LDS View of the Great Apostasy

[RebeccaJ]

Sorry for the misrepresentation. It seems this sometimes goes both ways…

If baptism is only “normative” what of the scripture, “Except a man be born or water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”?

“Go into the whole world and proclaim the Gospel to every creature. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, whoever does not believe will be condemned”

Being taught and believing are required. A person who dies without being taught is judged according to what they believed about God and how they lived their life according to what they believed.

Repent and be baptized.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry for the misrepresentation. It seems this sometimes goes both ways…

I don’t understand your point here.

If baptism is only “normative” what of the scripture, “Except a man be born or water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”?

And I don’t see the dichotomy that you seem to be seeing here between baptism being the normative means of our salvation in Christ and that Scripture verse.

 

[Janderich]

I don’t understand your point here.

This was just a general comment on how easy it is to be misundersood. I might misunderstand Catholic doctrine and others might misunderstand LDS.

PRmerger:

And I don’t see the dichotomy that you seem to be seeing here between baptism being the normative means of our salvation in Christ and that Scripture verse.

By “normative” I think you mean the ideal or the standard practice. If baptism is standard then it seems there are non-standard ways to get to heaven. Sorry if it came across wrong, I don’t mean to attack.

 

[Janderich]

Rebecca, if at least some of the cares of this life are not carried into the spirit world then why did Christ go preach to the spirits in prison?

For Peter says, “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.” (1 Peter 3:18-20). So he not only went to the spirit world, but he felt it necessary to preach to the individuals there. Would Christ preach to them if they could not improve their condition?

This then is the point, individuals in the spirit world can change. They can accept the gospel. They can receive the ordinances of salvation and still be saved in the kingdom of God.

Rebecca, Did you see the above question?

 

[Janderich]

would you perform a proxy baptism for him, even if he had no relatives that were LDS or any that requested there be a proxy baptism performed for him? sorry, a little off topic, but just had to ask.

This topic has been discussed quite a bit in the past. But in short, even with no LDS relatives a proxy baptism may be performed. Of course by performing the ordinance one is not automatically a member of the LDS chuch and it does not take away free will.

 

[PRmerger]

This was just a general comment on how easy it is to be misundersood. I might misunderstand Catholic doctrine and others might misunderstand LDS.

Fair enough.

By “normative” I think you mean the ideal or the standard practice. If baptism is standard then it seems there are non-standard ways to get to heaven. Sorry if it came across wrong, I don’t mean to attack.

Sure, there are “non-standard” ways to get to heaven.

As St. Augustine said: we are bound by the sacraments. God is not.

 

[Janderich]

Do you have proof for your assertion? Book, chapter, and verse in the Bible will suffice.

If you cannot provide it, then your premise simply fails.

I have already provided the proof from the Book of Mormon and D&C. Now, it doesn’t matter to me if you will accept it or not. That is your decision. However, it does not mean the premise fails, it simply means you refuse to accept it.

twopekinguys:

Maybe you can help Fatboys out with showing us a reference (Biblical) for waiting until age 8.

Also, if, and I mean if, children are already saved, then why baptize them at age 8? Are they considered adults then?

Big contradiction you got going on there wouldn’t you say?

Absolutely no contradiction. Children are considered accountable at age 8 as defined by the Lord. I think all this back and forth on such a basic topic has shown how necessary it was that a restoration occur in order to reestablish precious truths lost after Jesus acceded into heaven.

 

[PRmerger]

I think all this back and forth on such a basic topic has shown how necessary it was that a restoration occur in order to reestablish precious truths lost after Jesus acceded into heaven.

I don’t see how debate/discourse proves that a restoration needed to occur?

 

[twopekinguys]

I have already provided the proof from the Book of Mormon and D&C. Now, it doesn’t matter to me if you will accept it or not. That is your decision. However, it does not mean the premise fails, it simply means you refuse to accept it.

Absolutely no contradiction. Children are considered accountable at age 8 as defined by the Lord. I think all this back and forth on such a basic topic has shown how necessary it was that a restoration occur in order to reestablish precious truths lost after Jesus acceded into heaven.

But see, the problem here is that your book of mormon and d & c is not considered scripture by anyone other than mormons. It is not Biblical, therefore you have instituted an arbitrary, and non Biblical process.

