
So why is this (to use your words) a “show stopper”? Here’s perhaps the main reasons:
First, we - Mormons and Catholics - don’t believe in the same “Jesus Christ” in our respective theologies. For Catholics, Jesus Christ is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, Begotten not made, True God from True God. Jesus Christ, was, is and always has been God, He is fully divine for all eternity. Although Mormons refer to a “Jesus Christ” in their theology, it’s clearly not the same. For them, Christ is eternal, however, he existed as an intelligence (D&C 93:21) until he was provided with a spirit body by His/our heavenly parents. Somehow in the pre-existence in Mormon theology he attained godhood, a fact which is puzzling when every other spirit child of these heavenly parents had to inherent their “second estate” (i.e. a physical body) to do this. So even though on the surface, in word only, it would appear that Mormons and Catholics use the same formula, this is clearly not the case. In other words, even though we’re talking about “Christ”, we’re truly comparing apples and oranges despite the shrewd marketing strategies of the LDS church in the last 20 years to make them look more “Christian”. This is clearly not a bone of contention - namely, the eternally divine nature and identity of Jesus Christ - amongst Catholics and Protestants.
Second, the function of the Sacrament of Baptism is markedly different from the Mormon version of baptism. Baptism leaves an indelliable mark on the Christian’s soul, whereas in the LDS church multiple baptisms are possible (in the case of excommunicants returning to the church, converts to the LDS faith, etc.). For Catholics, baptism frees us from original sin as well as all future sins - this we have in common with Mormons. Here’s a big difference, though, the Sacrament of Baptism is the beginning of a regeneration process (the patristic fathers referred to this as theosis - not to be mistaken with the LDS doctrine of exaltation though!) that begins our spiritual journey to return to heaven.
With all due respect, in our (Catholic) eyes, the LDS version of baptism is merely an imitation of the true Sacrament of Baptism. We could talk about pouring vs. complete immersion and other academic tid bids, but I think this shows why we collectively as Catholics cannot accepted any Mormon “ordinances” (including baptism, marriage, etc.) as binding.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Yes indeedy it is. So, when are the Mormons going to decide on the efficacy of baptising the dead or not? After all it’s been, oh my gosh, 180 years! And you still cannot agree on this one point.
To baptise the dead or not to baptise the dead- that is the question apparently for all of us including the LDS. My ,how confusing.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Not nice! Why is it not nice? Mormons do not baptise in the name of a Real Presence Trinity. Bottom line. The theology of LDS does not allow for recognising a trinitarian formula that is recognised by almost all of mainstream Christianity, whether it be Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic or Eastern Catholic. The Mormons objected to that Trinity and made one of their own. And you call US not nice?What? Is that so? Catholics accept Protestant baptisms but not Mormon baptisms because they have a disagreement about the Trinity? That’s not very nice. The Catholics & Protestants disagree on so many other things but this one is a show stopper? Really?
Well, I never, so mean you are.
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Ah well, yes, we don’t agree exactly on the Trinity, but I don’t see how that’s a show stopper. I think I understand what you are saying about baptism and while we have our differences with the original sin and the separate conferring of the Holy Ghost, again not so much of a show stopper.
I’m not complaining that you don’t agree, and frankly I doubt if any of those things matter as much as the basic religion sort of things like treating other like you would like to be treated. It’s just that the Protestants get preferential treatment. However, it’s your church (or should I say The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), you make the rules.
I’m not complaining that you don’t agree, and frankly I doubt if any of those things matter as much as the basic religion sort of things like treating other like you would like to be treated. It’s just that the Protestants get preferential treatment. However, it’s your church (or should I say The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), you make the rules.
K
Karin
Guest
180 years???
*The Church was organized in Fayette, New York, on 6 April 1830, under the leadership of Joseph Smith…*that makes it only 176 years young
T
tequilamac
Guest
Well whether you like it or not the Trinity for us and most of Christiandom IS a show stopper.
If your religion does not accept the actual Trinity, then your religion is pure paganism. Nothing else that exists divides paganism from Christianity. Only the Trinity. And that is why it is a show stopper.
