Mormon temples compared to Catholic Basilicas and Cathedrals

[Stephen168]

See post 91.

Which would be pointless due to the fact it is not a response to post #90

I don’t see a negative connotation to ‘sprinkle,’ but then I don’t read anti-Catholic stuff, either.

There is no negative connotation to the word sprinkle. My point was that I’ve only seen anti-Catholics use the word sprinkle, which you used. For this reason and the one pointed out by Paul:

But it shows you that no Christian would object to baptism by immersion.

I don’t believe there is any truth to your story. You’ve just taken a Mormon anti-Catholic story and tried to make it anti-Mormon; which makes no sense to a Christian.

So, I agree with Paul when he said

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.

 

[iepuras]

Dianaiad, I find it amusing that you cite a dictionary for the definition of a Christian. Who says the authors of a dictionary have the authority to determine who is and isn’t a Christian? Dictionaries don’t get into theology so I don’t see them as a particularly useful source for issues that come down to theological differences.

When I was LDS, I never considered myself to be a Christian. It never bothered me that all my Evangelical Christian neighbors didn’t consider me to be a Christian. I had a very limited understanding of the differences between LDS beliefs of the godhead and Christian beliefs of the Trinity, but I still knew that there were major differences. The differences are big enough for even a Mormon with limited understanding of orthodox Christian theology to recognize that Mormonism and Christianity are not the same religion.

For decades, LDS prophets proudly proclaimed that Mormons were not Christian. Now, in the past 20 years or so, the LDS church has been backing away from that and wants to be seen as a mainstream Christian denomination. Why the change? If one does not believe in the Holy Trinity, what is wrong with not being called a Christian?

The confusion comes from Mormons using the same names for the gods in their godhead that Christians use for the Persons of the Holy Trinity. The nature of the LDS godhead and the Trinity are vastly different as Paul described so well in post #90.

Also, I can back up Paul’s statement that no Christian has an issue with baptism by immersion with my own anecdote. My husband was baptized by immersion as an infant. Nekkid as can be and dunked in the water three times in The Name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. Our two children were baptized as toddlers by pouring. If we are blessed with any more children, they will be baptized by immersion as infants.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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."

….] snip for post length

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?

Well, I believe what I believe because I’m a Catholic. You don’t get to decide what the Catholic Church teaches.

Mormonism is based on a Christian foundation, like a movie that is loosely based on a novel. Some areas of Mormonism are a little looser than others. Some areas have jumped the shark.

I have no doubt that individual LDS seek to follow Jesus, as their conscience and understanding dictates. I also have no doubt that Mormonism is a different religion from Christianity. Mormonism teaches of a different God, and so is not of the one faith, one baptism, one Lord of Christianity.

There’s no reason for you to be insulted by this. If/when a group worships a different God (or gods and goddesses), that group by self-definition puts itself in a different religious category.

You can call yourself what you like, but you don’t get to dictate what others believe.

The importance lies in maintaining truth. The maintaining of the Faith, handed on once. Syncreticism, pluralism and relativism are anathema to that objective. LDS complain that the Catholic Church has been unable to maintain the truth of Jesus Christ. You shouldn’t complain when Catholics follow the teachings of Catholicism in doing just that. Your view is relativistic. The Catholic Church has never taken a relativistic view of truth and never will. Truth is objective in Catholic thought. The objective is Jesus Christ, and the truth about Jesus Christ is not relative to what you believe. Any more than you can be relative about the shape of a square. So, complain all you like, it won’t make me or the Catholic Church relativistic.

I see you’ve changed your definition of what defines a Christian since we last discussed this topic. As I recall, you used to define a Christian as anyone who had a favorable view of Jesus Christ, and I asked if that included atheists who have that view.

So, your definition has changed, which is fine, as I don’t see you as the authority for defining what religions are Christian.

You are not excluded, you have an open and perpetual invitation to repent and be baptized. (I’m not trying to convert you, just expressing my view.) You are welcome at the well, so to speak, but you shouldn’t expect that I view a well that is a thousand miles away as the same well. You shouldn’t view your choice to drink from that far away well, as me, excluding you. It is the choice that you have made.

 

[LivingWaters7]

What I see from these sorts of discussions is that the word “Christian” is rendered meaningless. It doesn’t matter what you believe about Jesus Christ, or who you believe He is. You could believe that He’s an alien from the moon, but as long as you claim to believe in Him and claim to follow His teachings, and claim to be a Christian, then you are a Christian. That is the result of the logic I see expressed.

Not sure what any of this has to do with Mormon temples compared to Catholic basilicas and cathedrals, but it seems as if we get into these sorts of tangents whenever a certain someone participates in these threads…

 

[CarolNoel]

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.

My husband was not raised with any religion or faith. He would not know the inside of a church from a hotel. I did not set him up to suggest it was a hotel, and did not mention it was a m ormon place of worship even after he said it looked like a hotel. I am not being critical. My dearest long time friend is LDS and we never criticize each other’s faith. She also said the temples had a bit of a hotel look.

