Mormons 17 Points of True Church

[TexanKnight]

and this:

Mc Mullan: The church is run by its membership and they are ordained to the priesthood. The larger question of to what extent a priest/pastor should be supported by his ward/parish is unanswered. How easy is it for a priest to call his flock to repentance when he’s in their pay? I know this is more of a problem among the TV preachers and the Catholic vows of poverty have been pretty effective but it’s still an open question and so far as I can see, the priesthood in the primitive church supported themselves.

Yes. I agree. Anything can be abused. For example, a prophet telling people, “God told all of you to pay for and build me a house.” JS did that. Isn;t that compensation? Why are you not concerned with that?

The bottom line is, I have had Bishops too busy with their family and job to truly tend to the needs of their ward. I am glad our priests are Priest 24/7

 

[TexanKnight]

waiting…

 

[Robyn_p]

I was saying why I love the doctrine and enumerated many unique LDS beliefs and referred to the 17 points as a pretty good summary of where the Mormon and other churches differ doctrinally. To me it’s a list of issues that a seeker of truth could consider. Pondering points. Signs along the way to wonder about. Talking points. I have never considered them proofs. When it comes to doctrinal discussions I don’t know of any proofs.

I can respect that. If that’s all the 17 points were I don’t think we would be discussing them.

The problem is, the LDS church itself actually uses these seventeen points, not as a summary of where the Mormon church and other churches differ as you say, but as proofs of the true church. If each point started with the claim “the Mormon church, in contrast to other churches, baptizes the dead, has an unpaid clergy” etc…Then it would indeed be, as you say, simply pointing out differences. And like I said, that’s fine. I would have no problem with them if that were the case.

But instead each point says, “The true church must baptize the dead, have unpaid clergy” etc…Therefore the seventeen points aren’t just pointing out differences, they are making a truth claim. And if you make a truth claim, then there does in fact have to be proof, or at least an argument, to back it up or defend it. Especially when, as Living Waters said, these points can be shown to be either shared with other churches, based on false premises, or based on misunderstandings.

That’s the issue here. Do you see where we’re coming from now?

 

[TexanKnight]

I have never understood how a Mormon can make a claim about the 17 points, then be unable to defend them, and REMAIN LDS

 

[TexanKnight]

I think it speaks volumes about the veracity of the lds “church” when no Mormon can defend the 17 alleged points that the lds true…

 

[Sabacthani]

Tex: I have challenged many Mormons to show where in the verses that accompany each of the 17 points to show me in those verses where it says what the points say the verses say. Not a single Mormon has been able to do so.

Sabacthani: Well let’s see if I can do it as an ex mormon

1. Christ organized the Church (Ephesians 4:11-14)

Tex: Of course, Catholics believe this.

Sabacthani: Yes; Mormons agree with Catholics on many things.

1. The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23)

Tex: The verse does not say this: For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Sabacthani: In Hebrew custom, as well as in our own, the wife takes the name of the husband. Thus if the church is the bride of Christ as per Ephesians 5:23 then it should be called by his name. So you are mistaken; the verse does say that, if you think about it.

Tex: But, even assuming it does, Mormons must answer as to why their own church was called merely “The Church of the Latter-day Saints” from 1834-1838. Hard to explain why, if this was so important, why didn’t it apply back then?

Sabacthani: Supposing that what you just said is true (and I’ve never heard that) then I reckon that one of many mistakes that God eventually clarified for church leaders.

1. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:19-20)

Tex: Actually, the verse does not say it MUST. It says it HAS BEEN.

Sabacthani: Actually, the verses (plural) say:
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

1. "The true church must claim divine authority (Hebrews 4:4-10)

Tex: The Catholic Church claims authority…since 33 AD"

Sabacthani: True that the Catholic church claims to go back in an unbroken line to 33 AD. However, the Catholic church accepts the baptisms of many other Christian churches, even though the specific words of the baptism require authority: “having been commissioned of Jesus Christ.” This allowance seems inconsistent with a claim of priesthood authority. Unless you believe that “commissioned by” is not a reference to authority?

