Mormon straw men

[teancum79]

Decent dodge, but ineffective. Does this mean that 7-up might be allowed one day?

If wine was stated, then water allowed when wine was banned, it is a change in the doctrine. If it is not, please show me why.

Immersion baptism is still accepted and the norm. Sprinkling is not enough, the water must flow freely over the head, so a drop or two won’t work.

D&C27 1 Listen to the voice of Jesus Christ, your Lord, your God, and your Redeemer, whose word is quick and powerful.
2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

In theory 7-up could be used. The issue is the Authority to perform the ordinance and the intent of the receiver not the particular object being used as a symbol.

This revelation came 2-3 years before the Word of Wisdom (the whole not smoking drinking etc. thing)

 

[teancum79]

Do you know what the straw man fallacy is?

The misrepresenting of your opponents position to make it easier to attack.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

scriptures.lds.org/ has links to the various LDS scriptures.
Now again I’m not here to argue who is right I’m just wondering why the view that is being disagreed is being altered from what it is.

Here are links to a few articles published in the LDS church’s official magazine.

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=d2de3ff73058b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=cd2971ec9b17b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=eb13fd758096b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

The official magazine of the church of latter day saints. Could you clarify for us a bit – I know only a little bit about mormonism. Joseph smith III is considered the sole successor to Joseph smith Jr. So is this magazine speaking for him, or for the group of LDS who supposedly schisimed, or who?

I am also finding much of the discussion difficult to follow. In the Catholic church one is baptized prophet, priest, and king. The priesthood of all believers.
So that to the extent one is conformed to christ they may perform sacraments.
Eg: marriage, and baptism.

Because baptism is a plunging into the company of christ, just as being an israelite was being plunged into the company of Moses in the red sea – baptism is the introduction of a person to christ – there is no logical reason that this introduction could not be made by an enemy of christ, although I find it difficult to believe there will be many instances of this. So, I get the feeling that Mormons have a different idea of what baptism is, and especially what a sacrament is.

Could you give a definition of what makes a sacrament a sacrament – for us it is a sign instituted by Christ while he walked the earth which when done in the way he asked, brings into effect that which it is a sign of – particularly, the becoming united with his body and therefore being “part” of him. All 7 of the Catholic sacraments are to the same effect – being introduced to his company, reconciled, receiving more of his body and spirit in growth – and in a marital sense – becoming one in his body and showing forth the permanance of his marriage to one bride and bringing forth more of his body, the church.
Also there is being conformed to his ministry as Son – and therefore his memorial. In essence all 7 of the Catholic sacraments make christ present in us, his body, in various degrees and ways.

A blessing to us is not a sacrament, but only an outporing of the priesthood which all have. Those who have it in greater degree bless with more power.

That certain sacraments are restricted to those conformed more to christ, I would not dispute – but I don’t argue that the powers can’t exist in others who may not exercise them. Abbots are not bishops, but they CAN ordain priests when given permission from the pope.

Again, what is the nature of the supposed misrepresentation – is this a major misrepresentation which leads others to believe something entirely false or is it a partial misunderstanding. I read the opening posts, but I didn’t quite get what was being said – what exactly is the nature of the misrepresentation and why is it so bad?

 

[Stephen168]

The misrepresenting of your opponents position to make it easier to attack.

yes,
Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it. But that seems not to be the case with the article you linked to about the baptism for the dead.

 

[RobNY]

Decent dodge, but ineffective. Does this mean that 7-up might be allowed one day?

If wine was stated, then water allowed when wine was banned, it is a change in the doctrine. If it is not, please show me why.

Immersion baptism is still accepted and the norm. Sprinkling is not enough, the water must flow freely over the head, so a drop or two won’t work.

Raphinal,

I’m not quite sure this is a contradiction.

Suppose the original statement was,

“You must use wine for communion.”

Now, if a future revelation came which said,

“You may use water for communion,”

or,

“You must use water for communion.”

Then it wouldn’t be a contradiction. In this context commands (imperatives) cannot really be the stuff needed for contradictions. It can be true at one time that you ‘must’ do something, and at another that you ‘must’ do another thing. It would just mean that the discipline, to use a Catholic word, regarding it changed.