 

[dianaiad]

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:

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)

Thank you, Paul. I sincerely apologize if my use of “sprinkle” was a problem. I honestly didn’t know that there might be one. It makes sense, if one believes that one MUST be baptized before death, that pouring or sprinkling (if baptism by other than immersion is considered acceptable) would be fine. Believe me, I absolutely do not see a difference between the two. Really. However, if you guys do, I’ll be more careful.

But Paul, your diatribe regarding immersion aside, as you were once LDS, you know very well that we would never " remove her from her sickbed and immerse her in water. " We wait. If she wants to be baptized, then we either take care of it when she’s physically able to do so (and I’ve been to more than one baptism that has taken place in the hospital physical therapy pool with the permission and attendance of doctors who have given their ‘all clear’ for it) or, if she dies, we take care of it by proxy. She’s OK either way.

I think that your not so subtle accusation here is a little out of line, sir.

 

[dianaiad]

My husband was not raised with any religion or faith. He would not know the inside of a church from a hotel. I did not set him up to suggest it was a hotel, and did not mention it was a m ormon place of worship even after he said it looked like a hotel. I am not being critical. My dearest long time friend is LDS and we never criticize each other’s faith. She also said the temples had a bit of a hotel look.

Carol…and I"m not speaking here as a Mormon, but as a long time investigator and critic of polling and statistical research…When you showed your husband the pictures, did you really say “would you like to stay here?”

If so, it wasn’t setting him up to suggest it was a hotel. It was outright TELLING him it was a hotel. I’m sure you didn’t intend to do so, but that is what you did if those were the words you used. People don’t ‘stay’ in places of worship or in temples or chapels or cathedrals. The ‘stay’ in hotels.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

“Christ and the Rich Young Ruler” by Heinrich Hofmann

I believe Heinrich Hoffmann was Lutheran; he painted several murals in European Lutheran churches.

 

[dianaiad]

I believe Heinrich Hoffmann was Lutheran; he painted several murals in European Lutheran churches.

I couldn’t find information on what religion he subscribed to. I do know that he spent a great deal of time in Rome and the areas round about Rome, and was inspired by the religious art there.

 

[PaulDupre1]

But Paul, your diatribe regarding immersion aside, as you were once LDS, you know very well that we would never " remove her from her sickbed and immerse her in water. " We wait. If she wants to be baptized, then we either take care of it when she’s physically able to do so (and I’ve been to more than one baptism that has taken place in the hospital physical therapy pool with the permission and attendance of doctors who have given their ‘all clear’ for it) or, if she dies, we take care of it by proxy. She’s OK either way.

I think that your not so subtle accusation here is a little out of line, sir.

I never said nor implied that the LDS are in the habit of removing people from sickbeds. Don’t know where you imagined up that little bit of persecution. I was setting up a scenario where sprinkling would be necessary and discussing why it is. The post was not addressed to you anyway.

Sheesh.

 

[twopekinguys]

Well, The Emmy’s are over, so I guess we’ll have to wait for the Tony’s, Golden Globes, or Acadamy Awards to see who wins the “Best Drama” category.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you, Paul. I sincerely apologize if my use of “sprinkle” was a problem. I honestly didn’t know that there might be one. It makes sense, if one believes that one MUST be baptized before death, that pouring or sprinkling (if baptism by other than immersion is considered acceptable) would be fine. Believe me, I absolutely do not see a difference between the two. Really. However, if you guys do, I’ll be more careful.

But Paul, your diatribe regarding immersion aside, as you were once LDS, you know very well that we would never " remove her from her sickbed and immerse her in water. " We wait. If she wants to be baptized, then we either take care of it when she’s physically able to do so (and I’ve been to more than one baptism that has taken place in the hospital physical therapy pool with the permission and attendance of doctors who have given their ‘all clear’ for it) or, if she dies, we take care of it by proxy. She’s OK either way.

I think that your not so subtle accusation here is a little out of line, sir.

Aspersion
Pouring
Immersion

Are the three acceptable forms of baptism in Catholicism. Aspersion is not the same form as pouring.

Pouring is the most often used in the Latin rite. The Eastern rites more commonly use Immersion. Aspersion, what you are calling sprinkling, can be used but I’ve had no personal experience or heard instances where aspersion was used. (Doesn’t mean it isn’t used.)

Baptism is done using water that has been consecrated (blessed) for baptism.

 

[dianaiad]

Aspersion
Pouring
Immersion

Are the three acceptable forms of baptism in Catholicism. Aspersion is not the same form as pouring.

Pouring is the most often used in the Latin rite. The Eastern rites more commonly use Immersion. Aspersion, what you are calling sprinkling, can be used but I’ve had no personal experience or heard instances where aspersion was used. (Doesn’t mean it isn’t used.)

Baptism is done using water that has been consecrated (blessed) for baptism.

Thanks for the info. I’ll remember this in the future.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thanks for the info. I’ll remember this in the future.

You’re welcome.

 

[KjetilK]

I often wonder why temple access is denied if Mormons believe God is in there while we open the doors wide open to nonmembers in very holy places. Just seems odd to me.

Christianity is a public religion, with no ‘secret gnosis.’ Mormonism is a sect.

