LDS View of the Great Apostasy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Fatboys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Christ’s church is one of order. From the beginning He has established a pattern in which saving ordnances must be received. They must be received from one holding the priesthood of God. For, “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (Heb 5:4). To say that a saving ordinance could be received by anyone without authority is to deny the order Christ has established. Baptism of desire and by blood deny this order. It takes priesthood out of the equation and puts in it’s place nothing but mystery. It creates confusion where there was clarity. Questions such as, “did ____, who died have the right desire?” are found unanswered. Such confusion never has been and never will be part of the true church.

Christ confirmed this requirement when he told Nicodemus, “Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5). There is no ambiguity in this statement. Jesus did not say, “one good way to enter the kingdom may be water and the spirit except in these situations…” Instead it is clear and concise, one must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom. The Book of Mormon confirms this requirement, "For the gate by which [we] should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of [our] sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost. And then are [we] in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life” (2 Nephi 31:17–18)
Jan,

Your first argument emanates out of Sola Scriptura. This is a Protestant argument that denies a Church and you use the Bible you say is corrupt?😊

The second argument again implies Sola Scriptura and an attempt to conform to something that was invented. This is a non-sequitor.😊
 
So you believe that Paul was holding up a heretical practice to confirm the reality of the resurrection?
Jan,

You miss the point. It has nothing to do with heresy. If there is no resurrection of the dead then Baptism is for the dead. If you believe that there is a resurection then Baptism is for the living that will die to live again.

How is it you are so focused on what you believe to be a heresy?
 
I think you have missed the point of the chapter. It is not as you say to show that “Baptism is for the living” but instead Paul’s intent is to prove that Christ rose from the dead and that in so doing, gained victory over death. In verse 12 he acknowledges the false belief of some that Christ did not rise from the dead. He says: He goes on to explain the importance of the resurrection. Then to cement his point, that Christ did indeed rise from the dead, he says: Paul here gives baptism for the dead as supporting evidence for the resurrection. Unless baptisms for the dead were commonly accepted why would he give it as evidence for the resurrection?

A correct reading of this chapter more fully supports the fact that the early church recognized baptisms for the dead.
Jan,

Then you have ignored John Chrysostom’s explanation of this passage that was a view in the 3rd Century that is different than yours in this century…I am going with Chrysostom…
 
So you believe that Paul was holding up a heretical practice to confirm the reality of the resurrection?
No, that is not what I believe. People act out of faith, not every action of faith is a Sacrament. Not every non-Sacramental action is heretical.

A Sacrament is instituted by Christ. Jesus Christ never instituted the practice of baptizing for the dead.

What Mormons have taken on is not an action of faith, it is not a Sacrament instituted by Christ, and is not rooted in Apostolic teaching.

I also like St. John Chrysostom’s explanation. Jesus is God of the living, and we are alive in Christ.

Mark 12:26-27

As for the dead being raised, have you not read in the Book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God told him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, [the] God of Isaac, and [the] God of Jacob’?

He is not God of the dead but of the living. You are greatly misled.
 
Jan,

Your first argument emanates out of Sola Scriptura. This is a Protestant argument that denies a Church and you use the Bible you say is corrupt?😊

The second argument again implies Sola Scriptura and an attempt to conform to something that was invented. This is a non-sequitor.😊
What? Your going to try and use Sola Scriptura as an argument against LDS? We who believe in modern-day revelation through prophets and apostles? We who believe in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants in addition to the Bible?

It seems when I provide evidence from the BofM Catholics call it ramblings from a liar and when I provide evidence from the Bible I am acused of Sola Scriptura. I’m sorry but Sola Scriptura is the only thing that is non-sequitor in this discussion.

Now, I have given you specific specific points as evidence of the LDS position. Can you provide nothing specific in response?
 
A correct reading of this chapter more fully supports the fact that the early church recognized baptisms for the dead.
The Eunuch said scripture is hard. See the Haydock commentary below
Ver. 29. Who are baptized for the dead.[1] He still brings other proofs of the resurrection. This is a hard place, and the words are differently expounded. 1. Several late interpreters understand a metaphorical baptism, and that to be baptized for the dead, is to undertake self-denials, mortifications, and works of penance, in hopes of a happy resurrection; and this exposition agrees with what follows, of being exposed to dangers every hour, of dying daily, &c. But if this had been the apostle’s meaning, he would rather have said, Who baptize themselves. Besides, this exposition is not so much as mentioned in any of the ancient interpreters. 2. Some think that St. Paul tells the Corinthians that they ought not to question the resurrection of the dead, who had a custom among them, if any one died without baptism, to baptize another that was living for him; and this they did, fancying that such a baptism would be profitable to the dead person, in order to a happy resurrection. Tertullian mentions this custom in one or two places, and also St. Chrysostom on this place. But it does not seem probable that St. Paul would bring any argument of the resurrection from a custom which he himself could not approve, nor was ever approved in the Church. 3. St. Chrysostom and the Greek interpreters, who generally follow him, expound these words, who are baptized for the dead, as if it were the same as to say, who receive baptism with hopes that they themselves, and all the dead, will rise again; and therefore make a profession, when they are baptized, that they believe the resurrection. So that St. Paul here brings this proof among others, that they who have been made Christians, and continue Christians, cannot call in question the resurrection, which they professed to believe in their creed at their baptism, the creed being always repeated before they were baptized. 4. Others, by being baptized for the dead, understand those who begged and called for baptism when they were in danger of death, and would by no means go out of this world without being baptized, hoping thereby to have a happy resurrection of their bodies; so that to be baptized for the dead is the same as on the account of the state of the dead, which they were entering into. See St. Epiphanius, hær. viii. p. 114. Edit Petavii. (Witham) Some think the apostle here alludes to a ceremony then in use: but others, more probably, to the prayers and penitential labours performed by the primitive Christians for the souls of the faithful departed: or to the baptism of afflictions and sufferings undergone for sinners spiritually dead. (Challoner)
 
If one is to have faith in the Bible and the Bible especially if they believe that the bible is infalliable,

Let me make a correction here…the Bible is not infallible…it is inerrant…because the CC declared it so.

To be infallible, means acting incapable of error…which the Bible cannot do an action that is infallible. Infallibility requires an action.
But the jewish oral traditions were rejected by Christ because they did not line up with the written.
 
What? Your going to try and use Sola Scriptura as an argument against LDS? We who believe in modern-day revelation through prophets and apostles? We who believe in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants in addition to the Bible?

It seems when I provide evidence from the BofM Catholics call it ramblings from a liar and when I provide evidence from the Bible I am acused of Sola Scriptura. I’m sorry but Sola Scriptura is the only thing that is non-sequitor in this discussion.

Now, I have given you specific specific points as evidence of the LDS position. Can you provide nothing specific in response?
Jan,

The teaching of the magesterium and the Bible are examples.

The existence of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are living examples of denial of what you present.

There is no LDS position.

You mistake your position as being of on equal footing with the OHCAC. I am uninclined to engage in nonsense.

The peral of great price?
Doctrines and Covenants?
The Book of Mormon?

Believing in the Revelation of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon for which there is no evidence of the existence of any people it describes. The Book that contradicts itself saying that Jesus was born in the land of Bethlehem and stating that the Bible is corrupt based on what I don’t know.

You have no equal footing to base a question for me to defend. Your premise is in error and I am uninclined to dispute error based on error.

You probably have more luck with Protestants believing that you understand the Bible because for them there is no authority higher than the Bible and your premise is that the Bible is corrupt. Jo probably did not realize that the Bible was produced by the Church and the Church is the body of Christ and Christ is the head…so here you are disputing revealed truths from the Church, the manifold wisdom of God…

You have no proof of anything concerning your beliefs. Words, belief, attempt to argue is not proof of anything but fervor. I suggest you try being rational and perhaps I may dialogue with you. If you choose to be rational you may enjoy dialogue and maybe not. You should understand that engaging me in dialogue will be an experience and I suggest you think this through.

When you have a rational position come back to me.
 