Now, if the original statement was,

“Only wine is a valid substance for use in communion.”

And then the next statement was either,

“Water is a valid substance for use in communion,”

or,

“Only water is a valid substance for use in communion.”

Then I could easily see how that could be a contradiction. But I’m not sure Mormons really delve into that sort of question very far, so I’d be reticent to try to contradict them on such a point.

The more interesting point to me would be whether or not Mormons think it is intrinsically immoral to drink wine. That would be a contradiction, if God ordered people to do something intrinsically immoral at some time. But it seems that they say it is just situationally immoral, perhaps.

So I think we ought to give the Mormons a break on this one. There’s plenty of other meaty issues to argue about, and I don’t really see the contradiction here. If you want to find a contradiction be careful to examine the precise form used in each command or statement.

-Rob

 

[ralphinal]

Raphinal,

I’m not quite sure this is a contradiction.

Suppose the original statement was,

“You must use wine for communion.”

Now, if a future revelation came which said,

“You may use water for communion,”

or,

“You must use water for communion.”

Then it wouldn’t be a contradiction. In this context commands (imperatives) cannot really be the stuff needed for contradictions. It can be true at one time that you ‘must’ do something, and at another that you ‘must’ do another thing. It would just mean that the discipline, to use a Catholic word, regarding it changed.

Now, if the original statement was,

“Only wine is a valid substance for use in communion.”

And then the next statement was either,

“Water is a valid substance for use in communion,”

or,

“Only water is a valid substance for use in communion.”

Then I could easily see how that could be a contradiction. But I’m not sure Mormons really delve into that sort of question very far, so I’d be reticent to try to contradict them on such a point.

The more interesting point to me would be whether or not Mormons think it is intrinsically immoral to drink wine. That would be a contradiction, if God ordered people to do something intrinsically immoral at some time. But it seems that they say it is just situationally immoral, perhaps.

So I think we ought to give the Mormons a break on this one. There’s plenty of other meaty issues to argue about, and I don’t really see the contradiction here. If you want to find a contradiction be careful to examine the precise form used in each command or statement.

-Rob

He clarified it. The change was made before wine was banned, meaning that it is a different situation.

 

[twopekinguys]

To us a sacrament (we call them ordinances, but they mean the same things) is not something that is “conferred” on somebody or something. We call any rite that requires the authority of the Priesthood to be performed a sacrament.

When you administer the sacrament of the Eucharist, the bread and wine that you bless or consacrate are inanimate objects, arn’t they?

zerinus

They become the body, soul and divinity of Jesus, therefore are no longer inanimate.

 

[zerinus]

They become the body, soul and divinity of Jesus, therefore are no longer inanimate.

Before they become whatever you think they have become, they were inanimate objects.

Even after they have become whatever you think they have become, whom are you “conferring” the sacrament on? On Jesus?

zerinus

 

[ibkc]

Before they become whatever you think they have become, they were inanimate objects.

Even after they have become whatever you think they have become, whom are you “conferring” the sacrament on? On Jesus?

The people receive the sacrament, zerinus.

 

[Stephen168]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3623479&postcount=690

 

[Huiou_Theou]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3623479&postcount=690

Why has a point about the mis-representation of Mormon belief become an attempt to bait Catholics into a discussion about the Eucharist and other vaguely related Catholic beliefs?

The eucharist is the body of Christ, it becomes his body and our body from an inanimate object – yes – but none the less, we are that body too. We, through his mother Mary, have found a union of human body with our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Abraham and Noah were justified by faith, but neither of them were in heaven in ANY of Jesus’ parables. The Israelites ate manna in the desert – but not even it allowed them into heaven itself. It is not possible for mere flesh to achieve heaven by mere faith in any inanimate object whatsoever – but only through becoming united in the flesh of christ which he took on when he became man.
Again, all sacraments in the Catholic church aim to the same end.

The sign brings forth what it signifies, the sacrifice of Christ which WE as Catholics are joined to means that because the son of God offers himself to the father, we too must offer ourselves to the father.

The sacrament is conferred on the people. You may disagree, but why here?

 

[zerinus]

The people receive the sacrament, zerinus.