1. I’ve already shared my thoughts on the paid ministry on another thread, and was very impressed by Telstar’s thoughtful counterarguments.
2. Our word “baptize” is translated from the original Greek word “baptizo”, which means to immerse. “Baptizo” does not mean sprinkle or pour. It means to immerse. “Baptism by immersion” is a redundant term, just as to immerse someone by sprinkling is a contradiction in terms.
3. The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17)

Tex: The Bible shows, however, that at times the Holy Ghost (Spirit) was received of men without mention of hands being laid on them. (See Acts 4:31; 10:44; 11:15.). Again, the LDS Church says the Bible says it MUST occur like that. It never says that.

Sabacthani: Yes, Tex, the Holy Ghost may manifest itself without laying on of hands. But that doesn’t adress the argument that bestowing it through laying on of hands is a procedure that one would expect of Jesus’ church. Don’t confuse what God can do with what the church must do. But this isn’t even an issue that should divide us, since the Catholic Church also bestows the gift of the Holy Ghost through confirmation. Why in the world would a Catholic spend time making Evangelical Christian arguments that militate not only against the LDS church but against the Catholic Church as well?

9 Perhaps “must” is strongly stated, but given the gospels, healing does seem like a reasonable expectation for the true church, don’t you think?

1. The true church must teach that God and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals (John 17:11; 20:17)

Sabacthani: I don’t see why you have an issue with this, because even the Catholic Church describes “three persons.” Yes, the LDS Godhood theory is slightly different from the Catholic trinity, but the wording of #10 doesn’t distinguish LDS from Catholic.

1. how Jesus be the “express image” of a spirit?
2. The officers must be called by God (Hebrews 4:4; Exodus 28:1; 40:13-16)

Tex: A subjective point. All ministers and priests feel called of God.

Sabacthani: Fair enough.

1. The true church must claim revelation from God (Amos 3:7)

Tex: First, all cults claim revelation. All of them. That is why there is no revelation

Sabacthani: First, not all cults claim revelation. Second, you really think God would stop talking to his children just because of something that human cults were doing? Third, I thought the Catholic Church recognizes that God continues to provide private revelation. Fourth, I don’t think Catholicism uses the word “cult” as you’re using it here, i.e. a religious organization that the speaker seeks to demean.

1. The true church must be a missionary church (Matthew 28:19-20)
   Tex: Almost all Christian Churches have a missionary program. The Catholic Church has been using missionaries non stop . . .

Sabacthani: Yes it has, and good! LIke I said, Mormons and Catholics agree on many points.

 

[Sabacthani]

1. The true church must be a restored church (Acts 3:19-20)

Tex: Acts 3: 19-20 19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord. 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: … Ok…I give up…where does it say it MUST be a restored Church?

Sabacthani: " times of refreshing …he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you"
Mormons interpret this as a prophesy that the teachings of Christ would be preserved but that the authority would need to be restored. I have no interest in arguing the point with you; merely explaining what the LDS view is.

1. The true church must practice baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:16&29)
   Tex: Paul mentioning it as something that should not be done does say it MUST be done. The Mormons have built a doctrine over this ONE verse.
   Sabacthani: You are mistaken; there are the malichi verses that prophesy retoration of the work for the dead, and there other verses that mormons believe to be new revealed scripture.
2. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthews 7:20)

Tex: This one makes me laugh…because it is finally an accurate point.

Sabacthani: “Finally?” 1, 5, 8, 9, 12, and #14 all validate the Catholic church as well as the LDS church, and some of them you even recognized as true. How strange that you only consider #17 valid.

Tex {to Living Waters}: I think I said all of this…

Sabacthani: No, Tex, you didn’t. You argued against the point that a true church should give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

Tex: The Catholic Church does not need to produce a list of 17 points because it is the True Church. it is wannabe’s that feel the need to drum up stuff that they think makes it look good

Tex: long before the LDS developed their non-substantiated list, someone made one for the Catholic Church…

Sabacthani: Make up your mind.

campeador: t seems that soon after an LDS poster gets banned from CA another takes his place, like they’re keeping tabs over in SLC.

Sabacthani: I hope you aren’t serious. LDS church leadership has no more interest and control in what mormons say on this site than the Catholic leadership has in what you or Tex says.