What? Your going to try and use Sola Scriptura as an argument against LDS? We who believe in modern-day revelation through prophets and apostles? We who believe in the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Doctrine and Covenants in addition to the Bible?

It seems when I provide evidence from the BofM Catholics call it ramblings from a liar and when I provide evidence from the Bible I am acused of Sola Scriptura. I’m sorry but Sola Scriptura is the only thing that is non-sequitor in this discussion.

Now, I have given you specific specific points as evidence of the LDS position. Can you provide nothing specific in response?
Jan,

Study these and then get back to me…

mrm.org/ten-lies

Ten Lies I Told as a Mormon Missionary
  1. The Bible is Insufficient
According to their eighth Article of Faith, Mormons accept the Bible as the word of God only when it’s translated correctly. How convenient for a missionary. When a non-Mormon’s interpretation of scripture differed from mine, I frequently blamed faulty Bible translation. And since I believed the Bible was missing “many plain and precious things,” as the Book of Mormon claims in 1 Nephi 13:28-29, I urged prospective converts not to trust it completely.
And yet, Mormon proof texts had few translation problems. Throughout my mission, I used only those Bible verses that steered prospects away from their church and toward Mormonism. But what kind of Christian believes that an all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving God gave mankind an inadequate version of His word. Actually, the Bible is more than sufficient. With its 66 books, 1,189 chapters and nearly 740,000 words, it’s the divine road map to eternal life through Jesus Christ.
  1. The Book of Mormon is Scripture
    Joseph Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on earth, adding that man would become closer to God by following its precepts than by obeying any other book (“History of the Church,” Vol. 4, p. 461). Replace “Book of Mormon” with “the Bible” and Smith would have told the truth.
When teaching missionary lessons, I boldly maintained that the Book of Mormon is scripture. I spent myriad hours convincing prospects that it’s a sacred record of Christ’s activities in the western hemisphere. Yet many Christians I contacted realized the book “borrows” heavily from the Bible and other sources. And in stark contrast to the Old and New Testaments, virtually no archaeological and anthropological evidence supports the Book of Mormon. Why not? Because it’s fiction. When Christians want to read scripture, they turn to the Bible.
packham.n4m.org/lying.htm

MORMON LYING
 
Rather it is that the Catholic church does not recognize the absolute necessity for authority of the priesthood or baptism by water.
Not sure what the priesthood has to do with this, but, yes, you are correct. Baptism by water is not an “absolute necessity.”

You do know that there are a multitude of folks who we recognize as being in heaven who were never baptized by water, right? In fact, we have a Feast Day dedicated to these guys.

In fact, I was just at Mass today at a church dedicated to them. They were never baptized in water, yet they are recognized as being holy and in heaven. 👍
 
Jan,

The teaching of the magesterium and the Bible are examples.

The existence of the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox are living examples of denial of what you present.

There is no LDS position.

You mistake your position as being of on equal footing with the OHCAC. I am uninclined to engage in nonsense.
I claim the LDS position is superior to the Catholic not equal.
40.png
CopticChristian:
When you have a rational position come back to me.
Despite your claims that I am irrational I presented you a clear reason for my statements yet it appears you have no response to my previous comments. So be it.
 
Pork,

Who is Haydock?
Coptic - I took Haydock’s as he had quite a lengthy commentary on the verse. I wonder if he knew Joseph Smith? haydock1859.tripod.com/id1.html
This Catholic Bible commentary, following the Douay-Rheims Bible text, was originally compiled by Catholic priest and biblical scholar Rev. George Leo Haydock (1774-1849). This transcription is based on Haydock’s notes as they appear in the 1859 edition of Haydock’s Catholic Family Bible and Commentary printed by Edward Dunigan and Brother, New York, New York. A reprint of this Douay-Rheims Bible with Haydock’s commentary is published by:
Catholic Treasures
1823 Business Center Dr.
Duarte, CA 91010
(800) 257-4893
(626) 359-4893 Fax: (626) 359-6933
(www.catholictreasures.com)
See Transcriber’s Notes for a description of the minor modifications that were made by the transcriber for this website to the content and presentation of the original Haydock Commentary.

