Mormon straw men

[Huiou_Theou]

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.

The mormon understanding, although I don’t know for sure which LDS group this represents yet…

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.

As an aside, yes any righteous Catholic can do a blessing – the blessing will be in proportion to their conformity to christ. The priests blessing being of more power than a layman’s blessing…

At the communion rail, it is common practice for a layperson who has received a blessing to be a eucharistic minister and themselves to offer a blessing to those not able to receive communion – even though the minister is not a ministerial priest.

Again, baptism makes all Catholics Priest, Prophet, and King – by conforming them a certain amount to Jesus Christ our lord, brother, and body.

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.

Thank you, that is interesting and helps some.

Probably there are some differences of concept. First of all we don’t call them “sacraments”. We call them “ordinances of the gospel”.

That makes sense since sacrament is a Latin word meaning oath, or perhaps covenental oath, which a blessing simply isn’t.

We also define them differently.

That helps to reduce the confusion.

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.

Private revelation is permitted in the Catholic Church, and often blessing appears to flow from these saintly people to the normal catholic. I am not quite sure why a pentecostal outlook is necessarily different than what is permitted in the Catholic Church, but perhaps you mean this in a specific way? Eg; are you speaking along the lines of St. Paul where he commands order among the prophets and speakers of tounges in church, or something else?

 

[majick275]

yes mormon revelation blurs the lines between private and public especially since even the canon is open. when they confirm or give blessings it isn’t like the catholic form where specific words are said and grace is bestowed. the person giving the confirmation or blessing pronounced what they believe to be divine revelation at that time specific to that person. even when anointing the sick the typical mormon will act as an oracle during the performance of the ordinance.

 

[zerinus]

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.

The old Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guides used to have them printed at the back; but the newer ones don’t. Also, they did not give a complete list. Some of the ordinances are temple ordinances that are not discused outside of the temple. The poster had requested a complete list of all LDS priesthood ordinances. To my knowledge such a complete list has not been published, at least no officially by the Church.

zerinus

 

[Eden]

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

That many would be saved if they where 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.

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?

Just to get back to the topic of the thread.

 

[zerinus]

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.

That is rubbish. There is no such thing as “calling upon ministering of angels”. The Aaronic Priesthood is said to “hold the keys to the ministering of angels” (D&C 13:1). That is not a “rite” of the priesthood. There is no “ritual” that the Aaronic priesthood performs for that purpose. What that means is that according to their faith, they are entitled to receive that ministration to asset them in their work. They don’t perform any “rite” to receive it—which is what a sacrament is.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

The old Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guides used to have them printed at the back; but the newer ones don’t. Also, they did not give a complete list. Some of the ordinances are temple ordinances that are not discused outside of the temple. The poster had requested a complete list of all LDS priesthood ordinances. To my knowledge such a complete list has not been published, at least no officially by the Church.

zerinus

temple ordinances are discussed outside the temple all the time. nothing wrong with that. the only things under covenant not to reveal are signs and tokens. the exact ordinance isn’t “discussed” but the listing does. it’s taught in temple prep classes it’s discussed in PEC. shoot you can read about in Boyd k packers book. let’s take care of this right now.

blessing of infants (requires melchizadec priesthood)
baptism
confirmation (requires melchizadec priesthood)
anointing the sick (requires melchizadec priesthood)
fathers blessing
priesthood blessing (requires melchizadec priesthood)
patriarchal blessing (requires patriarch)
conferring of aaronic priesthood
ordination to priesthood office (requires equal or higher office)
conferring melchizadec priesthood (requires melchisadec priesthood)
setting apart (requires melchisadec priesthood)
baptism/confirmation/priesthood conferring & ordination for the dead (temple ordinances)
dedication of graves, homes, chapels/buildings, temples
washing and anointing (temple ordinance)
endowment (temple ordinance)
sealing (temple ordinance, requires delegated authority of president of the church)
washing/anointing/endowment/sealing for the dead (temple ordinance)
second anointing (partially temple ordinance)
restoration of blessings (requires general authority)
plural sealing (temple ordinance, requires delegated authority of the president of the church)
(note: all temple ordinances require melchisadec priesthood and a current temple recommend)
preparation/blessing/passing of the sacrament
casting out unclean spirits

I think that pretty much covers it.

 

[majick275]

That is rubbish. There is no such thing as “calling upon ministering of angels”. The Aaronic Priesthood is said to “hold the keys to the ministering of angels” (D&C 13:1). That is not a “rite” of the priesthood. There is no “ritual” that the Aaronic priesthood performs for that purpose. What that means is that according to their faith, they are entitled to receive that ministration to asset them in their work. They don’t perform any “rite” to receive it—which is what a sacrament is.

zerinus

you make my point for me. it is something that requires priesthood but it isn’t an ordinance.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Zerinus,

I think it pretty obvious that the word “Sacrament” as understood by Catholics is not the same as what you are describing. I don’t want to accuse you of bait and switch, but what is the point of calling something a “sacrament” only to change the word to “ordinance” when this will obviously be confusing to any Catholic.
If mormonism has chosen to take an historical word out of context and change it’s menaning, could you at least explain why.