Again, your premise for a “restoration” fails because no mormon has ever been able to establish when the so called apostasy occurred.

If there was no apostasy, then there cannot be a restoration.

It is simply circular reasoning used by mormons to try and prove their legitimacy. Which by the way, fails at every turn.

It is you that simply refuses to accept it.

 

[PRmerger]

Everyone who accepts baptism can be saved. No doubt there are some who will not do so. The individual in the spirit world still has free will and must accept the ordinance.

I wonder how you reconcile, then, that belief with that which Joseph Smith first taught: Alma 34:35-36 says “For behold, if ye have procarastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you and this is the final state of the wicked.”

 

[Porknpie]

Sorry for the misrepresentation. It seems this sometimes goes both ways…

If baptism is only “normative” what of the scripture, “Except a man be born or water and of the spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God”?

From the catechism…through God’s love and mercy, one can have Baptism of blood or the Baptism of desire.

VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

 

[Arandur]

LITTLE CHILDREN ARE ALREADY SAVED IN CHRIST AND NEED NO BAPTISM! Must I scream it from the roof tops and shout it in the streets? Children are not responsible for Adam’s transgression nor are they required to be baptized in order to free themselves from fallen nature. They do not need the covenant for they are not accountable for their sins.

I was waiting for you to say that. It was a logic trap–for your logic is inconsistent. You say that children are already saved and do not need the Covenant (despite the fact that Peter said the Covenant is "for you and your children), but then you say that at age 8 they DO need the Covenant…?

You think children are born “in the Garden” so to speak? Even though “in Adam, all men sinned,” and when our first parents were exiled from the Garden, all mankind has had to endure the consequences, being born in separation from God?

You wait for children to sin and lose salvation?
What changes magically at 8? What was lacking before 8 that is gained afterward with Baptism? For if nothing was lacking, no one ever needs Baptism, but if something was lacking, then Baptism and the Covenant are superior graces and ought to be offered to all.

I have even heard and read several LDS and restorationist sources that have used as an argument against the Catholic Church that the Church died out because priests “could not pass on what they did not have” (meaning authority). Well, that’s how Original Sin works. It’s a deprivation of the state of grace, of walking with God in the Garden. Adam and Eve could not pass on what they did not have–that state of grace, union with God. And so we ALL are born in exile. The whole point of Baptism after Christ’s Resurrection is that HE has restored that state of grace, restored unity with God, and now he offers us re-birth as children of God.

If Baptism is not rebirth, no one needs it. If Baptism IS rebirth, everyone needs it, even little children. And Jesus told Nicodemus that everyone needs it.

It is not for you or anyone else arrogant enough to presume to correct Jesus Christ to choose otherwise.

The supposed requirement that little children must be baptized seeks to limit God’s grace, not expand it! It requires that a child must be baptized in order to be saved. Argue with me that Mormons are too liberal with God’s grace, that we believe him to be too kind if you must, but do not say we deny God’s grace! Such a statement is completely and utterly wrong. We believe ALL little children are saved in the kingdom of heaven.

I have not called you “too liberal” at all. Quite the opposite. I have accused you of denying God’s Grace to children, holding them back from Christ when he commands you to hinder them not but bring them to him. It is the Catholic Church that is so concerned with passing on God’s Grace as liberally as possible. You even say that His Grace was denied all mankind for 1800 years or so, and that none are baptized and have the Covenant despite earnestly being baptized with water in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Children are not accountable, therefore they do not need to repent. Because they do not need to repent they do not need the covenant, they are saved without baptism.

Where is this in Scripture? Aside from where Joseph Smith made it up, I mean (even though I don’t think I’ve read anywhere that even Smith said they don’t need the Covenant).

As an aside, you should know that the Catholic Church teaches that children and others who die without baptism are not automatically damned or anything of the sort. We must simply leave them to the perfect Mercy and Justice of God. We know that the normative means of salvation that Jesus gave us is Baptism, regeneration into the New Covenant. We do all we can to follow what he prescribed and not deviate, so those Sacraments are the sure things, the sure means, the gifts we avail ourselves of when we follow him in faith.