People also live in dedicated homes, and die in dedicated graves.

zerinus

 

[ibkc]

People also live in dedicated homes, and die in dedicated graves.

Sure, OK.

I’ve been Googling and Googling and it seems no one mentions these extra sacraments. I even found a couple of sites that explicitly say that the LDS church only has two sacraments. But if you say that things like house blessings are sacraments in the LDS church, I believe you. It makes me think that the word ‘sacrament’ means something else to Mormons than it does to Catholics, though. We believe that the sacraments are ways that God confers His grace upon us. Since grace cannot be conferred on a house or other object (Jesus did not die for the sins of buildings, after all) it doesn’t make sense for us to view a house blessing as a sacrament.

 

[majick275]

zerinus is equating ordinance with sacrament. similar but there are significant differences.

 

[ibkc]

zerinus is equating ordinance with sacrament. similar but there are significant differences.

Ah, thanks! In that case, Googling for LDS ordinances (instead of sacraments) turns up numerous examples. Wikipedia lists everything zerinus mentioned. The dedications of buildings and graves comes under the heading of ‘Non-Saving Ordinances’. Interesting.

 

[Jerusha]

sac·ra·men·tal http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png // http://forums.catholic-questions.org/", “6”); interfaceflash.addParam(“loop”, “false”); interfaceflash.addParam(“quality”, “high”); interfaceflash.addParam(“menu”, “false”); interfaceflash.addParam(“salign”, “t”); interfaceflash.addParam(“FlashVars”, “soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FS00%2FS0013000.mp3”); interfaceflash.write(); // ]]> cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif Audio Help/ˌsækhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngrəˈmɛnhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngtl/Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciationsak-ruh-men-tl]Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
*–adjective *1.of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a sacrament, esp. the sacrament of the Eucharist. 2.powerfully binding: *a sacramental obligation. **–noun *3.Roman Catholic Church. an action, as the sign of the cross, a ceremony resembling a sacrament, or a sacred object, regarded as being instituted by the church rather than by Christ and serving as a means of receiving sanctifying grace.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/sacramental?r=14

I think he is confused. We have sacraments instituted by Christ, and sacramentals, of lesser value, instituted by the church. He is calling all of their rites and rituals sacraments, while in actuality some are sacramentals and others are ordinances.

 

[zerinus]

Sure, OK.

I’ve been Googling and Googling and it seems no one mentions these extra sacraments.

We haven’t created a formal list of them for publication, as far as I know, that may be the reason.

I even found a couple of sites that explicitly say that the LDS church only has two sacraments.

That is not true.

But if you say that things like house blessings are sacraments in the LDS church, I believe you.

Anything that requires priesthood authority to be performed, and cannot be performed in any other way, is a sacrament, no matter what its function is. When you “bless” a house or a grave in the Catholic Church, is it something that only a Catholic priest can perform? Does he exercise his priestly office to perform it? Can it be done by any righteous Catholic? If the priestly office is a requirement, then it is a sacrament, by our definition.

It makes me think that the word ‘sacrament’ means something else to Mormons than it does to Catholics, though.

Probably there are some differences of concept. First of all we don’t call them “sacraments”. We call them “ordinances of the gospel”. We also define them differently. Since Mormonism did not spring from traditional or historical Christianity (like Protestantism for example), but is a completely new dispensation of the gospel, it has developed its own theological terms and definitions that are not always completely transferable or convertible between the two systems.

We believe that the sacraments are ways that God confers His grace upon us.

If you can give me a clear definition of “grace,” I can tell you how close that comes to the LDS definition. To us any rite that requires the priesthood to be performed, and cannot be performed without that priestly authority, is an ordinance of the gospel. Through these ordinances special spiritual blessings flow to Church members that could not come in any other way. You can call that “grace” if you like. Baptism confers the remission of sins, and is the gateway for entrance into the kingdom of God. Confirmation confers the gift of the Holy Ghost, and the “baptism of fire and Holy Ghost”. When we dedicate a house, we dedicate it so that it becomes a sanctuary of the Holy Ghost for those who dwell in it, and be protected from the evils of the world. The blessings rebound on the people who dwell in it, not on the bricks and mortar! The same goes for all the other sacraments or ordinances of the gospel.