I am also having a hard time understanding what your purpose is on this thread – do you agree with the OP that the Catholic answer’s site has actually misrepresented moromon teaching for whichever LDS group you belong to ?
If so, is this misrepresentation a superficial one where CA accurately portrays mormonism BUT using words in the Catholic sense – or is there also a substantial disagreement where in both religious vocabularies the description would be extremely misleading, and if so – in what way.

I note that the OP has simply dropped out of the conversation, and I would like to clear up the basic point if possible.

 

[zerinus]

I think it pretty obvious that the word “Sacrament” as understood by Catholics is not the same as what you are describing. I don’t want to accuse you of bait and switch, but what is the point of calling something a “sacrament” only to change the word to “ordinance” when this will obviously be confusing to any Catholic.

I have tried to explain the distinction as much as possible. In general, they come close to be the same thing.

If mormonism has chosen to take an historical word out of context and change it’s menaning, could you at least explain why.

I did explain why. The LDS Church did not originate from historical Christianity, as Protestantism did for example. It is a new dispensation of the gospel. It has therefore developed its own theological terminology within its own historical context, not from traditional or historical Christianity.

I am also having a hard time understanding what your purpose is on this thread – do you agree with the OP that the Catholic answer’s site has actually misrepresented moromon teaching for whichever LDS group you belong to?

Yes, I do. I answered that it this post:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3645799&postcount=13

If so, is this misrepresentation a superficial one where CA accurately portrays mormonism BUT using words in the Catholic sense – or is there also a substantial disagreement where in both religious vocabularies the description would be extremely misleading, and if so – in what way.

It is neither. It is a misrepresentation in the ordinary sense of the term. CA should know better and I believe does; but has chosen to misrepresent.

zerinus

 

[Huiou_Theou]

I have tried to explain the distinction as much as possible. In general, they come close to be the same thing.

I am pretty sure they are not the same thing at all.

I did explain why. The LDS Church did not originate from historical Christianity, as Protestantism did for example. It is a new dispensation of the gospel. It has therefore developed its own theological terminology within its own historical context, not from traditional or historical Christianity.

Go a step further, what is it about the word which made the LDS church decide that “sacrament” was the appropriate term – words have meanings and etymological roots – “sacrament” coming from the Latin “Oath”, and being related to “Sacred” and the older word for priest “sacredos” (sp?) so what is it about the word which was appealing to change it’s meaning. Are you claiming that the early mormons were ignorant of its true meaning in their day, so they borrowed it – or what?

Yes, I do. I answered that it this post:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3645799&postcount=13

Yes, I read that and it is exactly why I am am confused by your responses.
Perhaps a bit better articulation might help.
To be a Christian is to follow a set of standards which christ offers, and which lead to salvation.
Now, I would expect by extension that being a mormon means following a set of standards set forth by another person who in some way represents Christ’s new will for salvation. This isn’t because of historical christianity, but because of the meaning of a label of a sect. Atheists follow in a belief that there is no God and so salvation is meaningless to them…

In the post, you appear to be offended that being a “Mormon” would be generally understood as the path to salvation – I don’t see what CA should have known that you seem to think is so patently obvious. It seems to be splitting hairs – but perhaps there is more?

Taking you at your word – baptism is a tenant of mormonism (setting aside christianinty) therefore one is baptized a mormon because that is the path of salvation. If one is not baptized “on earth” then they have committed an unforgivable sin in the next life – UNLESS – someone baptizes them by proxy (Have I misunderstood, or even if one does not become baptized according to the rules of Mormonism, can they be forgiven in the next life as you seem to say without it since their debt is being paid? which way is it?)

It is neither. It is a misrepresentation in the ordinary sense of the term. CA should know better and I believe does; but has chosen to misrepresent.

zerinus

Really. Well, I think you are misrepresenting something – not that you perhaps intend to. I am not even sure your particular complaint matches with that of the OP – but as they didn’t clarify, I’ll assume for now that you do.
What, exactly, is the substance of the misrepresentation – as I appear to have misunderstood you.

 

[Stephen168]

Not very! Here is the quote:

They believe people who have died can be baptized by proxy, thus allowing them the opportunity

The quote doesn’t say that baptism by proxy “makes them Mormons.” It says “thus allowing them the opportunity to become Mormons,” which seems to be what you are saying.

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.

After three paragraphs, I don’t see where you disagree with the quote. It seems to me you are explaining how the quote is true.
Ofcourse the OP already said the quote was correct.

