Mormons to build temple in Rome

[mfbukowski]

Unless I’m totally mistaken, Mormons don’t recognize Catholic Baptisms either. Why do you believe a double standard should apply?

I really don’t care, except that Catholics accept any other creedal christian baptism. If the church subscribes to the Nicene creed, it’s baptism is valid to the Catholics as far as I know. But I am sure you are better versed in that than I am.

Subscribing to the Nicene Creed is usually what defines being a “christian” to Catholics and Protestants, ironic since of course that didn’t happen until late in the 4th century

 

[mfbukowski]

That is because people are learning more and more about what Mormonism really is (thanks largely to the internet). Mormonism is evil, and as people learn about it and discourse with Mormons like you they naturally become more anti-Mormon.

Thanks. I like you too.

 

[mfbukowski]

I find it interesting that any time one speaks about the truths of Mormonism (LDS faith), it is considered anti-Mormon hate mongering bigotry. This has nothing to do with any of that. I think most of us have LDS family and friends that we love. This is about truth and our Heavenly Fathers will for His family. It is about keeping Catholics in the faith, and a platform for others who yearn for the truth. Please read Catholic Answers: Problems with the Book of Mormon.

All I know is that since I have been on these forums, I have become more and more anti-catholic and I don’t like it.

So if you are not anti-mormon, I guess you are pro-Mormon?

I don’t know why you are concerned about being labeled “anti-mormon”. