LDS: Why try to convert Catholics, what do we lack for salvation?

[dianaiad]

Thank you for clarifying this for me. As a relative newbie to the whole Catholic thing, this was something that I hadn’t grasped until you pointed it out.

It sounds like not baptizing a child, to a Catholic, would be similar to a Jewish family not having their son ritually circumsized when he was 8 days old. It wouldn’t make sense, at least among the observant, to not do this.

Nor am I telling Catholics (or Jews either) that they are being horrible for doing it. You believe as you believe, and you should practice it for the reasons you state. However, to tell US that WE do not consider our infants to be members of the family because we don’t share your (general, not specific, ‘you,’) view of what baptism is for or your view of original sin is silly at best, and offensively ludicrous at worst.

Would you say that Yanni thinks he is a horrible musician because he doesn’t read music?

Would you claim that Obama thinks he is a horrible president because he’s not a Republican?

Would you claim that CAtholics do not believe that their baptisms are valid because they weren’t performed by a Mormon?

You CAN"T impose your own doctrine on someone else’s belief system and make such judgments.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes…for HIM.

However, for him to project that idea onto someone who doesn’t believe as he does is hyperbole carried to incredibly offensive extremes.

Well then, stop doing proxy baptisms, as you are projecting your idea that non-Mormons need them. We don’t.

 

[dianaiad]

It amazes me that people argue infants are not baptized when the Bible is clear that whole households were baptized. And whole households did not just include the family. It included everyone who lived in the house. This often included other realted families (like the husband’s brither and his wife and children) and any servants and their families. To assume that NONE of those people had infants is a very strange leap to make.

Given that you are the one who has claimed that MORMONS do not believe that their infants are ‘part of the family’ because we don’t share your view of what baptism is and what it’s for, I think that you should rethink the concept of ‘strange leaps.’

 

[sablouwho]

Diana, your quote below was replying to a post that I made in which I was simply thanking Rebecca for explaining something to me about what Catholics believe and making further comments on it. There were no comments in it regarding LDS whatsoever, so I am very confused as to your reply below.

Nor am I telling Catholics (or Jews either) that they are being horrible for doing it. You believe as you believe, and you should practice it for the reasons you state. However, to tell US that WE do not consider our infants to be members of the family because we don’t share your (general, not specific, ‘you,’) view of what baptism is for or your view of original sin is silly at best, and offensively ludicrous at worst.

Would you say that Yanni thinks he is a horrible musician because he doesn’t read music?

Would you claim that Obama thinks he is a horrible president because he’s not a Republican?

Would you claim that CAtholics do not believe that their baptisms are valid because they weren’t performed by a Mormon?

You CAN"T impose your own doctrine on someone else’s belief system and make such judgments.

 

[dianaiad]

Diana, your quote below was replying to a post that I made in which I was simply thanking Rebecca for explaining something to me about what Catholics believe and making further comments on it. There were no comments in it regarding LDS whatsoever, so I am very confused as to your reply below.

Sorry for the confusion…that 'You" was a general, not a specific, “you.” I should have written “one,” rather than “you.”

 

[sablouwho]

Sorry for the confusion…that 'You" was a general, not a specific, “you.” I should have written “one,” rather than “you.”

OK, thanks for clarifying. Cuz I was scratching my head trying to figure out what I’d said to elicit that reply!

 

[ParkerD]

It amazes me that people argue infants are not baptized when the Bible is clear that whole households were baptized. And whole households did not just include the family. It included everyone who lived in the house. This often included other realted families (like the husband’s brither and his wife and children) and any servants and their families. To assume that NONE of those people had infants is a very strange leap to make.

AtticusFinch,
Now come to find out you were once LDS, yet you show this kind of shallow thinking? All you are making about the word “household” is an assumption, nothing more. It is used what–in two verses related to baptisms:

Acts 16: 15
15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
1 Cor. 1: 16
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

So you’re drawing a completely authoritative conclusion that directly contradicts what the Savior said about baptism, and doing it from two verses that are talking about two specific households in two specific locations in the New Testament? No wonder you needed to leave the LDS church, if that is how you addressed gaining understanding from the Bible. Sorry to be blunt, but two verses do not a doctrine make, particularly when contradicted by dozens of verses saying exactly something contrary to that supposedly “proven” doctrine.

 

[AtticusFinch]

AtticusFinch,
Now come to find out you were once LDS, yet you show this kind of shallow thinking? All you are making about the word “household” is an assumption, nothing more. It is used what–in two verses related to baptisms:

Acts 16: 15
15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us.
1 Cor. 1: 16
16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other.