I still don’t see the straw man

 

[Eliza10]

I still don’t see the straw man

…http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/strawman.jpg

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Just to be thourogh, since “mormon” is put in quotes in the OP, is “mormon” a perjorative? If so I am willing to say “LDS” wherever the word mormon is used, although I hear the word “mormon” so often, that I find it hard to believe that it is perjorative – there is a book of mormon isn’t there?

 

[Stephen168]

…http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/strawman.jpg

Well there he is

Might be the only one we’ll see in this thread

Thanks

 

[teancum79]

Zerinus,

I think it pretty obvious that the word “Sacrament” as understood by Catholics is not the same as what you are describing. I don’t want to accuse you of bait and switch, but what is the point of calling something a “sacrament” only to change the word to “ordinance” when this will obviously be confusing to any Catholic.
If mormonism has chosen to take an historical word out of context and change it’s menaning, could you at least explain why.

I am also having a hard time understanding what your purpose is on this thread – do you agree with the OP that the Catholic answer’s site has actually misrepresented moromon teaching for whichever LDS group you belong to ?
If so, is this misrepresentation a superficial one where CA accurately portrays mormonism BUT using words in the Catholic sense – or is there also a substantial disagreement where in both religious vocabularies the description would be extremely misleading, and if so – in what way.

I note that the OP has simply dropped out of the conversation, and I would like to clear up the basic point if possible.

My issue was in dealing with the accusation that the doctrine was changed (for what ever reason) and that it was a bad move. That is a very inaccurate misrepresentation of the LDS position.

 

[teancum79]

Just to be thourogh, since “mormon” is put in quotes in the OP, is “mormon” a perjorative? If so I am willing to say “LDS” wherever the word mormon is used, although I hear the word “mormon” so often, that I find it hard to believe that it is perjorative – there is a book of mormon isn’t there?

“Mormon” was a prophet historian from the tada book of Mormon. He did most of the work to compile the record so it was named after him.

It is often used as a derogatory term. I prefer LDS because it is a more official term and shorter than the church’s full name which is a mouth full.

Most LDS people are not bothered by the term Mormon, but “Mormon church" does tend to cause a problem because it excludes Christ and contrary to the opinions of many that’s important to us.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

My issue was in dealing with the accusation that the doctrine was changed (for what ever reason) and that it was a bad move. That is a very inaccurate misrepresentation of the LDS position.

I think I see what you are referring to. The first statement cited in the article is that:

n Alma 34:35-36 we read: “For behold, if ye have procrastinated 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.”

Which in and of itself only is talking about those who procrastinated which could reasonably be assumed to not apply to those who have not had the gospel preached to them at all. So it says nothing about those who did not needlessly put off baptism. Eg: Those not preached the Gospel.

It does speak of those who procrastinated to the day of death being “sealed” – which I would like to understand what that means, but clearly it appears to be a permanent situation since “this is the final state of the wicked”

The second verse is this:

n 2 Nephi 9:15: “And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.”

This paragraph indicates that at a time after all deaths the judgement happens.
The insomuch being ambiguous – does it refer to the reason that all must appear before the judgement seat, or a proportion of immortality – eg: are some people after death still mortal and not having to appear before judgement?

Clearly at this point those going to hell is irrevocable, although the righteous are not with certainty going to any single place.

So, although the author may have had something in mind it would appear reasonable that certain groups of people are not bound by either statement, and therefore the author might have failed to document the flat out contradiction.

Would you care to explain, then, whom baptism for the dead applies in the LDS scheme of things so that we may understand this better? I would think you have a case. In deference to my fellow Catholics, does anyone have an explanation that I have missed defending the article? (I do occasionally overlook things.)

 

[teancum79]

In short it works like this (as far as I under stand it I’m a fairly typical member nothing more).

Christs statements both in the Bible and Book of Mormon make baptism a requirement for all who have sinned to return to be with Him and his Father Heaven Kingdom of God whatever people call it. Christ sent the Apostles to preach the gospel and baptize people. IT is not very likely now and very imposable back in the early AD for everyone to hear about Christ and have a good understanding of his gospel and be baptized. (I don’t by unto the recite the prayer on the pamphlet and your good to go). Also we know that God is no respecter of persons (he treats everyone fairly and justly). If God where to forgive the sins of a man in Rome and invite him to heaven who accepted Christ, but send to hell a man in China who never had a chance to, but tried to live a good life and would accepte the gospel if he could he could not be just.
So Baptism for the dead provides a safety net if you will for all those who do not have an opportunity to learn about and accept Christ in this life.

Everyone will be judged based on their choices and what they knew. So the very faithful Hindu who loved his fellow man and tried to draw close to God, but never learned of Christ in this life will have the gospel preached to him after he dies. If he accepts the gospel then he can receive the same eternal reward as if he had accepted the gospel in this life.

