C
CarolNoel
Guest
Just showed the pictures to my husband without telling him where they are. Asked how would he like to stay in this place and he asked what hotel it was…
- Status
J
JamesCollins
Guest
Not really. In the temple the LDS covenant to devote all they have to the LDS Church for building up the kingdom of God which is the law of consecration. That includes devoting resources to help the poor. I would say it is very appropriate for the temple.
D
dianaiad
Guest
He may have been. His name was Hienrich Hoffman, and the original is in New York. He spent a great deal of time in Rome and other parts of Italy, being inspired by the art he saw there. He painted many scenes in the life of Christ.
J
JamesCollins
Guest
If you have asked him if he wants to stay in a place you would set him up to think it is a hotel. Many Protestant churches are just as plain as Mormon temples or regular Mormon churches for that matter. I don’t think it is our place to be critical of them. If you walk into a Mennonite church you aren’t going to see a bunch of icons on the wall. Mormon temples are well made, but remarkably simple structures.
S
Shinehah
Guest
Could you please make a distinction, maybe some examples, of ‘Christian art’ and ‘Mormon art’?
I am assuming here that when you say Christian art you are referring to biblical scenes, and Mormon art refers to stories from the Book of Mormon?
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
Christian art would include biblical scenes, yes, but also depictions of saints, angels, etc.
Mormon art would include BoM scenes, and depictions of Joseph Smith in various heroic poses, or translating the gold plates (either by looking at them or with his face in his hat), pioneers with handcarts and so forth.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Christian art=Christian art. Painted by Christian painters. Depicts what Christians believe.
Mormon art=Mormon art. Painted by Mormon painters. Depicts what Mormons believe.
When Mormons use Christian art, it is in a context outside of Christianity.
K
KendraM
Guest
PattyPryor,
I’ve done baptisms for the dead, initiatory, endowment, and marriage. As a child I sang:
I Love To See The Temple
- I love to see the temple.
I’m going there someday
To feel the Holy Spirit,
To listen and to pray.
For the temple is a house of God,
A place of love and beauty.
I’ll prepare myself while I am young;
This is my sacred duty. - I love to see the temple.
I’ll go inside someday.
I’ll cov’nant with my Father;
I’ll promise to obey.
For the temple is a holy place
Where we are sealed together.
As a child of God, I’ve learned this truth:
A fam’ly is forever.
I’ve been to the Basilica in DC. It was so beautiful and breathtaking. I was allowed to go and worship God in there and I’m not even Catholic. It went beyond my expectations. For Catholics, a family is forever whether you are “sealed” in a Mormon temple or not. That is a very comforting fact.
D
dianaiad
Guest
With all due respect, Rebecca, you don’t get to decide who is, and who is not, Christian. That is a word of classification of belief: a Christian is someone who…let’s see what the dictionary has to say here:
*Christian: one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ. *
That’s from Miriam Webster.
Now I realize that you don’t agree with this. You, and many others, define Christian as “one who is saved,” or “someone who believes the truth about Jesus,” assuming, of course, that you are the ones who believe the truth and anyone who disagrees with you is 'not a Christian."
I can’t tell you how many people have informed me that I’m not a Christian because of one thing or another: one because Mormons don’t baptize babies at birth, another because we don’t sprinkle, another because…well, the reasons are many and varied. I’m quite certain you have your own list, but they all come down to “you don’t believe what I do.”
You…(general ‘you’) may be equating ‘Christian’ with “Saved,” or "Christ’s.’ That is, you aren’t a Christian unless you are ‘saved,’ or you aren’t a Christian until you belong to Christ (He claims you.)
Here’s the problem with both approaches: if we use the first one, 'you aren’t a Christian because you don’t believe the same things I do," then nobody is a Christian. After all, I don’t believe what you do, which would make ME not-a-Christian, but then you don’t believe the same things I do, so that makes you not-a-Christian.
ooops.
…and yes, any list of 'Christians must believe in A, B and C" IS the 'you aren’t a Christian because you don’t believe the same things I do," since of course that list varies considerably according to the beliefs of the speaker and denier of Christian status.
If “Christian,” however, means ‘saved,’ or ‘belongs to Christ," then may I very humbly state that you don’t get a vote in that? Jesus Christ is the only One Who can say “Well done, thou good and faithful servant,” and there are a LOT of people; people who we might have considered, in life, to be His…who will be greeted with “I never knew you.” Maybe you will be greeted with those words. Perhaps I will. All any of us can do is what we believe, honestly, to be right, and have faith. I think we will all be rather shocked at who is, and who is not, His…and those of us who have decided that this person, or that one, is "not Christian,’ may well be given the 'with that judgment ye judged, ye shall be judged" speech.
