LDS View of the Great Apostasy

[Crux_Sacra]

Let me give you an example. When John the Baptist was preparing the way for the Lord, the taught repentance and baptism by immersion. When Christ came to John to be baptized, John said he needed it from him. Christ said that he was to fulfill a righteousness. Baptism means to be buried under the water or immersed.

There are denominations that believe that it is sufficant enough to sprinkle someone over their head. No where in the bible does it teach sprinkling. In this one aspect of the gospel they are in apostacy. They still believe in Christ, and his teachings, but interpret one aspect of it wrong.

Technically speaking, one definition of the word baptism does mean to be immersed. However, there is not plentiful enough water everywhere in the world for such, and not everyone is rich enough to be able to afford artificial large bodies of water. Limiting access to Baptism to only those who have access to large bodies of water because of their geographical location or wealth defies the command of Christ to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” and rejects when Jesus said “Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God” and also when he said, “when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind.” The Latin Church allows triple immersion, which according to the Catechism is the most expressive way, or triple pouring.

And you forget that in Acts 9:18 Saul was baptized inside the house of the man named Judas, and 16:33 Paul baptized his and Silas’ jailer and the jailer’s entire family inside the jailer’s house. There is little likelihood of large bodies of water inside someone’s house, so these people were baptized by triple pouring. And remember that one of these men is St. Paul the Apostle, who was both baptized indoors and proceeded to baptize indoors.

In addition, there is this snippet from New Advent, “Besides these actual specimens, the font is also depicted in the remains of early Christian art. In nearly every instance it is a shallow pool or basin in which the neophyte stands with feet immersed, while water is poured on him from an overhead stream or from a vase held by the person baptizing. That this was the ordinary mode of baptizing during the early centuries, is a view the acceptance of which is compelled by all recent study in the archaeology of baptismal fonts (de Rossi, Bullettino di Archeol., 1876, 8-15; Duchesne, Les Eglises séparées, Paris, 1905, 89-96).”

You can read the entire thing here: newadvent.org/cathen/02274a.htm

Porknpie’s post above details much more than I knew about. So one cannot say that only baptism by immersion is biblical, nor can one say that only baptism by immersion is historical.

Cat Herder,
Love that Ezekiel verse!

God Bless!

 

[Fatboys]

If one really wants to know the origin of the greatest apostasy in modern times

check out Solomom Spalding. Someone no one wants to talk about.

Really? Do you know anything about brother Spalding, or have you read what he has written? I would say that you had better study more about it before flappin your gums.

 

[Fatboys]

Technically speaking, one definition of the word baptism does mean to be immersed. However, there is not plentiful enough water everywhere in the world for such, and not everyone is rich enough to be able to afford artificial large bodies of water. Limiting access to Baptism to only those who have access to large bodies of water because of their geographical location or wealth defies the command of Christ to “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them…” and rejects when Jesus said “Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God” and also when he said, “when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, and the blind.” The Latin Church allows triple immersion, which according to the Catechism is the most expressive way, or triple pouring.

And you forget that in Acts 9:18 Saul was baptized inside the house of the man named Judas, and 16:33 Paul baptized his and Silas’ jailer and the jailer’s entire family inside the jailer’s house. There is little likelihood of large bodies of water inside someone’s house, so these people were baptized by triple pouring. And remember that one of these men is St. Paul the Apostle, who was both baptized indoors and proceeded to baptize indoors.

In addition, there is this snippet from New Advent, “Besides these actual specimens, the font is also depicted in the remains of early Christian art. In nearly every instance it is a shallow pool or basin in which the neophyte stands with feet immersed, while water is poured on him from an overhead stream or from a vase held by the person baptizing. That this was the ordinary mode of baptizing during the early centuries, is a view the acceptance of which is compelled by all recent study in the archaeology of baptismal fonts (de Rossi, Bullettino di Archeol., 1876, 8-15; Duchesne, Les Eglises séparées, Paris, 1905, 89-96).”

You can read the entire thing here: newadvent.org/cathen/02274a.htm

Porknpie’s post above details much more than I knew about. So one cannot say that only baptism by immersion is biblical, nor can one say that only baptism by immersion is historical.

Cat Herder,
Love that Ezekiel verse!

God Bless!