It is not a 2nd chance system. Those who reject the gospel and I mean reject not just was a bit busy the one time someone came buy to teach them, but make a choice to not accept Christ will not have to deal with that choice in the life to come.

Anyhow baptisms for the dead take care of the requirement set up by the Lord for entrance into his kingdom. Like Christ suffering it is there for those who will accept, but no one is forced into heaven.

I’m not sure if that answered your question if not ask again and I’ll take a crack at it.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

You have pretty much answered the question.
Although I would still like to understand what “sealed” means in the LDS perception of things.

My own opinion with respect to the justice of God is this:
I can’t call God unjust even if he allows one man in, but not another –
His mercy can never be an injustice – Think of the parable of the owner of a vinyard wherein those hired late are payed the same as those hired early. The farmer quips to those hired earlier, and paid late, which is a seeming injustice: Sir I do you no injustice, is my money not mine to do with as I please?

Matth 20:1-10

So, if he chose to give it to one who deserved it not at all – that is no injustice either. The gift is his to give – and I wouldn’t open my mouth against him since I too am forgiven.

But water baptism is not required in the Catholic understanding of things:

Mark 16:16 says baptism in addition to belief guarantees being saved, but says nothing of the one who believes and is not baptized.

and especially Luke 12:50 which comes as a summary of the previous parable and which shows forth hope for those who did not know the master’s will at all as stated in Luke 12:48.

To see this more clearly:

John 1:31 makes the point that the baptism by John the baptist was to “show” what was going to happen when Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit, that God’s “spirit” would be poured out on all flesh – although John does not know everything that is to come, for he is surprised at Jesus being baptized with water!

Jesus himself entered into company with those baptized with water by being baptized himself – last.

That is how water baptism becomes a sacrament, the “sign” of the Holy Spirit being water – and Jesus promised that he who is believes and is baptized will be saved. He does not specify what baptism is required, but brings into existance at least two baptisms (John 3:22, Matthew 20:22, Mark 10:38, )
The water baptism being one of the ways Jesus baptizes – John 3:26 which even replaces John’s ministry John 3:30.

And because of the parable in Luke 12:48, Catholics have hope for those who are not responsible – but still fail the baptism of water and of martyrdom.

Though I need to reiterate – it isn’t hope based on justice, but on his mercy.

I have queried the staff apologists on the article, because I am forced to concede the point you have made, unless there is an explanation I have missed.
I too agree that each religion needs to be portrayed accurately in the dialog we have with each other.

If you would be so kind as to explain the meaning of sealing, that is the only loose end as far as I can see.

Peace be with you.

 

[zerinus]

I have queried the staff apologists on the article, because I am forced to concede the point you have made, unless there is an explanation I have missed.

I too agree that each religion needs to be portrayed accurately in the dialog we have with each other.

CA is full of such misrepresentations. If you wanted to query every one of them, you would be doing it for a very long time!

If you would be so kind as to explain the meaning of sealing, that is the only loose end as far as I can see.

I take it you are referring to this verse in the Book of Mormon:

For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth seal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked. (Alma 34:35.)

I will try. That requires going a little deep into theology. The word devil literally means “accuser”. Here is a quote from an Internet definition:

Devil

“Devil” comes from diabolus (diabolos – diaballein), the Greek word diabollos which means a slanderer, or accuser, and directly refers to the rebellion of the fallen angel and God’s judgment

“The accuser ho kategoros] of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night” (Apocalypse 12:10).

It thus answers to the Hebrew name Satan which signifies an adversary, or an accuser. Source​

Jesus plays exactly the opposite role, that of the advocate:

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous (1 John 2:1)

In the Day of Judgment, each will play their appropriate role before the judgment bar of God. Satan accuses us, while Jesus pleads on our behalf, or acts as our advocate. Satan points at me and says, “He has sinned! He has done this and that wrong, which I tempted him to do, therefore he is mine; he belongs to my kingdom!” Jesus does the opposite. Assuming I have believed, and exercised, faith, and repented, and kept the commandments; Jesus pleads on my behalf and says, “No he hasn’t! He has repented; and I have paid the price of his sins; therefore he is not guilty. He belongs to my kingdom!” Thus he frees us from the clutches of Satan. If on the other hand we have refused to believe, and repent, and exercise faith, in spite of being warned by authoritative ministers to do so, then we have no advocate for our sins. Jesus cannot plead before the throne of mercy on our behalf. Satan is there to accuse us; but we have no advocate to plead our cause. Therefore Satan wins, and we become his, or a part of his kingdom. So in Alma when it says that Satan will “seal you his,” that means that he has acquired the grip on us from which we cannot escape. He takes us to hell where he is, and we become a member of his infernal kingdom.

zerinus