So you’re drawing a completely authoritative conclusion that directly contradicts what the Savior said about baptism, and doing it from two verses that are talking about two specific households in two specific locations in the New Testament? No wonder you needed to leave the LDS church, if that is how you addressed gaining understanding from the Bible. Sorry to be blunt, but two verses do not a doctrine make, particularly when contradicted by dozens of verses saying exactly something contrary to that supposedly “proven” doctrine.

lol. First, my thinking is far from shallow. Just because you are blinded does not mean what you can;t see is not there. The Bible is clear, whole households were baptized. That you choose to ignore that because there are only two references is humorous. And funny you should you talk about two verses not making a doctrine, because that is exactly what you have done regarding baptism for the dead and three levels of heaven…among others. And you go even further, not even needing Scripture to come up with the doctrine that God was once a sinful man.

And what the Savior said was “suffer the little children to come to Me.” The LDS version is “Suffer the little children to come to me…once they are 8”.

Do not tell me I am shallow just because you do not believe children are part of your household.

 

[ParkerD]

lol. First, my thinking is far from shallow. Just because you are blinded does not mean what you can;t see is not there. The Bible is clear, whole households were baptized. That you choose to ignore that because there are only two references is humorous. And funny you should you talk about two verses not making a doctrine, because that is exactly what you have done regarding baptism for the dead and three levels of heaven…among others. And you go even further, not even needing Scripture to come up with the doctrine that God was once a sinful man.

And what the Savior said was “suffer the little children to come to Me.” The LDS version is “Suffer the little children to come to me…once they are 8”.

Do not tell me I am shallow just because you do not believe children are part of your household.

Please tell me you were kidding.

Let’s suppose my “whole household” was going to change religions. Guess what that would mean? A thirteen-year-old, a fifteen-year-old, a seventeen-year-old, a nineteen-year-old, the rest of the children out in college or on a mission. So are you saying I don’t have a “household” because we don’t have a child under age eight at this time in our lives? Are you saying every household in every city of the world where the gospel was taught, had a child under age eight because that is what the word “household” means?

The doctrine of baptism for the dead is drawn as much from Jesus having said “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5) and from Malachi 4:5-6 as from 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Your specious belief that LDS had a concept of “sinful man” in the sentence where you said that (note that I will not put those words together as you did, will not–why?–out of respect for the Supreme Being) is completely erroneous, and only demonstrates further the paucity of your study.

The doctrine of different levels of “heaven” is evident in several different verses also. It is evident in Matthew 22:29-30, in John 17:12, in 2 Corinthians 12:2, and in 1 Peter 3:19-20. But not to those who “having eyes, see not.”

It’s OK that you have chosen the doctrine you have embraced as it meets your needs, but to draw the kind of conclusion that says what you said about “little children come unto me” and yet the LDS say that every baby or youngster who dies goes straight to heaven in their resurrection, while the teaching you have embraced casts all sorts of doubts about the status in the hereafter of an unbaptized infant, and makes the parent feel guilty if they hold off on doing that ordinance–leaves me wondering what in the world you think the Savior meant when He said that “of such is the kingdom of heaven”.

 

[AtticusFinch]

Please tell me you were kidding.

Let’s suppose my “whole household” was going to change religions. Guess what that would mean? A thirteen-year-old, a fifteen-year-old, a seventeen-year-old, a nineteen-year-old, the rest of the children out in college or on a mission. So are you saying I don’t have a “household” because we don’t have a child under age eight at this time in our lives? Are you saying every household in every city of the world where the gospel was taught, had a child under age eight because that is what the word “household” means?

Are you truly being serious? First, this was written in the first century…not now. I am not sure how many 19-year old Jews left home to go on missions. Please…think before you type. And back in the first century, “household” meant everyone in the home. That often incuded, for example, siblings and their families, and servants and their families. Please…do some study.

The doctrine of baptism for the dead is drawn as much from Jesus having said “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5) and from Malachi 4:5-6 as from 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Funny, those verses never mention baptizing for the dead. The baptism for the dead is mentioned ONE time. I am sorry that you need to add words to verses in order to fit your doctrine.

Your specious belief that LDS had a concept of “sinful man” in the sentence where you said that (note that I will not put those words together as you did, will not–why?–out of respect for the Supreme Being) is completely erroneous, and only demonstrates further the paucity of your study.

Wrong again. Let me remind you: “As MAN IS, God once was…”. How exactly IS man? Please…you need to learn your doctrine before trying to defend it.

The doctrine of different levels of “heaven” is evident in several different verses also. It is evident in Matthew 22:29-30, in John 17:12, in 2 Corinthians 12:2, and in 1 Peter 3:19-20. But not to those who “having eyes, see not.”

lol…again, you need to add words and meanings to fit your square doctrine into the round Gospel. So, I agree, you have eyes, but see not but what you add.