So.
Mormons aren’t Christians, eh? Well, using the 'You aren’t a Christian because you don’t believe the truth (that is, you don’t believe what I do about Christ) about Christ," guess what? I could just as justifiably say that I’m the Christian and you aren’t. After all, I honestly do believe that I’m right about my beliefs in Jesus, and where we disagree, you are wrong. Which one of us, then, can claim 'true Christianhood?"
For me, the answer is simple: anybody who expresses belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and who claims to be a Christian, is a Christian. Doesn’t make him SAVED, (I don’t have a vote there and neither do you) or RIGHT, or GOOD, or anything that is associated with being someone we’d like to be identified with Christianity, but…
He’s a Christian.
I have a question for you. Why is it so important for you to exclude Mormons (and I rather imagine, other belief systems that claim to be Christian) from Christianity? What is the purpose for that?
I know why I am not willing to BE excluded, but…why are you so intent on the exclusion? It changes nothing about whether we are correct, or ‘true,’ or saved…so why?
Stephen168
New member
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
Hi Dianaiad,
Your response is well thought out and very well stated. In principle you are quite correct.
However, let me attempt to explain why Christians exclude Mormons (and JWs and SDAs) from the list of Christian churches, because you obviously do not grasp it. It is because you violate the two most basic tenets of both Judaism and Christianity:
1: There is only one God. He alone has a God nature. There has never been another God and there will never be another God.
Mormonism teaches that there are gods without number and that God the Father has another god above him and so on into regressed infinity. Don’t deny it - I have detailed files. LDS also teach that some LDS men will become gods like God the Father. Of course he will always be above them, but only because he started progressing before they did.
2: God is the only self-existent being - the one and only being who does not owe his existence or his current state of being to anyone or anything.
He was not created, nor born, nor promoted to godhood or any of the other heresies that Brighamite Mormonism teaches. He is not progressing, for He already possesses every good quality and power in its absolute fulness and perfection. He does not need anything to create universes - not pre-existing matter, not the consent of a council of gods, not anything. He simply speaks the Word and His will becomes reality.
You may say that you have a right to your opinion, and I agree that you do. But you cannot realistically expect to be included among those Judeo-Christians whose common core beliefs stated above have been established and unchanging for at least 5000 years. Untold numbers of people have died for these two tenets. So don’t expect Jews or Christians to shrug it off when you throw 5000 years of faith away and call it “apostate”.
Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Strange that I’ve never encountered a LDS who could grasp it.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
D
dianaiad
Guest
Says who?
There are a GREAT many people who believe that they are Christian who disagree with the right of the Catholic church to make that decision…and if those people don’t think that the Catholic Church is correct about Christian doctrine, why on earth should they give the Catholic Church the right to make that determination for them?
I have indeed been told that I am not a Christian, in part, because we don’t sprinkle newborns, but rather do immersion baptism when the child is older. there are other items on the list, but that one (depending on who’s telling me I’m not eligible for their club) is quite often on it.
A conversation I had (when I was in college, and I promise, it really happened) was between a Catholic and a Baptist who were arguing with EACH OTHER about which of them was the ‘true Christian,’ the Baptist insisting that the Catholic was not because he 'worshiped Mary and prayed to her over Christ," and the Catholic insisted that the Baptist wasn’t because the Baptists rejected infant baptism and who to pray to. They turned and asked me about it…and I told them that I believed in baptism by immersion when the child was older (which made the Catholic frown) and that it was a necessary ordinance (which made the Baptist frown). I also said that we prayed directly to the Father in the Name of Jesus Christ, which made 'em both frown…for entirely different reasons, of course. They asked me what church I belonged to, and when I told them, they both said ‘what do you know? YOU aren’t a Christian!’ …and off they went to finish their coffee together, in perfect camaraderie.
I haven’t seen any changes in people or attitudes since then.
Stephen168
New member
See post 90
I’ve only heard anti-Catholics use the word sprinkle, so your claim sounded to me like claiming that some one said you weren’t Christian because you weren’t a papist. Maybe they said pour and ‘sprinkle’ is just the way you remember it.
D
dianaiad
Guest
See post 91.
Perhaps. the point of contention was baptism by immersion when older vs. pouring/sprinkling water for newborns…or anybody else.
Is there a difference, really? I don’t see a negative connotation to ‘sprinkle,’ but then I don’t read anti-Catholic stuff, either. Same thing to me, either way; the real problem was infant baptism, not whether one poured water from a container or sprinkled water from a container.
If there is a real, doctrinal reason for ‘pouring’ rather than ‘sprinkling’ as a method of applying the baptismal water I would like to know what it is so that I can know when people are just being nasty when referring to ‘papists’ who 'sprinkle."