 

[Arandur]

I have already provided the proof from the Book of Mormon and D&C. Now, it doesn’t matter to me if you will accept it or not. That is your decision. However, it does not mean the premise fails, it simply means you refuse to accept it.

Absolutely no contradiction. Children are considered accountable at age 8 as defined by the Lord. I think all this back and forth on such a basic topic has shown how necessary it was that a restoration occur in order to reestablish precious truths lost after Jesus acceded into heaven.

It seems others have already said much of what I normally say here, about “normative” means, Sacraments not restricting God, the circular reasoning of the apostasy idea, and even the illogic of children automatically being saved, then losing it, then having a chance to get it back, only better (permanently?) this time…

But I’d like to focus in on the point of your sources (BoM and D&C), and circle back around to the Great Apostasy theory. First of all, as others have begun to show, Smith is not consistent in his own writings, changing his mind. And this says nothing of the contradictions with Scripture, or how his “translation” of Scripture corrupts its meaning in many places and bears absolutely no similarity with any text ever found, even the most ancient and diverse.

What I’d like to point out is that you’ve essentially just used your own feelings and preference to justify your belief. You have no other standard.

Catholics, on the other hand, use and appeal to many objective standards of Truth outside of ourselves. We know that the human heart is deceptive, and that human reasoning is weak, that subjective desire and belief and feeling is insufficient to determine truth. The proof is in the proliferation of denominations, leaving doctrine up to everyone’s personal judgment. Mormons are in that group, too; and indeed, anyone who appeals ultimately to their own feelings and interpretations makes themself god.

Here are our sources:
Salvation History–historical proof and evidence, textual, archaeological, and otherwise, showing God’s work through history
Natural Law–God’s revelation of His will through His own Creation (Science is a small verifying subset of this)
Sacred Scripture
Continuous, Sacred Tradition
The Magisterium and Sense of the Faithful–the working of the Holy Spirit through the Christ’s Body, the Church, as Jesus promised and instituted at Pentecost
Reason to weigh and unite it all
Faith to confirm it and enlighten it

Protestants seem to rely solely on their limited book of Scripture and deny history, the Spirit’s work through it, and so forth (sola scriptura).

BoM-believing restorationists rely on the word of Joseph Smith and their feeling (the burning in the breast) of whether he was right or not, and then pick one or other succession of leaders since him to follow.

We Catholics urge you to look beyond yourself. Test the truth against objective measures external to yourself; don’t rely on deceptive, easily-manipulated subjective determination.

Back in context here, one objective measure applied is that your teachings on Baptism simply aren’t found anywhere in Scripture, Tradition, or any historical documents or evidences anywhere in the ancient world. That’s an extremely powerful sign that they were made up; their first appearance was with some Protestant works of the 15th or 16th century echoed closely by Joseph Smith in his works.

 

[TexanKnight]

I have already provided the proof from the Book of Mormon and D&C. Now, it doesn’t matter to me if you will accept it or not. That is your decision. However, it does not mean the premise fails, it simply means you refuse to accept it.

That is the entire issue. You have no proof except for a self-serving reference to a convicted con man. How can you possibly accept or expect anyone else to?

Absolutely no contradiction. Children are considered accountable at age 8 as defined by the Lord.

No. As defined by Joseph Smith. And by the way, I knew right and wrong long before 8. So did my kids.

I think all this back and forth on such a basic topic has shown how necessary it was that a restoration occur in order to reestablish precious truths lost after Jesus acceded into heaven.

No, the back and forth PROVES why there would be no further false prophets.

 

[Janderich]

I wonder how you reconcile, then, that belief with that which Joseph Smith first taught: Alma 34:35-36 says “For behold, if ye have procarastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you and this is the final state of the wicked.”

Everyone of age will have an opportunity to accept or reject the blessings of baptism. However some, who have already had ample opportunity in this life, will not get another in the next. These are the people Amulek is talking to in the above scripture. For he says, “I would that, after ye have received so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things, ye come forth and bring fruit unto repentance.” (Alma 34:30).

 

[PRmerger]

Everyone of age will have an opportunity to accept or reject the blessings of baptism. However some, who have already had ample opportunity in this life, will not get another in the next. These are the people Amulek is talking to in the above scripture. For he says, “I would that, after ye have received so many witnesses, seeing that the holy scriptures testify of these things, ye come forth and bring fruit unto repentance.” (Alma 34:30).

