MERGED Questions about Mormonism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bezant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Porknpie said:
Scripture says baptism is necessary for salvation. The bible does not address infant baptism so we have trust and hope in God, that he will save the innocent ones. No one is denying the saving grace of God. Just the opposite.
Click to expand...
Actually, many christian faiths, as a tenant deriving from a poor understanding of the plan of salvation, deny the saving grace of God to infants. Specifically, the roll of Baptism in the plan. Because the lay of the various church’s find such a teach so repugnant, they do not subscribe to this, but recognizing the inherent infinite Graciousness of God understand at a deep and personal level this can not be. However, the RC has repeatedly stated a status of non-salvation to such, adding the caveat at the demands of its lay that it is not a fair doctrine. Hence the relatively recent consistent adding the ‘we don’t know how, but trust in God’. I reiterate, Baptism is a basic doctrine. If a faith does not have a complete understanding of the principal of the sacrament, that is a very real and serious deficiency. It is a major factor in me personally writing off all faiths that teach such.
Agree that this is a dilemna for Mormons.
Click to expand...
Joseph Smith a prophet from God and Science says American Indian genes come from Asia. Joseph Smith says not. Which do you believe or do you ignore the issue? It’s a fair question…and I don’t have the answer.
Click to expand...
Yeah, clever retort.
The question violates the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. Figure out what you really want to ask and we can go on from there. Though I am beginning to get weary of discussing such things without the hope of reason. I purposely gave the argument of unbaptized aborted or miscarried fetus’ because the RC does not have an adequate doctrine to explain where they fit in the plan of salvation. Limbo is not adequate. ‘We hope God has a plan for them’ is not an adequate doctrine. There is no adequate doctrine in the RC. Yet, I can understand how a Catholic would feel comforted knowing the RC does not outright condemn such innocents. This is how one expresses empathy for another. Statements such as your clever little retort do nothing for your cause.

texasknight and rebecca have both communicated to me in the past in such a manner. I expressed to them repeatedly my respect for the RC faith and a true and honest curiousity regarding the doctrines of this the greatest and oldest of all Christian faiths. My legitimate and respectful questions such as ‘infants not baptized’ are always included with rebuttals to include such tripe as ‘Joseph Smith teaching genetics’ (which would be quite a feat and certainly would surprise many geneticists considering he died long before the science actually began) or the adam-god theory or satan is my brother, and my personal favorite, the argumentum ad verecundiam, going something like "I was a LDS missionary, bishop, Elders Quorum President, Relief Society President (pick the authority title) and I know what you really think’. Really? I apologize, but telling me tripe under the mantle of ‘authority’, really I don’t believe it. Let us work under the presumption I am impossible to convert, what of the lurkers who can stomach such sophomoric arguments looking for answers. Do you think it does them a service? I think not.

It is not an excuse, but I am a ridiculously tired and grumpy old man, and should be cognizant of my own exhortations regarding the moderation of the argument. Sorry…
 
wussup said:
Actually, many christian faiths, as a tenant deriving from a poor understanding of the plan of salvation, deny the saving grace of God to infants. Specifically, the roll of Baptism in the plan. Because the lay of the various church’s find such a teach so repugnant, they do not subscribe to this, but recognizing the inherent infinite Graciousness of God understand at a deep and personal level this can not be. However, the RC has repeatedly stated a status of non-salvation to such, adding the caveat at the demands of its lay that it is not a fair doctrine. Hence the relatively recent consistent adding the ‘we don’t know how, but trust in God’. I reiterate, Baptism is a basic doctrine. If a faith does not have a complete understanding of the principal of the sacrament, that is a very real and serious deficiency. It is a major factor in me personally writing off all faiths that teach such.
Click to expand...
Here’s a short excerpt from a longer article. The bible does not address infants who die without baptism. Source is catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=7529

However, with regard to the salvation of those who die without baptism, the word of God says little or nothing. It is therefore necessary to interpret the reticence of Scripture on this issue in the light of texts concerning the universal plan of salvation and the ways of salvation. In short, the problem both for theology and for pastoral care is how to safeguard and reconcile two sets of biblical affirmations: those concerning God’s universal salvific will (cf. 1 Tm 2:4) and those regarding the necessity of baptism as the way of being freed from sin and conformed to Christ (cf. Mk 16:16; Mt 28:18-19).