It’s OK that you have chosen the doctrine you have embraced as it meets your needs,

lol…says the guy who needs to add words and meanings to verses to make his doctrine work

 

[ParkerD]

To the general reader:

In Hebrews 2, we read:

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Christ “suffered being tempted”, and is thus “able to succour them that are tempted.” He did so in a bodily condition, “like unto his brethren,” that “he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God…” Thus, Christ was like a man, but was sinless. This was a possibility for the Son of God, and for God the Father, but not for us–we needed Him, and still need Him, always and forever.

 

[paul_c]

To the general reader:

In Hebrews 2, we read:

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.
13 And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me.
14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;
15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.
16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
17 Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
18 For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Christ “suffered being tempted”, and is thus “able to succour them that are tempted.” He did so in a bodily condition, “like unto his brethren,” that “he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God…” Thus, Christ was like a man, but was sinless. This was a possibility for the Son of God, and for God the Father, but not for us–we needed Him, and still need Him, always and forever.

Yes, we all agree that we need Jesus. But he wasn’t just like a man, he WAS true man and true God, simultaneously. and yes he was sinless.

But why did you feel a need to make this particular point on this particular thread?

 

[Matt_Macomber]

The greater number of people that you convert from a given religion, the weaker that religion is seen as. And in turn this strenghtens Mormon beliefs.

 

[SteveVH]

Christ “suffered being tempted”, and is thus “able to succour them that are tempted.” He did so in a bodily condition, “like unto his brethren,” that “he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God…” Thus, Christ was like a man, but was sinless. This was a possibility for the Son of God, and for God the Father, but not for us–we needed Him, and still need Him, always and forever.

It’s hard to know if I agree or disagree with your statement. Exactly what is it that you’re trying to say here? One thing I disagree with is that you said “Thus, Christ was like a man”. He was not “like” a man, He was a man. One person with two natures, both human and divine, that is, 100% human and 100% divine. His human will was one with His divine will in obedience to the Father’s will. Parker, have you ever really seriously considered the Catholic position without just assuming it has to be wrong? I ask this sincerely. To be honest I cannot say that I have done the same regarding the Mormons.
Sometimes I think we all make it hard for truth to enter the room.

Have you ever really considered the theology behind the Holy Trinity absent your preconceived bias. I know that I would have a hard time giving an unbias view

 

[Stephen168]

Mormon Bible Dictionary: Baptism in water has several purposes. It is for the remission of sins, for membership in the Church, and for entrance into the celestial kingdom; it is also the doorway to personal sanctification when followed by the reception of the Holy Ghost.

Fourth Article of Faith: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Catholics believe we are removed of all sin at baptism just like Mormons believe. The difference is Catholics believe all sin includes the sin of Adam (1 Cor 15:21-23, Roman 5:12-19) and personal sin. Catholics believe through baptism we enter communion with Christ’s death and the new covenant (Col 2:11-14, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) which replaces circumcision. Circumcision takes place at eight days old. So Mormons and Catholics believe what ‘happens’ at baptism is very similar but Joseph Smith rejected Paul’s Christian teaching on the sin of Adam, and chose to withhold baptism from infants contrary to the New Testament and ancient Christian belief and practice.

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, we all agree that we need Jesus. But he wasn’t just like a man, he WAS true man and true God, simultaneously. and yes he was sinless.

But why did you feel a need to make this particular point on this particular thread?

Paul C,
I appreciate your having asked, and also having pointed out the distinction in the second sentence, which I agree with. (I was using the word “like” in the sense of “like unto his brethren”, which you may note was the expression used in verse 17.)

I brought it up because of the post just prior to mine, third response in that post.

Have a sweet and peaceful day.

 

[ParkerD]

It’s hard to know if I agree or disagree with your statement. Exactly what is it that you’re trying to say here? One thing I disagree with is that you said “Thus, Christ was like a man”. He was not “like” a man, He was a man. One person with two natures, both human and divine, that is, 100% human and 100% divine. His human will was one with His divine will in obedience to the Father’s will. Parker, have you ever really seriously considered the Catholic position without just assuming it has to be wrong? I ask this sincerely. To be honest I cannot say that I have done the same regarding the Mormons.
Sometimes I think we all make it hard for truth to enter the room.

Have you ever really considered the theology behind the Holy Trinity absent your preconceived bias. I know that I would have a hard time giving an unbias view

SteveVH,

I have been aware of the similarities–very much so, including the very important point you made here about Christ, which I agree with. I hope I have consistently communicated that there are many truths in the doctrines you have, and many blessings from God that follow from living by those truths. This is a fundamental one, and I do appreciate it being an important part of your theology. I also appreciate the sincerity of your introspection. Thanks for bringing it up in an introspective way that shows deep thought.