This is very interesting. Was Jesus poured on or dipped on or was he taken down into the water? Baptism is symbolic of death and resurrection. Tell me how sprinkling or dipping or any other way represents death and resurrection. I think we should follow Jesus’ example

 

[RebeccaJ]

How would pouring or sprinkling not symbolize being joined to the death and resurrection of Christ? It is a symbol, not a literal reenactment, using water for dirt.

http://valtorta.org/images/baptism-of-jesusDavinci.jpg

 

[Fatboys]

Is this depicting Jesus in the river Jordon. Man the river got small

 

[JHow]

What I find odd about this whole exchange is that while picking at the Catholic Church’s approach to baptism, discussion of the Mormon Church’s approach to communion or “sacrament” is avoided, although it would certainly fail under the criteria proposed for baptism by sprinkling. I refer, of course, to the use of water where wine is required.

 

[twopekinguys]

Is this depicting Jesus in the river Jordon. Man the river got small

Actually, there are numerous places where the Jordon is narrow, and shallow.

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/jordan-river-080918.jpg

So that painting is more accurate than you might think.

 

[SpeSalvi]

Fatboys, when you talk like that- disregarding everything everyone has said and instead make remarks that seem to be pretty uncharitable- it only shuts down the ability for us to dialogue. I’m not saying that everyone on these boards is totally innocent of this, but you were presented with some replies that must have taken a significant amount of research and instead of acknowledging them, you counter not with evidence that proves your point… but with snarky remarks? That makes you not only a poor debater, but also a poor representative of the LDS church. Well, unless the LDS church DOES make fun of other denominations and are only the true church because they ‘say so’ instead of having scripturally based practices.

So which one is it? Are YOU the one personally ignoring scriptural references in order to poke fun at Catholic practices, or is this just so typical in the LDS church that you feel like you’re representing the church well?

 

[TexanKnight]

This is very interesting. Was Jesus poured on or dipped on or was he taken down into the water? Baptism is symbolic of death and resurrection. Tell me how sprinkling or dipping or any other way represents death and resurrection. I think we should follow Jesus’ example

Wow…you are the typical Mormon. When proven wrong by FACTS (to which you have dodged over and over again, you make very sarcastic comments that show you KNOW you cannot dispute the facts given.

You have been shown by several of us that what YOU said about Baptism is absolutely wrong. We have used Biblical, dictionary and word history to show your error.

When you mentioned verses that mention apostasy, you were proven wrong by being shown what those verses mean and even more verses that show God would NEVER have a total apostasy. You dodged those, too.

When asked for a verse to show there would be TOTAL apostasy, you dodged that, too.

When you said proof of an apostasy was Paul chastising churches, you flinched when it was brought to your attention that Bishops and Stake presidents receive similar letter, so that would mean the LDS Church is in Apostasy. You ran from that.

All you do is make comments you cannot support, and when proven wrong, you get sarcastic and flippant. That does not make you look very good or very credible. And it is a shame.

The problem is, there is no support for your beliefs, you you come into this debate unarmed. It is my prayer that you see the light and come to the truth.

 

[Crux_Sacra]

This is very interesting. Was Jesus poured on or dipped on or was he taken down into the water? Baptism is symbolic of death and resurrection. Tell me how sprinkling or dipping or any other way represents death and resurrection. I think we should follow Jesus’ example

Truthfully, it is impossible to know for sure the exact method used by John to baptize Jesus. However, given that archaeological evidence indicates that the normal method during the Church’s early years was pouring, I would say that it is likely that the artists’ renderings of the scene depicting John using either a small basin/bowl or a shell are probably how it happened. As you say, we should follow Jesus’ example, and the early Church believed the same way. Since the early Church used pouring as the norm, it is probably because that’s how the Lord was baptized.

Check out 1 Peter 3: 20-22; Exodus 14:15-16, 21-22…Notice that in these prefigurements of Baptism, the ark and crossing the Red Sea, the faithful are not actually plunged into the waters. Check out Joshua 3:14-17, where the faithful are, again, not plunged into the water. This, too, is a prefigurement of the Sacrament of Baptism. In a smaller prefigurement, look to 2 Kings chapter 2, where Elijah parts the water with his mantle so he and Elisha may cross on dry land, and then Elisha parts the waters shortly after. Peter echoes Psalm 69, crying out for God to save him from the waters.