Second, taking account of the principle lex orandi, lex credendi, the Christian community notes that there is no mention of limbo in the liturgy. In fact, the liturgy contains a feast of the Holy Innocents, who are venerated as martyrs even though they were not baptized, because they were killed “on account of Christ.”

There has even been an important liturgical development through the introduction of funerals for infants who died without baptism. We do not pray for those who are damned. The Roman Missal of 1970 introduced a funeral Mass for unbaptized infants whose parents intended to present them for baptism. The church entrusts to God’s mercy those infants who die unbaptized.

In its 1980 instruction on children’s baptism the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith reaffirmed that “with regard to children who die without having received baptism, the church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as indeed she does in the funeral rite established for them.”

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) adds that “the great mercy of God, who desires that all men should be saved [1 Tm 2:4], and Jesus’ tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them’ (Mk 10:14), allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism.”
Yeah, clever retort.
The question violates the logical fallacy of a false dilemma. Figure out what you really want to ask and we can go on from there. Though I am beginning to get weary of discussing such things without the hope of reason. I purposely gave the argument of unbaptized aborted or miscarried fetus’ because the RC does not have an adequate doctrine to explain where they fit in the plan of salvation. Limbo is not adequate. ‘We hope God has a plan for them’ is not an adequate doctrine. There is no adequate doctrine in the RC. Yet, I can understand how a Catholic would feel comforted knowing the RC does not outright condemn such innocents. This is how one expresses empathy for another. Statements such as your clever little retort do nothing for your cause.
Click to expand...
It is not an excuse, but I am a ridiculously tired and grumpy old man, and should be cognizant of my own exhortations regarding the moderation of the argument. Sorry…
Click to expand...
I wasnt attempting to be cute or clever. You had mentioned the American Indians and that prompted me to ask a question that I don’t know how a Mormon would respond. It’s a simple, but fair question. I try my best to ask one question at a time. Don’t be grumpy…heres a :hug3:
 
ok that is kinda funny, don’t matter who you are!!!
Porknpie said:
I wasnt attempting to be cute or clever. You had mentioned the American Indians and that prompted me to ask a question that I don’t know how a Mormon would respond. It’s a simple, but fair question. I try my best to ask one question at a time. Don’t be grumpy…heres a :hug3:
Click to expand...
Similar to the vein of arguments we see RC give relative to those issues not specifically addressed (and unimportant to our salvation), LDS have a sordid history of what the Church Leaders call religious hobbies. Like most things in life some members have latched onto certain aspects of the Gospel, such as the Word of Wisdom (no alcohol, tobacco, ‘hot drinks’ i.e., coffee or tea). The WoW as an example it was given originally as a recommendation of how to take care of our body (limiting meat ‘flesh of the beasts and of the fowls of the air, I, the Lord, have ordained for the use of man with thanksgiving; nevertheless they are to be used sparingly’ is also included but not so closely followed.) Given the WoW was given as the Lord’s council, the Church figures that ‘Your wish is our command’ and follow it religiously. More or less. Some folks take the WoW to an extreme and treat it almost as a sacrament, which it is not.
Similarly regarding archaeology-anthropology (my major in college, minoring in philosophy…a long long long time ago) and the Book of Mormon, members and Church leaders have made it a hobby, in some cases a profession trying to rationalize the total lack of evidence extant to their spiritual testament of the Book of Mormon, et al. Some of the work is truly astonishing, some very poor in both the scholarship and the resultant rationalizations deriving thereof.
As the scriptures say, he that has an ear to hear, let him hear. It is up to the reader of the work to determine the validity of the points.
Regarding the archaeological findings, I am not even interested in looking into it. I don’t care for the same reason there is practically no correlation between the Bible and the Archaeology, at least when I was going to school (a long long long time ago). Cursory readings I have read indicate this is gradually changing. Personally, it goes back to the sign seeker homily I gave. I do not need archaeological discoveries to prove objectively what the Lord has revealed to me through the Holy Spirit, that the Bible is the Word of God. Ditto for the BoM. Do you not agree, or are you a sign seeker? (Ok, that was a joke and it was a false dilemma). If you are interested in reading a decent and very high level (general review) on the subject of Archaeology, FAIR has an article from which you can explore where the interests have gone.
Regarding genetics and the peoples of the Book of Mormon, ditto. Really, I am not interested. However, for the sake of your questions regarding what the LDS say, I would commend Jeff Lindsay’s “Does DNA Evidence Refute the Book of Mormon”. Full disclosure, anti-mormons are critical of him. I have referenced his site one time here at catholic.com, you can imagine the feedback was negative. Rather than accepting what Lindsay says, follow up on his references (of which they are copious). I have not found them out of context. I particularly like his forward as it jives with mine, "In my opinion, many DNA-Book of Mormon controversies derive from misunderstanding what the Book of Mormon says. Part of this misunderstanding involves the issue of geography and scope of the Book of Mormon. As Book of Mormon students increasingly understand that the Book of Mormon actually describes a very limited geographical area in its accounts, and as they recognize that Mesoamerica (southern Mexico, Guatemala, and surrounding territory) offers the best candidate for the setting of the Book of Mormon, they also recognize that the DNA attacks on the Book of Mormon have limited impact when the text is properly understood. "
pbuy
 