The modern reader should be cautioned that this older commentary uses some archaic language and spellings and at times it seems to express some rather harsh opinions concerning Protestants and Jews. Regarding the proper Catholic opinions with respect to Protestants and Jews, the reader is encouraged to look into more modern and authoritative treatments, such as the documents of the Second Vatican Council and Pope John Paul II’s Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Apology to Readers: The transcriber has done his best to try to accurately present the original text in order to make Haydock’s valuable Bible commentary available to a wider audience. However, there are bound to be numerous transcription and other errors in a work as large as this and for them the transcriber sincerely apologizes and asks that you report any suspected errors in the transcription or bad links to him at Contact Me.
 
Christ’s church is one of order. From the beginning He has established a pattern in which saving ordnances must be received. They must be received from one holding the priesthood of God. For, “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.”(Heb 5:4)
This verse has nothing to do with baptism.
To say that a saving ordinance could be received by anyone without authority is to deny the order Christ has established.
Is casting out demons a saving ordinance?
Does one have to be a priest to cast out demons?
Baptism of desire and by blood deny this order.
What about the thief on the cross? He was never baptised yet he was saved as Jesus words attest…through desire
Such confusion never has been and never will be part of the true church.
Here’s a little more on who can baptise from truecatholic.us

truecatholic.us/baptismadm.htm
“Private Baptism is given in danger of death, or when an adult convert is re-baptized conditionally (Canon 759). It requires only true and natural water, though the water should be as clean and decent as possible, and baptismal or blessed water is preferable; generally the simple form without other rite suffices; sponsors are not necessary, unless they can be had without difficulty, but if possible at least one or two witnesses should be present; the Baptism may be given in the private home or the hospital or other place where the candidate is staying; anyone who has the use of reason and is able to perform the rite may act as minister. When several persons suitable to minister private Baptism are present, the order of preference to be followed is: priest, deacon, subdeacon, cleric, layman, woman; but a woman should be preferred to a man if modesty calls for this, or if the woman is better acquainted with the manner of baptizing. It is considered a serious sin needlessly to prefer a non-priest to a worthy priest, a non-Catholic to a Catholic, an outsider to the parish-priest. If possible, parents should not baptize their own children, since it is more becoming that the spiritual parent and the carnal parent be different persons.”
 
You mistake your position as being of on equal footing with the OHCAC. I am uninclined to engage in nonsense.

The peral of great price?
Doctrines and Covenants?
The Book of Mormon?

Believing in the Revelation of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon for which there is no evidence of the existence of any people it describes. The Book that contradicts itself saying that Jesus was born in the land of Bethlehem and stating that the Bible is corrupt based on what I don’t know.

You have no equal footing to base a question for me to defend. Your premise is in error and I am uninclined to dispute error based on error.
.
Coptic - you forgot the Book of Abraham…the papyri Joseph Smith claimed to translate was actually an Egyptian funeral text.
 
Christ’s church is one of order.
Yes!
From the beginning He has established a pattern in which saving ordnances must be received.
Amen!
They must be received from one holding the priesthood of God. For, “no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron.” (Heb 5:4).
No.

The verse before gives the context of Hebrews 5:4.

This is why he has to offer sacrifices for his own sins, as well as for the sins of the people.–Hebrews 5:3.

Only a priest can offer sacrifice for sins.

It is not making any remarks about “only priests can confect baptism”.

That, Janderich, is adding to Scripture.
 
My goodness. I take a break from these boards for a minute, and Mormonism is still the topic of debate? Why? Mormonism has been picked apart and exposed for the false system that it is. The TBMs on this board are not going to be convinced until they have a real encounter with the Living Christ.
 
My goodness. I take a break from these boards for a minute, and Mormonism is still the topic of debate? Why? Mormonism has been picked apart and exposed for the false system that it is. The TBMs on this board are not going to be convinced until they have a real encounter with the Living Christ.
That’s the purpose of the forum, batman. Someone proposes. Another refutes. Someone else offers apologia. Another brings up his POV.

It’s all in great fun and at the service of enlightening others about the Truth.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top