Rebecca: “Mormonism “corrects” the apostate errors of the Bible”

Sabacthani: That’s a horrid misrepresentation of LDS views. Mormons don’t believe that the Bible contains “apostate errors.” The term Apostate error is a contradiction in terms because apostasy is an intentional struggle against the apostles for power, while error is just error. Mormons think the Bible may contain some errors in translation. Lots of Christians share that view. But the reason for the Book of Mormon wasn’t to correct errors in the Bible, but to clarify some “plain and precious” doctrines which the Bible didn’t make clear. And even Catholicism agrees that some things such as God’s substance aren’t clear; that was the reason for the Nicean Creed; to clarify and establish certain points not made

Charlesby: "How does Paul the apostle fit into apostolic succession? Isn’t it a fact that he was appointed an apostle directly by the Holy Spirit? The other apostles consented but I don’t believe that Catholicism takes proper account of the ‘Paul factor’. "

Apostle means literally one who is sent out. Luke was among those sent out but we don’t refer to him as an apostle since we typically use that term to refer to the 12. Scripture is unclear whether Paul was merely sent out to preach the gospel, (like Luke) or whether he was actually ordained as one of the twelve.

 

[LivingWaters7]

1. The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23)

Sabacthani: In Hebrew custom, as well as in our own, the wife takes the name of the husband. Thus if the church is the bride of Christ as per Ephesians 5:23 then it should be called by his name. So you are mistaken; the verse does say that, if you think about it.

Actually, Ephesians 5:23 does not say that. That is your interpretation (or an extrapolation) of the verse.

Sabacthani: Supposing that what you just said is true (and I’ve never heard that) then I reckon that one of many mistakes that God eventually clarified for church leaders.

Yes, it is known that for a time period, the LDS Church was known as The Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Kirtland Temple still has a sign on it that says “Built By The Church of the Latter Day Saints AD 1834”. So, if the true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ in its own name, then the LDS Church was not the true church during that time period (whether or not it was a mistake that God allowed then later clarified is not relevant to whether this Point is consistently being applied).

1. "The true church must claim divine authority (Hebrews 4:4-10)

Sabacthani: True that the Catholic church claims to go back in an unbroken line to 33 AD. However, the Catholic church accepts the baptisms of many other Christian churches, even though the specific words of the baptism require authority: “having been commissioned of Jesus Christ.” This allowance seems inconsistent with a claim of priesthood authority. Unless you believe that “commissioned by” is not a reference to authority?

Those specific words are used in the LDS ordinance of baptism, not any other. “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ” comes from the D&C, not the Bible, so I’m not sure how it is relevant to what Catholics do.

Yes, Catholicism accepts the baptisms of other orthodox Christian churches as valid, however Catholicism does not share the LDS view of the necessity of priesthood to perform a valid baptism (though the ordinary ministers of baptism are bishops, priests, and in the Latin rite (as opposed to the Eastern Catholic churches), deacons). Authority is most important in Catholicism in the sacraments of the Eucharist, Holy Orders, and Reconciliation. The authority of the priesthood comes from Jesus Christ from through those already having that authority, by the laying on of hands.

1. Our word “baptize” is translated from the original Greek word “baptizo”, which means to immerse. “Baptizo” does not mean sprinkle or pour. It means to immerse. “Baptism by immersion” is a redundant term, just as to immerse someone by sprinkling is a contradiction in terms.

The Catholic Church performs baptisms by both immersion and pouring (contrary to frequent statements that the mode of the sacrament was “changed”). I have always been amused by arguments against this addition in mode of baptism by LDS, who have changed the “mode” of the Endowment, including the Initiatory washing and anointing. Originally, this was done as a full bath in a small tub (I vaguely remember seeing a picture of a tub in the SL temple, IIRC). An evolution in the mode resulted in specific body parts being washed with water and anointed with oil by the temple worker. In 2005, the latest evolution in mode occurred where water and oil are applied to the head, and the body parts mentioned in the ordinance are symbolically washed and anointed (the rite specifically states that washing and anointing were done anciently, and are here being done symbolically). So, if it is problematic for a “change” in the mode of baptism, then it is also problematic for a change in the mode of the Initiatory. The argument then becomes one of authority, and naturally, the Catholic Church would claim that it has the authority from Jesus Christ to allow for pouring, in addition to immersion, as a valid method of baptism.

As far as “baptizo”, there are plenty of resources offering criticism of the immersion-only argument based on “baptizo”:

thechurchofchristiscatholic.com/2014/03/07/immersion-only-baptism-false-premise-2/
catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/sprinkling.htm
catholic.com/tracts/baptism-immersion-only

 

[TexanKnight]

Sabacthani: Well let’s see if I can do it as an ex mormon

1. Christ organized the Church (Ephesians 4:11-14)

Sabacthani: Yes; Mormons agree with Catholics on many things.

I am not surprised. Much of what Mormons stole came from Catholics.

1. The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23)

Sabacthani: In Hebrew custom, as well as in our own, the wife takes the name of the husband. Thus if the church is the bride of Christ as per Ephesians 5:23 then it should be called by his name. So you are mistaken; the verse does say that, if you think about it.

Yeah…but it doesn’t. And even if it did, and if it MUST, then why didn’t the LDS Church have His name the first two or three names the LDS Church had?

Sabacthani: Supposing that what you just said is true (and I’ve never heard that) then I reckon that one of many mistakes that God eventually clarified for church leaders.

Ah…so, despite the fact that God told JS EVERYTHING js needed to know God’s new Church, God simply forgot to tell JS and let it slide for awhile while telling JS so many other things…I get it

1. The true church must have a foundation of Apostles and Prophets (Ephesians 2:19-20)

Sabacthani: Actually, the verses (plural) say:
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Cool. Show me where it says they MUST be named the same and be exactly the same. While at it, show me where it says stake presidents…since we gotta be exactly the same

1. "The true church must claim divine authority (Hebrews 4:4-10)

Sabacthani: True that the Catholic church claims to go back in an unbroken line to 33 AD. However, the Catholic church accepts the baptisms of many other Christian churches, even though the specific words of the baptism require authority: “having been commissioned of Jesus Christ.” This allowance seems inconsistent with a claim of priesthood authority. Unless you believe that “commissioned by” is not a reference to authority?

Could you show me in the Bible where it says it MUST say Having been commissioned…"

1. I’ve already shared my thoughts on the paid ministry on another thread, and was very impressed by Telstar’s thoughtful counterarguments.

Good

1. Our word “baptize” is translated from the original Greek word “baptizo”, which means to immerse. “Baptizo” does not mean sprinkle or pour. It means to immerse. “Baptism by immersion” is a redundant term, just as to immerse someone by sprinkling is a contradiction in terms.

Wrong. the word means “immerse or wash” You need to be thorough. Also, there is no place where immersion is mandated.

1. The true church must bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands (Acts 8:14-17)

Sabacthani: Yes, Tex, the Holy Ghost may manifest itself without laying on of hands. But that doesn’t adress the argument that bestowing it through laying on of hands is a procedure that one would expect of Jesus’ church. Don’t confuse what God can do with what the church must do. But this isn’t even an issue that should divide us, since the Catholic Church also bestows the gift of the Holy Ghost through confirmation. Why in the world would a Catholic spend time making Evangelical Christian arguments that militate not only against the LDS church but against the Catholic Church as well?

9 Perhaps “must” is strongly stated, but given the gospels, healing does seem like a reasonable expectation for the true church, don’t you think?

Do not misrepresent what I say. I never said anything against the practice. My problem is that it is misleading to claim it MUST occur like that. That is simply false.

1. The true church must teach that God and Jesus are separate and distinct individuals (John 17:11; 20:17)

Sabacthani: I don’t see why you have an issue with this, because even the Catholic Church describes “three persons.” Yes, the LDS Godhood theory is slightly different from the Catholic trinity, but the wording of #10 doesn’t distinguish LDS from Catholic.

Please do not act like you do not understand. You know full well that this LDS point is to show that the truth of the Trinity is actually not true. The LDS point is fallacious

1. The officers must be called by God (Hebrews 4:4; Exodus 28:1; 40:13-16)

Sabacthani: Fair enough.

I am always fair

1. The true church must claim revelation from God (Amos 3:7)

Sabacthani: First, not all cults claim revelation. Second, you really think God would stop talking to his children just because of something that human cults were doing? Third, I thought the Catholic Church recognizes that God continues to provide private revelation. Fourth, I don’t think Catholicism uses the word “cult” as you’re using it here, i.e. a religious organization that the speaker seeks to demean.

I am saying that this verse is from OT, there is nothing in NT that says this and that yes, God knew…

1. The true church must be a missionary church (Matthew 28:19-20)
   Tex: Almost all Christian Churches have a missionary program. The Catholic Church has been using missionaries non stop . . .