 

[dianaiad]

Christianity is a public religion, with no ‘secret gnosis.’ Mormonism is a sect.

Well, that’s better than being a ‘cult,’ I suppose.

According to Miriam Webster,

*sect
noun \ˈsekt\

: a religious group that is a smaller part of a larger group and whose members all share similar beliefs

: a religious or political group that is connected to a larger group but that has beliefs that differ greatly from those of the main group*

Now, I’ll go with definition 1, if we are referring to “Christianity” as a whole, and I might even agree to 2…if you are referring to Christianity as a whole.

Mind you, given our claimed membership in the 'Restorationist" classification of Christian thought, I would object to being seen as a ‘sect’ of Catholicism. I think that Catholics would object to that one, too.

But yeah, ‘sect’ works for me.

 

[dianaiad]

I was Mormon for a short time and only got my temple recommend. I never went. IN fact… I left the church after I got it. I didn’t want to baptize the dead. Long story. Anyway, I always felt like I missed something. They make temples seem sooo amazing and beautiful. I have seen pictures… there is a lot of white, but I don’t know if I see beauty beyond that. May be it is in the ceremonies performed?

I went into a Basilica on Prince Edward Island in Canada and was just taken away. The pictures could not describe how beautiful it was. All the artwork, statues, etc. So much detail. I went to Mass there.

I often wonder why temple access is denied if Mormons believe God is in there while we open the doors wide open to nonmembers in very holy places. Just seems odd to me.

What are your thoughts? Also, aren’t we really not in need of temples anymore?

Patty, the Catholic Church also has places to which the general membership is not allowed, specifically for the priesthood and priesthood functions. Just off the top of my head, I can think of, oh…the convocations of Cardinals who meet when a new Pope is decided?

The private chapels of monasteries and convents?

Yes, those places are accessible by the general public at other times…but then, so are LDS Temples.

So it’s not all that odd. Really.

 

[juliamajor]

All Mormon temples are open for public tours before they are officially commissioned for use. When one opens in your area, take a look!

Personally, the ones I’ve visited look more over-decorated hotel lobbies, especially the celestial rooms. Just my opinion. You can see photos here:

lds.org/church/temples/why-we-build-temples/inside-the-temple?lang=eng

Jeez they are creepy-Funerary as stated by some.

 

[Stephen168]

So it’s not all that odd. Really.

Yes, it really is that odd.

Up to 20,000 members of the general public pass through the Sistine Chapel per day, about 20,000 more than the number who pass through the Salt Lake Temple.

Millions of members of the general public visit St. Peters Basilica per year, millions more than the number who visit the Salt Lake Temple.

 

[juliamajor]

I wonder what the reaction would be of a sincere worshiper in St. Peters of having someone say that it looked like a 'fancy hotel lobby?"

I too have seen some very fancy hotel lobbies. The decoration isn’t the point, is it?

A hotel lobby is not a bad place at all, but it’s purpose is very different from that of a place of worship, and comparing a place of worship to a hotel lobby, no matter how lavish the lobby, is an insult to the place of worship, no matter how plain the place of worship.

Defending a snide remark by claiming that 'Hotel Lobbies" are beautifully decorated and so are appropriate comparisons is, in my opinion, is an attempt to back pedal that isn’t working. In fact, it’s just digging deeper.

You may as well have compared a temple to a Las Vegas casino. They are beautifully decorated, too, and the insult would only be slightly more obvious.

We Mormons do not believe all the same things about God, our Heavenly Father, that you do. But we believe in Him. We don’t believe all the same things about Jesus that you do, but we believe in Him and accept Him as our Savior and the Savior of the world. We live our lives the best we can, deal with our neighbors the best we can, and though we are also human, we come up against people of other faiths who are equally ‘human,’ that is, imperfect.

We are all, simply, human; being Mormon or Catholic doesn’t change our basic makeups.

…and we all hold to the symbols of our precious beliefs, and should, rightly, expect others to at least respect the fact that we do believe, if they don’t respect the beliefs themselves.

For one thing, if your goal is to make the other guy ‘see the light,’ taking pot shots at what HE holds precious is counter productive. NOTHING cements any idea like opposition to it, and that goes double for religious beliefs.

I watched one of my sons start yelling at his sister for being clumsy and unable to ‘get’ the rules of a game that he and some friends were playing. She yelled back. They were in quite a row there for about two minutes, until one of his friends chimed in with a “yeah, you stupid girl, what are you doing messing up our game?” My son decked him, and he and his sister went swimming.

(yes, said son got into trouble for hitting his friend, that’s not the point)

The POINT is that the friend would have gotten a lot further with both son and daughter if he had simply helped daughter figure out the rules. As soon as he started criticizing, the brother, even though HE had been yelling just a second ago, did something about it…and that ‘something’ was not abandoning his sister and joining the critical group.

Does anybody see the point, here?

What the Temple or church looks like is meaningless. I’ve seen Catholic churches that look like an operating room. You can look at a cathedral and say it’s ugly (the future Christ Cathedral fills that bill).So what! A church without the Real Presence is just an empty building. It is not the building that is important but He who resides there…