wussup said:
As the scriptures say, he that has an ear to hear, let him hear. It is up to the reader of the work to determine the validity of the points.
Click to expand...
Wussup-

I’m not sure if you have ever been in Catholic church. The link below is from the Cathedral of the Madeleine, a short walk from the temple in SLC. The stained glass and artwork glorifies God. I have never been in a Mormon temple although I’ve heard your choir in person in SLC. Does the interior of the temple look and “feel” similar? The music is on the video is beautiful and magnifies the presence of God

m.youtube.com/watch?v=0RIc6mwDRaQ
 
I have. When in South Africa we used to have long discussions with a Father who oversaw the Catholic Church in Durban. A beautiful building. I loved going there. It was in fact amazingly peaceful. He leant me a copy of Paul Johnson’s, History of Christianity.
 
It’s my favorite Cathedral in the country I’ve seen so far.
 
My guess, the acoustics are great, even for the occasional cough and baby cry…the latter not good for recording.
 
wussup said:
My guess, the acoustics are great, even for the occasional cough and baby cry…the latter not good for recording.
Click to expand...
🤷 I’m there fairly often because it is my parish. There are many, free, public performances throughout the year.

Though, the YouTube that was put up has some really fantastic close ups of the glass art in the rose window that is more difficult to see from down below. The balcony is not accessible to the general public.
 
wussup said:
Hope for the infants? You are unable to say definitively the infant has salvation in Christs arms? You certainly see the conclusion of an incomplete understanding of the Plan of Salvation, but fail to rectify the failings through ‘hope’-ful rationalizations. The doctrine of infant baptism denies the saving power of Christ. Surely you see the irony here…through vagueries of accusation, my Church is accused of denying the saving grace of Christ…of asserting a doctrine of ‘saved by works’, yet in practice the rc denies the unborn infant entry into heaven. Sorry, the lay of a church should not wallow in the despair of hoping their dead baby will be offered salvation.

This is a false dilemma.
Click to expand...
Ah, so any dilemma you cannot explain is a false one. Interesting approach.
 
Porknpie said:
So what is the truth here? One is right, one is wrong or both are wrong. Rebecca is right, the church holds open the possibility that are all saved but through Christ and his Catholic church. American Indians, SDAs, Southern Baptists and even Mormons.

a) Native Americans are decendants of an ancient tribe per Joseph Smith

B) Native Americans are from Asia per the science of genetics.
Click to expand...
wussup said:
This is a false dilemma.
Click to expand...
A false dilemma would mean there are more possibilites that the two provided. What are the other possible explanation of the source of the native Americans?
And it would seem that any other possibilities would still mean the one provided by Joseph Smith is wrong.
 
RebeccaJ said:
🤷 I’m there fairly often because it is my parish. There are many, free, public performances throughout the year.

Though, the YouTube that was put up has some really fantastic close ups of the glass art in the rose window that is more difficult to see from down below. The balcony is not accessible to the general public.
Click to expand...
Rebecca -

You are so lucky. I love your church and visit it every time that I’m in SLC (on business). Last time I was there I inadvertently missed the evening mass but ended up doing Vespers with a deacon & one other parishoner. Beautiful architecture. I wonder how many Mormons could go inside the church, “feel, hear and pray that it is true” and receive a “yes” from God?
 