Sabacthani: Yes it has, and good! LIke I said, Mormons and Catholics agree on many points.

No…we do not agree. LDS agrees with us. See, we have been doing this over 2000 years…LDS less than 200

 

[TexanKnight]

1. The true church must be a restored church (Acts 3:19-20)

Sabacthani: " times of refreshing …he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you"
Mormons interpret this as a prophesy that the teachings of Christ would be preserved but that the authority would need to be restored. I have no interest in arguing the point with you; merely explaining what the LDS view is.

Refresh and restore are two different things. In fact, refresh proves no restoration was needed…

1. The true church must practice baptism for the dead (1 Corinthians 15:16&29)
   Tex: Paul mentioning it as something that should not be done does say it MUST be done. The Mormons have built a doctrine over this ONE verse.
   Sabacthani: You are mistaken; there are the malichi verses that prophesy retoration of the work for the dead, and there other verses that mormons believe to be new revealed scripture.

Nope. In fact, there is none, as I have explained in more recent posts.

1. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” (Matthews 7:20)

Sabacthani: “Finally?” 1, 5, 8, 9, 12, and #14 all validate the Catholic church as well as the LDS church, and some of them you even recognized as true. How strange that you only consider #17 valid.

All I say is it is appropriate that y’all use this verse as it is all about false prophets

Sabacthani: No, Tex, you didn’t. You argued against the point that a true church should give the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands.

Yep

Sabacthani: Make up your mind.

Read better. I said I would not make or need one. Someone told me that a Doctor of the Church had done one. I posted it.

Nice try, though. At least you made the effort

 

[Sabacthani]

Actually, Ephesians 5:23 does not say that. That is your interpretation (or an extrapolation) of the verse.

It’s a pretty obvious extrapolation. In Hebrew culture, in our own culture, and in most of the world, the wife takes the husband’s name.

Yes, it is known that for a time period, the LDS Church was known as The Church of the Latter Day Saints. The Kirtland Temple still has a sign on it that says “Built By The Church of the Latter Day Saints AD 1834”. So, if the true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ in its own name, then the LDS Church was not the true church during that time period (whether or not it was a mistake that God allowed then later clarified is not relevant to whether this Point is consistently being applied).

Those specific words are used in the LDS ordinance of baptism, not any other. “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ” comes from the D&C, not the Bible, so I’m not sure how it is relevant to what Catholics do.

Are you claiming that Catholic baptisms don’t use the words “having been commissioned by Jesus Christ”?

Yes, Catholicism accepts the baptisms of other orthodox Christian churches as valid

With respect, Living Waters, that’s an understatement. Correct me if I’m wrong, but last I checked Protestantism was still identified by the Vatican as an heresy. And the Catholic church recognizes the baptisms of many Protestant churches that have never accepted the Pope’s authority.

The Catholic Church performs baptisms by both immersion and pouring (contrary to frequent statements that the mode of the sacrament was “changed”). I have always been amused by arguments against this addition in mode of baptism by LDS

Please note that was not my argument. My objection wasn’t that you changed the mode of baptism but that you change the meaning of the word baptism. Indeed, in Korean bibles, John the Baptist has been translated into “John the Sprinkler.”

The argument then becomes one of authority, and naturally, the Catholic Church would claim that it has the authority from Jesus Christ to allow for pouring, in addition to immersion, as a valid method of baptism.

Well-said and agreed. If the Catholic church had authority, then any change to the sacrament of baptism would be binding on earth in heaven. I didn’t write the 17 points. But I hope you will recognize that my agreement with this one excellent argument of yours does not in itself prove or concede any church true or false. Others here will doubtless crow victory.

The only rebuttal I have is that baptism is supposed to symbolize rebirth, and a few drops of water don’t really capture that symbolism. The temple washing and anointing was changeable while retaining that meaning. I just don’t get the meaning of rebirth from sprinkling.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

1. The true church must bear the name of Jesus Christ (Ephesians 5:23)

Sabacthani: In Hebrew custom, as well as in our own, the wife takes the name of the husband. Thus if the church is the bride of Christ as per Ephesians 5:23 then it should be called by his name. So you are mistaken; the verse does say that, if you think about it.

Do you have a reference for that?