The sacrament is also called “anointing” according to the Catechism 1216, being priestly and royal “as are those who are anointed.” Look to 1 Samuel 10 to see how Samuel anointed Saul. He poured the oil over his head. Look to Leviticus 8:12 to see how Aaron was anointed; oil was poured over his head.

There is more to Baptism than the aspect of death and resurrection, and one must take the whole into account when considering the symbolism, not just the one aspect.

I highly recommend reading the section on Baptism in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is deep, rich meaning in the Sacrament, and the CCC will help you begin to explore it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Is this depicting Jesus in the river Jordon. Man the river got small

http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/s...lace-of-baptism--jordan--the-jordan-river.jpg

A person can stand in the shallows, or wade out deeper.

We don’t know where, exactly, Jesus stood.

But that isn’t the point. Your claim is that water is symbolic for earth, as in a burial.

Please think on at least one thing: Jesus wasn’t buried in the earth, ever. Our baptism only has meaning in relationship to Jesus Christ. There is nothing of Jesus baptism that says he was completely submerged.

Symbolic washing is a very, very old tradition, found in the OT. A person can be washed symbolically by complete submersion in water, or by a small amount of water. Why do you think the amount of water is important to the symbolism?

Christians have baptized using water, from the very beginning, via immersion, pouring and aspersion. All three forms are valid.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Fatboys, in other words, we are buried with Christ through baptism, but it isn’t the amount of water that brings our burial about. It is Jesus Christ.

 

[Fatboys]

Fatboys, when you talk like that- disregarding everything everyone has said and instead make remarks that seem to be pretty uncharitable- it only shuts down the ability for us to dialogue. I’m not saying that everyone on these boards is totally innocent of this, but you were presented with some replies that must have taken a significant amount of research and instead of acknowledging them, you counter not with evidence that proves your point… but with snarky remarks? That makes you not only a poor debater, but also a poor representative of the LDS church. Well, unless the LDS church DOES make fun of other denominations and are only the true church because they ‘say so’ instead of having scripturally based practices.

So which one is it? Are YOU the one personally ignoring scriptural references in order to poke fun at Catholic practices, or is this just so typical in the LDS church that you feel like you’re representing the church well?

My intent was not to disrepect the picture. And for those who have justified the picture as being plausible. I have seen pictures of the river jordon, and was taken back to think that this was a fair discripion of the baptism of Christ. I did not think that this was a serious post at first… I apologize for what seems to be insensitivity. Being imperfect and not listening to the spirit for a chance to strike back at all the insensitive remarks those have said about a person I hold as a prophet of God. It was wrong. The spirit told me not to do it. I wrote it in and deleted it twice. I thought that I could joke about it. I should not have. Please forgive me

 

[Fatboys]

Fatboys, in other words, we are buried with Christ through baptism, but it isn’t the amount of water that brings our burial about. It is Jesus Christ.

If I said someone is buried how would you picture that?

 

[RebeccaJ]

If I said someone is buried how would you picture that?

In context of Christ, I picture something like this:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Fatboys]

A person can stand in the shallows, or wade out deeper.

We don’t know where, exactly, Jesus stood.

But that isn’t the point. Your claim is that water is symbolic for earth, as in a burial.

Please think on at least one thing: Jesus wasn’t buried in the earth, ever. Our baptism only has meaning in relationship to Jesus Christ. There is nothing of Jesus baptism that says he was completely submerged.

Symbolic washing is a very, very old tradition, found in the OT. A person can be washed symbolically by complete submersion in water, or by a small amount of water. Why do you think the amount of water is important to the symbolism?

Christians have baptized using water, from the very beginning, via immersion, pouring and aspersion. All three forms are valid.

He was buried in a toomb that was sealed off from the outside world. Covered so that none of his body was was uncovered. And baptism was not only done during the time of John the Baptist but was part of Jewish inititation. Sprinkling water on someone does not bury them. Pouring water on someone does not bury them. Washing is also a form of baptism as well. It was a custom to wash which means to bury their feet in a basin full of water.

 

[Fatboys]

In context of Christ, I picture something like this:

My point exactly.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Also, baptism is a symbol of death TO SIN, which is life. Water is always a symbol of life.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My point exactly.

Water is a tomb?

I’ve gotten to the point where I think your point is to be obtuse.

Have a good evening.

 

[Fatboys]

Water is a tomb?

I’ve gotten to the point where I think your point is to be obtuse.

Have a good evening.

Water is symbolic of burial. Jesus was buried in a toomb.