Porknpie said:
Rebecca -

You are so lucky. I love your church and visit it every time that I’m in SLC (on business). Last time I was there I inadvertently missed the evening mass but ended up doing Vespers with a deacon & one other parishoner. Beautiful architecture. I wonder how many Mormons could go inside the church, “feel, hear and pray that it is true” and receive a “yes” from God?
Click to expand...
We always have visitors. 🙂 On rare occasions our entire Mass is taken over by visiting guests.

I know a few converts from Mormonism who found their way home, beginning with a visit to a Catholic church. Sometimes it takes years, even decades.
 
Stephen168 said:
A false dilemma would mean there are more possibilites that the two provided. What are the other possible explanation of the source of the native Americans?
And it would seem that any other possibilities would still mean the one provided by Joseph Smith is wrong.
Click to expand...
Your understanding of a false dilemma is correct. The two options you gave were:

a) Native Americans are decendants of an ancient tribe per Joseph Smith

B) Native Americans are from Asia per the science of genetics.

‘B’ is certainly appears to be true, at least from maternal mitochondrial dna studies. The question is, is ‘a’ a valid question. No. It has not been the claims of the Church as doctrine that the American Indians were descendents of Israelites. The links I provided go into some depth as to why the question is not valid. Repeating it here would not only be plagiarizing, but boring. I recommend you read these and then study it on your own, even if it is to disprove the ideas. At least you will have a sound basis for disagreeing.

One point to consider. Given that the ‘first’ Western Europeans to colonize the America’s were Vikings, and given their propensity for pillaging, why do we not see at least isolated strands of Danish or Swedish mitochondrial DNA?
 
wussup said:
Your understanding of a false dilemma is correct. The two options you gave were:

a) Native Americans are decendants of an ancient tribe per Joseph Smith

B) Native Americans are from Asia per the science of genetics.

‘B’ is certainly appears to be true, at least from maternal mitochondrial dna studies. The question is, is ‘a’ a valid question. No. It has not been the claims of the Church as doctrine that the American Indians were descendents of Israelites. The links I provided go into some depth as to why the question is not valid. Repeating it here would not only be plagiarizing, but boring. I recommend you read these and then study it on your own, even if it is to disprove the ideas. At least you will have a sound basis for disagreeing.

One point to consider. Given that the ‘first’ Western Europeans to colonize the America’s were Vikings, and given their propensity for pillaging, why do we not see at least isolated strands of Danish or Swedish mitochondrial DNA?
Click to expand...
More whitewashing of past LDs teachings. It absolutely WAS taught that the American Indians came from the Book of Mormon people…who were from Isreal. In fact, I am over 25% Cherokee. When I was brought into the Church, I was told I was special as I was a descendant of the Book of Mormin peoples. Whitewashing the past will not work here.
 
wussup said:
Your understanding of a false dilemma is correct. The two options you gave were:

a) Native Americans are decendants of an ancient tribe per Joseph Smith

B) Native Americans are from Asia per the science of genetics.

‘B’ is certainly appears to be true, at least from maternal mitochondrial dna studies. The question is, is ‘a’ a valid question. No. It has not been the claims of the Church as doctrine that the American Indians were descendents of Israelites. The links I provided go into some depth as to why the question is not valid. Repeating it here would not only be plagiarizing, but boring. I recommend you read these and then study it on your own, even if it is to disprove the ideas. At least you will have a sound basis for disagreeing.

One point to consider. Given that the ‘first’ Western Europeans to colonize the America’s were Vikings, and given their propensity for pillaging, why do we not see at least isolated strands of Danish or Swedish mitochondrial DNA?
Click to expand...
Yes, Joseph Smith claimed without question that the Book of Mormon was a record of the indigenous people of the Americas. It is what every Mormon was taught until fairly recently.

Yes, the current teaching on this from the LDS church changed, as the evidence against Smith’s claim proved him to be a false prophet.

Which is correct? What Smith taught or what the LDS church teaches now? What a terrible dilemma! :bounce:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top