So, for example, Mary changed her name to Joseph? And Elizabeth changed hers to Zechariah? And Bathsheba to David? (etc. etc.)
No, I don’t think so.

1. "The true church must claim divine authority (Hebrews 4:4-10)

Sabacthani: True that the Catholic church claims to go back in an unbroken line to 33 AD. However, the Catholic church accepts the baptisms of many other Christian churches, even though the specific words of the baptism require authority: “having been commissioned of Jesus Christ.” This allowance seems inconsistent with a claim of priesthood authority. Unless you believe that “commissioned by” is not a reference to authority?

This is a non-sequitor.

Your claim is that because the Church has divine authority, it must keep all authority solely to itself? It can’t delegate any part of it? That’s not how God works; that’s not how Jesus’ Body works.

1. Our word “baptize” is translated from the original Greek word “baptizo”, which means to immerse. “Baptizo” does not mean sprinkle or pour. It means to immerse. “Baptism by immersion” is a redundant term, just as to immerse someone by sprinkling is a contradiction in terms.

This is a great example, classical almost, of the etymological fallacy.

Fact is, in Jesus’ day, the word “baptizo” had a broader range of meaning.

Look at the Didache, for example, which says in part:
CHAPTER 7
Baptism

1 Concerning baptism, baptise thus: Having first rehearsed all these things, “baptise, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” in running water; 2 but if thou hast no running water, baptise in other water, and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. 3 But if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head “in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” 4 And before the baptism let the baptiser and him who is to be baptised fast, and any others who are able. And thou shalt bid him who is to be baptised to fast one or two days before.

You see, Catholicism has historical support which is NOT made-up.

 

[LivingWaters7]

It’s a pretty obvious extrapolation. In Hebrew culture, in our own culture, and in most of the world, the wife takes the husband’s name.

Obvious or not, the verse in question does not state that the true church must have “Jesus Christ” in its name.

Are you claiming that Catholic baptisms don’t use the words “having been commissioned by Jesus Christ”?

Yes. Why should Catholic (or any other church) baptisms use those words? Those words come from the Doctrine and Covenants, i.e. LDS scripture.

With respect, Living Waters, that’s an understatement. Correct me if I’m wrong, but last I checked Protestantism was still identified by the Vatican as an heresy. And the Catholic church recognizes the baptisms of many Protestant churches that have never accepted the Pope’s authority.

What exactly is an understatement? I repeated what you already stated, that Catholicism accepts the baptisms of other orthodox Christians as valid. As I already stated, while Catholicism teaches that the ordinary ministers of baptism are bishops, priests, and in the Latin rite, deacons, priesthood authority is not an absolute necessity for a valid baptism (as it is with other sacraments, such as Holy Orders, Eucharist, and Reconciliation), therefore whether they have never accepted the Pope’s authority is not relevant.

Please note that was not my argument. My objection wasn’t that you changed the mode of baptism but that you change the meaning of the word baptism. Indeed, in Korean bibles, John the Baptist has been translated into “John the Sprinkler.”

I have already showed how there has been no change. Please see the links previously given.

Well-said and agreed. If the Catholic church had authority, then any change to the sacrament of baptism would be binding on earth in heaven. I didn’t write the 17 points. But I hope you will recognize that my agreement with this one excellent argument of yours does not in itself prove or concede any church true or false. Others here will doubtless crow victory.

Ok.

The only rebuttal I have is that baptism is supposed to symbolize rebirth, and a few drops of water don’t really capture that symbolism. The temple washing and anointing was changeable while retaining that meaning. I just don’t get the meaning of rebirth from sprinkling.

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.

So what exactly is the issue? Is it an alleged “change” in the mode of baptism, a “change” in the meaning of a word, or an alleged loss of symbolism? When not done by immersion, it involves pouring of water three times. This washing clearly captures the reality that sins are being washed away. Does immersion more clearly capture the reality of death and rebirth? Sure, however that does not change the fact that the reality of the rebirth still occurs whether by pouring or immersion.

My argument on the temple Initiatory is against those that claim a problem with a supposed change in the mode or form of an ordinance/sacrament per se. Further, the symbolism of being cleansed from the blood and sins of the generation is loss in the 2005 symbolic version of the Initiatory.