'cause I don’t see, from where I sit, a difference that would make one method less objectionable than another. For me, the whole idea of baptizing infants is incorrect, so I’m not going to get all excited about the method used.
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
That’s not true and you know it. There is no Christian church that exclusively sprinkles. In fact, I’ve seen hundreds of Catholic baptisms and have never witnessed sprinkling. They usually are poured (3 huge pitchers full - it is almost immersion
) Every Christian faith , including Catholicism, that pours and sprinkles also baptizes by immersion. Many Evangelical Protestant faiths baptize exclusively by immersion.Just yesterday at 10:30 mass there were seven children baptized. Five were baptized by pouring. The parents of the other two requested that their children be baptized by immersion. Father Jerome didn’t miss a beat. He held up each of those naked newborns and then dunked them in the font three times in The Name of The Father and The Son and The Holy Spirit.
Admittedly, most of our baptismal fonts are too small for any but a little baby to be immersed. But it shows you that no Christian would object to baptism by immersion.
The reason you are told you are not a Christian is because you violate the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity, as I pointed out in a previous post.
You really should stop embarrassing yourself with this constant claim of yours that people say you are not Christian because you do not sprinkle. Any Christian can see that such is a ridiculous falsehood that you invented.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Christian)
BTW, Diana, if you doubt the veracity of what I said above, you can contact the pastor of St. Vincent de Paul Catholic Church in Huntington Beach, CA. His name is Father Jerome Karcher. (714) 842-3000
Stephen168
New member
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
There is a situation where I can see that baptism by sprinkling would be appropriate. When someone converts on her deathbed and requests baptism, it would be quite impossible (and criminal) to remove her from her sickbed and immerse her in water.
Pouring in a hospital bed would also be impractical and dangerous.
In such a situation, the Lord, in His Mercy, allows baptism by any means possible. The Didache (AKA: The Teachings of the Apostles, as early as circa 56 AD or as late as 220 AD, though most are now agreeing on a relatively early date) is quite clear on the matter:
But He also wants everyone to be baptized, and so hinders no one with silly American rules made up by people who lived in New York where everyone has a major body of fresh water nearby.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Pouring in a hospital bed would also be impractical and dangerous.
In such a situation, the Lord, in His Mercy, allows baptism by any means possible. The Didache (AKA: The Teachings of the Apostles, as early as circa 56 AD or as late as 220 AD, though most are now agreeing on a relatively early date) is quite clear on the matter:
God is not an American and did not grow up in the suburbs. He understands that there are many places on earth with very little water and there will be people who want to be baptized but cannot be immersed due to infirmity or other reasons.
But He also wants everyone to be baptized, and so hinders no one with silly American rules made up by people who lived in New York where everyone has a major body of fresh water nearby.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
Stephen168
New member
When I read the Didache requiring running/living water, it would seem less correct to immerse in a pool of water that is not living/running compared to baptism in a river or by pouring or even sprinkling.
Just a personal thought
P
PaulDupre1
Guest
True, and an excellent observation. The idea of running (living) water was, I believe, precious to the early Christians as a connecting symbol of the Holy Spirit who “moved upon the waters” of creation (Gen 1:2).
We can learn much from those faithful who came before. I would so like to travel back in time to the 1st century, share a Eucharistic meal with the faithful and listen to them talk. If a time machine is ever invented, I will be first in line - equipped with my universal translator of course.
Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)
L
LivingWaters7
Guest
If you were told that by a Catholic, they were not going by what the Catholic Church actually teaches, and was merely offering their opinion (whether they realized that or not). The Catholic Church accepts as valid baptisms performed by various churches that practice immersion only baptism of those that can ask for it (i.e “credobaptism”). This would not be a reason as to why a church would not be considered “Christian”, since we accept [Christian] baptisms of those that do just that.
Again, if the above actually happened, it demonstrates a lack of understanding of actual Catholic teachings on the part of the Catholic. Firstly, the Catholic Church accepts Baptist baptisms as valid [Christian] baptisms, regardless of whether they agree with Catholicism on infant baptism or not. Further, we accept as Christians various churches that do not share our belief in the intercession of saints (whether on earth or in Heaven).
So, while there are obvious doctrinal differences between Baptists and Catholics, as well as various other churches, the Catholic Church accepts as valid Christian baptisms those performed by churches holding to belief and worship of the same God that we believe in. It has nothing to do with immersion vs other methods (noting that the Catholic Church performs immersion baptisms as well, including those that decide for themselves later in life to be baptized), or whether we agree that infants should be baptized or not. What unites us all is faith in God, who eternally exists in three distinct Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
- Status