Ah.

So for a certain group pf people, if they reject the blessings of baptism, baptism by proxy (that is, after death) do nothing?

Who are these people?

 

[Fatboys]

Therefore an eight year old

Accountable for what and why is baptism suddenly required.

Yet Unless the child has sinned there is no washing, so it would seem pointless. Is it being sinless, being baptized, or being in the convenient that is required to enter the kingdom?

Sorry I have been sick with a bad cold that my wife gave to me. I thought that she was milking the sickness, but she was not, and of course I was much more ill. In fact I was so ill, that I saw a tunnel with a light at the end, but it was just my wife with a paper towel tube with a flashlight on the other end. I don’t know why she said go towards the light for. I would not fit.

Anyway let me try to explain again. Before I start I realize that you do not believe in Joseph Smith. I realize that you feel he was a con man. I do not. So could you please refrain from your little jabs. It ticks me off.

Baptism at the age of 8. We believe that anyone who can not understand the laws of God or the consequences of disobedience are innocent before God. This is why Christ taught that we are to become like little children to enter into the Kingdom of God. Sinnless. Baptism for us is to wash away our sins. It is to cleanse us from sin. It does not prevent us from continuing to sin but at the moment of baptism we are white as the driven snow. Before the age of 8 a person can not understand enough to be guilty of sin. Now not every child gets baptized at age eight. For instance my youngest son was not ready to be baptized. He was not ready until he was almost 10. But that is not the norm. Some children are ready to be baptized before 8. That is they have a higher level of understanding than their peers. But it is not required until they reach 8. That is when a child begins to understand right from wrong in a more clear way.
Another reason for baptism is making covenants with God. That we take upon ourselves the name of Christ. That is we will be his witness of him at all times and in all places. And next is that we will always remember him. No matter what the circumstances are, no matter what we are doing, he is always in our mind and heart. Next is we promise to keep all his commandments to the best of our abilities. So as we come forth from the waters we put on a new person, one that is trying to follow and become more perfect than what we were.

 

[Fatboys]

Fatboy,

When I wanted to make a meatloaf, I went to the cookbook. The White House Cookbook, Joy of Cooking…and after much frustration…just asked my mom…

 

[Fatboys]

So, based on your answer, the number 8 was picked out of thin air. There is no Biblical reference saying it should be 8. You all just made it up is what you’re saying.

As a Catholic, you are accusing mormons of pulling something out of air? Tea pot calling the Kettle black.

Kids mature at different rates. Girls faster than boys. (I’m sure you’ve heard that before) Developmentally disabled may never mature to that age, etc. ect.

The bishop interviews them before baptism and determines whether or not they are ready. Someone who is mentally impaired to a age younger than 8 does not require baptism but can still be baptized.

Bottom line, you have a non scriptural and arbitrary process going on there, which is another reason your baptisms are not valid.

Again, “vast majority” is not a number. Vast majority is subjective, and could mean anything from 51% up. You stated a number, give us proof, or retract it.

Simple as that.

This makes sense

BTW, I gave you two specific examples of changes that were doctrinal in nature, and not typographical etc, and you stated they were not doctrinal changes. Please explain how changing from “Mary, the mother of God”, to “the mother of the son of God” is not a doctrinal change?

Just saying it isn’t doesn’t work I’m afraid.

Was Jesus a God? Is Jesus also the son of God? God is just a term given to a being that has all power and knowledge.

 

[Fatboys]

It does not say she was “perfect” no… but it does say she was “full of grace”.
grace defined by Webster
so through God’s divinity, she was already freed from sin.

Why accept it if you think it’s wrong? What specifically was so important that was left out?

Was Mary an exceptional woman? Yes she was. She was the handmaiden of God. The Holy Ghost overshadowed her. She become the mother of the son of God. She was a woman chosen before this life to become such. But she was mortal. With mortality comes with it the flaws such as death, sin, hope and faith. It has been said here by some that she was perfect. I believe she was not. I believe she sinned, and repented so that she took part in the atonement from the Son she bore.