*It is a well known fact that in ancient times ritual washing was performed with either sprinkling or immersion." (Rabbi James Shoffner, Rituals of Judaism, p. 212)

“Ritual washing, under the Mosaic Law, was frequently performed with either the immersion of the individual in water, or the sprinkling of said water…” (Tracy Fox, Ph.D., A History of the Jewish people, p. 345)

“The history of sprinkling and immersion, with regards to ritual washing, can be traced back to the days of ancient Israel…” (Creso Nejhad, Ph.D., A Dictionary of Judaism, p. 153)

“As most individuals who are knowledgeable in the area of Jewish history can inform you, ritual washing in Old Testament times could be, and was, performed by either sprinkling or immersion.” (Rabbi Eleazer Wein, Frequently Asked Questions About Judaism, p. 154) *
“I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleanness, and from all your idols I will cleanse you”* (Ezek 36:25)

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/general/sprinkling.htm

 

[FathersKnowBest]

Obvious or not, the verse in question does not state that the true church must have “Jesus Christ” in its name.

In Apostolic and post-apostolic times, the Church’s name was “the Way”, “Christian”, and “Catholic.”

You see, again, WE have actual REAL history to back up our beliefs.

 

[Sabacthani]

Those words come from the Doctrine and Covenants, i.e. LDS scripture.

Are you unaware of the fact that many other Christian sects used them for centuries before the D&C was written?

Obvious or not, the verse in question does not state that the true church must have “Jesus Christ” in its name.

You keep saying that. I’m not sure why you think it matters. Surely you aren’t claiming that we shouldn’t do things that are strongly implied by scripture but not actually said.

What exactly is an understatement?

Your suggestion that the Catholic church only accepts baptisms of “orthodox” churches.

So what exactly is the issue? Is it an alleged “change” in the mode of baptism, a “change” in the meaning of a word, or an alleged loss of symbolism?

The issue is the change in the word’s meaning and change in the meaning of the sacrament itself. Catholics use the term “Christening” as if the ceremony rather than belief in Christ’s atonement and resurrection made one Christian. The whole idea of baptism as rebirth into the communion of saints and their Savior has been, in my view, put under erasure.

The change in the mode of baptism isn’t important.

Thanks for the quotes. The Ezekiel verse is your best argument. I recognize that it’s possible that it just feels wrong to me because that’s what I’m used to. Like I said, if I was asked to write something like the 17 points, mode of baptism isn’t something one that I’d argue. I’d focus more on the Living Church issues, such as ability to receive public revelation and to issue new scripture.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Are you unaware of the fact that many other Christian sects used them for centuries before the D&C was written?

Please provide evidence for “many other Christian sects” using the words “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ” as part of the baptismal formula.

You keep saying that. I’m not sure why you think it matters. Surely you aren’t claiming that we shouldn’t do things that are strongly implied by scripture but not actually said.

It matters because the verse doesn’t say what is being claimed (that the true church must have “Jesus Christ” in its name), nor is it “strongly implied”. Further, as we have already seen, the LDS Church itself falls under condemnation of this Point, since it did not have “Jesus Christ” in its name for a time period, and following this logic, was not the true church during that period (this of course also ignores the issue of whether “Christ” is a name).

Your suggestion that the Catholic church only accepts baptisms of “orthodox” churches.

How is it an “understatement” when it is true? Perhaps you are misunderstanding. When I say “orthodox”, I am referring to Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox. “Orthodox”, with a capital “O”, refers to “the Orthodox Church”, while “orthodox”, with a lower case “o”, refers to historic, traditional Christianity collectively.

The issue is the change in the word’s meaning and change in the meaning of the sacrament itself. Catholics use the term “Christening” as if the ceremony rather than belief in Christ’s atonement and resurrection made one Christian. The whole idea of baptism as rebirth into the communion of saints and their Savior has been, in my view, put under erasure.

Oh dear. Not a single word in this is true. Your opinion here is not what the actual Catholic Church teaches. Firstly, the official word for the sacrament is “baptism”. This is the word used in official Catholic documents, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc. I have never heard the word “christening” used in a Catholic context (I have heard it used repeatedly in Protestant settings that don’t practice infant baptism, instead doing a blessing and/or naming ordinance), and even if it is used colloquially (which I have yet to see demonstrated), that is an irregularity.