There is no difference between an anti trinitarian religion and wicca, etc. It is all superstition and fantasy. And I believe that is why so many people find Mormonism abhorrent. It is pagan in theology, superstitious in practice, and based on fantasy. Also the arrogance in rejecting what ALL of Christiandom has held to, not just Catholics, since Christ indicates a serious problem as well.
This is why yes, we accept the Lutherans, and the Orthodox etc… because they do NOT deny Christ. Whereas no matter how much Mormons want to use the name or claim a Trinity, their Christ and their Trinity bear absolutely no resemblance to the Real Presence except by wishing only.
From a Christian point of view Mormons operate like Tinkerbelle in Peter Pan. “If we close our eyes and clap our hands and wish real hard then it will be God.” And this is so incredibly abhorrent to Christianity what can I say?
Wiccans are easier to accept for they claim clearly who they are. But Mormons do not. They are wiccan in their practices but claim to be Christ.
So for most of us Mormonism not only needs to be avoided at all costs, but is impossible to even discuss.
Z
zerinus
Guest
K
Karin
Guest
must you always be sooo nasty “Z”? If you wanted to approximate than you should of said “been around for approximatly 180 years”Of course I can read…that is why** I** know that the Mormons are part of a cult
Z
zerinus
Guest
approximately = nearly :clapping:
Of course I can read…that is why** I** know that the Mormons are part of a cult
zerinus :tiphat:
R
rmcmullan
Guest
Oh, finally I found catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp which brings up the scripture from Alma which Karin & PaulDupree used. I am starting to see.
I think we’ve had a pretty good discussion about many of the issues so far but since this was on the ***Mormon Stumpers ***list I wanted to be sure there was no mis-understanding on this. Are we ready to remove this from the Stumpers list yet? If not, let me re-iterate (yeah, I’m quoting myself):
I know some of you might have dropped out by now and might not think there’s a gospel in heaven but that would suggest that everyman is a law unto himself. Or that anyone who qualifies for baptism by desire will automatically accept the Law of God. But allow me this one point and I’ll continue. If baptism is as the Protestants say and an essential ordinance, all that remains to be done is for that person to be baptised (for the dead) to signify his acceptance of God’s Law. If it is as the Catholics say, mostly an infusion of Grace, then he’s good to go as is.
Since Mormons take the middle ground and have two separate ordinances (the second, the laying on of hands, being synonymous with the infusion of Grace), part of the baptism for the dead is also the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost.
I think we’ve had a pretty good discussion about many of the issues so far but since this was on the ***Mormon Stumpers ***list I wanted to be sure there was no mis-understanding on this. Are we ready to remove this from the Stumpers list yet? If not, let me re-iterate (yeah, I’m quoting myself):
I think it might help if I tried to use Catholic terms in my explanation. I’m new at this so it might not work, but here goes. Let’s say there is a person to who would qualify for baptism by desire. They never received the gospel because they lived in a Muslim nation but kept faithful to their conscience, seeking God by doing the right thing. They die and meet whatever afterlife there is. At some point in the afterlife, someone is going to have to explain to them the gospel and they are going to have to think about whether or not they accept it.
I know some of you might have dropped out by now and might not think there’s a gospel in heaven but that would suggest that everyman is a law unto himself. Or that anyone who qualifies for baptism by desire will automatically accept the Law of God. But allow me this one point and I’ll continue. If baptism is as the Protestants say and an essential ordinance, all that remains to be done is for that person to be baptised (for the dead) to signify his acceptance of God’s Law. If it is as the Catholics say, mostly an infusion of Grace, then he’s good to go as is.
Since Mormons take the middle ground and have two separate ordinances (the second, the laying on of hands, being synonymous with the infusion of Grace), part of the baptism for the dead is also the laying on of hands to receive the Holy Ghost.
T
tequilamac
Guest
Wow. so essentially you catechise (teach the Gospel) all these dead people after they are dead already? And you lay hands on them as well? And human beings make all the decisions not God?
IMO That is really :whacky: :whacky:
M
Megatron
Guest
But where do these necro-ordinances stop? Why not receive the Sacrament (that would be Eucharist for our Catholic readership) on behalf of the dead?
- Status