Have a splendid day.

 

[AMDGtoo]

but Joseph Smith rejected Paul’s Christian teaching on the sin of Adam

Don’t think that he just rejected it. Since Joseph Smith came from a Protestant background, I don’t think he ever understood it in the first place. Somehow he (and his followers) got the idea that Adam’s sin (Original Sin) was a sort of personal sin. Seems that he, being young, couldn’t understand the difference. (Of course we know that infant baptism wasn’t about “just removing personal sin”–a baby cannot commit personal sin, so what it was was Adam’s loss of grace and quite a logical one since one can’t pass on to another what he no longer possesses. Infant Baptism is about restoring the gift of grace–that Adam lost for us–and a sign that the baby now belongs to the Christian Faith.)

When the Mormons claim that they don’t baptize infants because they don’t feel that others should be “punished” for a sin that they didn’t commit and then claim that Catholics believe that babies are “guilty of Adam’s sin”, they are contructing a straw man argument for their own benefit (and probably confusing a great many people as to why infant baptism is preformed.)

 

[ParkerD]

Don’t think that he just rejected it. Since Joseph Smith came from a Protestant background, I don’t think he ever understood it in the first place. Somehow he (and his followers) got the idea that Adam’s sin (Original Sin) was a sort of personal sin. Seems that he, being young, couldn’t understand the difference. (Of course we know that infant baptism wasn’t about “just removing personal sin”–a baby cannot commit personal sin, so what it was was Adam’s loss of grace and quite a logical one since one can’t pass on to another what he no longer possesses. Infant Baptism is about restoring the gift of grace–that Adam lost for us–and a sign that the baby now belongs to the Christian Faith.)

When the Mormons claim that they don’t baptize infants because they don’t feel that others should be “punished” for a sin that they didn’t commit and then claim that Catholics believe that babies are “guilty of Adam’s sin”, they are contructing a straw man argument for their own benefit (and probably confusing a great many people as to why infant baptism is preformed.)

AMDGtoo,
If one such as myself says they do not believe in the concept of “Original Sin”, then if you’re saying I “don’t understand the difference” I can honestly say, “Yes, I do.”

Adam was received back into a state of “grace” when he obeyed God’s commandments (actually including being baptized, since he was an accountable person); and babies are born into a state of “grace”. They do not need baptism to be placed into a state of “grace”. Christ already placed them in a state of “grace” through His atonement. They were “pre-rescued,” with nothing having needed to be done on their part or on the priest’s part or on the part of their parents.

Christ has that power. His atoning grace has that power over mortality and the mortal body.

 

[Stephen168]

Don’t think that he just rejected it. Since Joseph Smith came from a Protestant background, I don’t think he ever understood it in the first place. Somehow he (and his followers) got the idea that Adam’s sin (Original Sin) was a sort of personal sin. Seems that he, being young, couldn’t understand the difference. (Of course we know that infant baptism wasn’t about “just removing personal sin”–a baby cannot commit personal sin, so what it was was Adam’s loss of grace and quite a logical one since one can’t pass on to another what he no longer possesses. Infant Baptism is about restoring the gift of grace–that Adam lost for us–and a sign that the baby now belongs to the Christian Faith.)

When the Mormons claim that they don’t baptize infants because they don’t feel that others should be “punished” for a sin that they didn’t commit and then claim that Catholics believe that babies are “guilty of Adam’s sin”, they are contructing a straw man argument for their own benefit (and probably confusing a great many people as to why infant baptism is preformed.)

Basically, I agree. It is my understand that there are two flavors of protestants on this issue. One accepts the ancient Christian teaching of Adam’s sin, believes that baptism washes away sin, and they baptize their children as infants. The others invented the ‘believer’s baptism’; they reject the teaching of Adam’s sin, reject the belief that baptism ‘does’ anything (nothing ‘happens’), and reject infant baptism.

Joseph Smith was raised closest to the first group which explains why he taught that baptism is for the forgiveness of sin. But he was also raised in a time and place of independent anything goes preaching, so I’m sure he knew of the believer’s baptism group, too. Smith being a young, uneducated, American of the time (anti-catholic), blended the two together. Mormons have most of the ancient belief of what happens at baptism but with a need to reject the great abominable church; they reject ancient practice. To justify the rejection of ancient practice, they must reject the biblical teaching of the sin of Adam, and reject biblical teaching of baptism being the circumcision of the new covenant.

I understand why Mormons have no NEED to baptize infants but their rejection of infant baptism is just irrational anti-Catholicism. I think it is interesting that they believe a child is born without any sin but some how at the age of eight; they now have sin and must be baptized.