There has been no change in the word’s meaning nor in the meaning of the sacrament (you haven’t demonstrated otherwise). We have already shown (perhaps it is time for you to read the links already given) that “baptizo” does not always refer to an immersion. Catholicism teaches that baptism is for the forgiveness of sins, that we are washed clean, and that we are reborn as Christians. Here is what the Catholic Church actually believes about baptism, so that we can put your fallacious understanding aside:

Catechism of the Catholic Church
*
977 Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism: "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved."521 Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that "we too might walk in newness of life."522

978 "When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them. . . . Yet the grace of Baptism delivers no one from all the weakness of nature. On the contrary, we must still combat the movements of concupiscence that never cease leading us into evil "523

1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as "a new creature."6

1215 This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."7

1216 "This bath is called enlightenment, because those who receive this [catechetical] instruction are enlightened in their understanding . . . ."8 Having received in Baptism the Word, “the true light that enlightens every man,” the person baptized has been “enlightened,” he becomes a “son of light,” indeed, he becomes “light” himself:9
Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift. . . .We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own; grace since it is given even to the guilty; Baptism because sin is buried in the water; anointing for it is priestly and royal as are those who are anointed; enlightenment because it radiates light; clothing since it veils our shame; bath because it washes; and seal as it is our guard and the sign of God's Lordship.10 *

 

[LivingWaters7]

*1227 According to the Apostle Paul, the believer enters through Baptism into communion with Christ’s death, is buried with him, and rises with him:

Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.29

The baptized have "put on Christ."30 Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31

1228 Hence Baptism is a bath of water in which the “imperishable seed” of the Word of God produces its life-giving effect.32 St. Augustine says of Baptism: "The word is brought to the material element, and it becomes a sacrament."33

1263 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin.66 In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God.

1265 Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature,"69 member of Christ and co-heir with him,70 and a temple of the Holy Spirit.71

1266 The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification:

• enabling them to believe in God, to hope in him, and to love him through the theological virtues;
• giving them the power to live and act under the prompting of the Holy Spirit through the gifts of the Holy Spirit;
• allowing them to grow in goodness through the moral virtues.
  Thus the whole organism of the Christian’s supernatural life has its roots in Baptism.

1267 Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore . . . we are members one of another."72 Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."73

1268 The baptized have become “living stones” to be "built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood."74 By Baptism they share in the priesthood of Christ, in his prophetic and royal mission. They are "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s own people, that [they] may declare the wonderful deeds of him who called [them] out of darkness into his marvelous light."75 Baptism gives a share in the common priesthood of all believers.

1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders,77 holding them in respect and affection.78 Just as Baptism is the source of responsibilities and duties, the baptized person also enjoys rights within the Church: to receive the sacraments, to be nourished with the Word of God and to be sustained by the other spiritual helps of the Church.79

1270 “Reborn as sons of God, [the baptized] must profess before men the faith they have received from God through the Church” and participate in the apostolic and missionary activity of the People of God.80 *

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’d focus more on the Living Church issues, such as ability to receive public revelation and to issue new scripture.

Could you expand?

 

[zaffiroborant]

Are you unaware of the fact that many other Christian sects used them for centuries before the D&C was written?

I can’t find anything other than D&C for “having been commissioned by Jesus Christ”
Please provide a reference, thanks.

The issue is the change in the word’s meaning and change in the meaning of the sacrament itself. Catholics use the term “Christening” as if the ceremony rather than belief in Christ’s atonement and resurrection made one Christian. The whole idea of baptism as rebirth into the communion of saints and their Savior has been, in my view, put under erasure.

Might just be my family but, my dad would never use the term Christening in his opinion “ships are christened, people are baptized” he had a number of words he was adamant were not interchangeable, ship and boat, motor and engine, gender and sex.

On baptism though Catholics don’t see either the ceremony or the belief making one into a Christian, God does that, we are just privileged to come together as a family/community and participate in God’s work.

 

[FathersKnowBest]

It matters because the verse doesn’t say what is being claimed (that the true church must have “Jesus Christ” in its name), nor is it “strongly implied”. Further, as we have already seen, the LDS Church itself falls under condemnation of this Point, since it did not have “Jesus Christ” in its name for a time period, and following this logic, was not the true church during that period (this of course also ignores the issue of whether “Christ” is a name).

As would the Church as described in the Acts of the Apostles, since it was called “the Way”.

Curious, that according to Mormons, they think that the Church was invalid even at that time.