Since grace cannot be conferred on a house or other object (Jesus did not die for the sins of buildings, after all) it doesn’t make sense for us to view a house blessing as a sacrament.

See above.

zerinus

 

[ralphinal]

IN the Catholic understanding, a sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ of an inward change of Grace in the soul. The blessing of an inanimate object cannot be a sacrament under this understanding, as it has no soul to receive Grace. It my be good to do, even meritorious, but it is not a sacrament. Now, a priest is not required for all sacraments. A decon can perform a baptism and officiate at a wedding, and in extreme cases, a lay person can baptise, but by and large, one must be ordained. In fact, one sacrament is reserved for a Bishop, Holy Orders.

Now, if Mormons have an understanding of a ministerial preisthood, which they do, they can call things sacraments. It seems like the issue of the recipiant having a soul is not important, in which case I wonder what occurs in one

 

[majick275]

zerinus youth and inexperience are showing. let me clear some things up:

*We haven’t created a formal list of them for publication, as far as I know, that may be the reason.

• yes they have. the melchizadek priesthood manual usually has them in the back and the various leadership manuals go into detail on them.

Anything that requires priesthood authority to be performed, and cannot be performed in any other way, is a sacrament, no matter what its function is. When you “bless” a house or a grave in the Catholic Church, is it something that only a Catholic priest can perform? Does he exercise his priestly office to perform it? Can it be done by any righteous Catholic? If the priestly office is a requirement, then it is a sacrament, by our definition. incorrect. the requirement for priesthood authority does not equate to sacrament in the LDS church.(or even in the cathlic church regarding baptism) once again there are not only ordinances but “keys” involved at various levels. calling upon ministering angels for example requires aaronic priesthood authority but is NOT a sacrament. it’s tough to compare exactly because even the “obvious” ones like baptism and confirmation are not permanent in the catholic sense. a mormon can be rebaptized and reconfirmed multiple times if necessary.

*Probably there are some differences of concept. First of all we don’t call them “sacraments”. We call them “ordinances of the gospel”. We also define them differently. Since Mormonism did not spring from traditional or historical Christianity (like Protestantism for example), but is a completely new dispensation of the gospel, it has developed its own theological terms and definitions that are not always completely transferable or convertible between the two systems.

• minor detail… they are called priesthood ordinances. finally a mormon admits that they are NOT a restoration but a whole new religion.

finally, the concept of sacramental grace is foreign to mormons. having at their core a very “pentecostal” philosophy they are very much into constant “revelation” in their blessings and see most ordinances in a very charismatic light. an opportunity to have God tell you what’s in store for you as an individual.

 

[Stephen168]

I was doing a little research on some catholic beliefs and found your site. While I think its great to have a resource on catholic beliefs I must take exception to the misrepresenting of other faiths position.
In particular the information relating to baptisms for the dead presents a very inaccurate version of the LDS or “Mormon” view.
catholic.com/library/Mormonism_Baptism_for_the_Dead.asp

When asked

Is this part correct about Mormon teaching?

They believe people who have died can be baptized by proxy, thus allowing them the opportunity to become Mormons after their death. The idea behind baptism for the dead is this: God wants each of us to be with him in glory. To effect this, he allows us to accept the Mormon gospel here on earth. If we do not, he sends us to a “spirit prison” until the Mormon gospel has been preached to us there and we convert.

The OP said

More or less yes.

So the information relating to baptism of the dead presents an accurate version as far as defining the practice.

That many would be saved if they were not accountable and capable of committing sin is a teaching found in the Book of Mormon. As is the concept of being accountable for what light and knowledge we have.

This seems like part the argument not part of the position (definition).

I am sure that faithful Catholics would want their positions accurately represented even by those who disagree with them. Can you do the same for others?

Yes, we would want our position accurately represented just as I think CA has represented the Mormon position on baptism of the dead. The OP may not like the argument which seems to show that baptism for the dead is an unnecessary and unorthodox practice, but that doesn’t mean the position was a straw man.
Unless, I hear differently, I will take the CA description of Baptist of the dead as accurate.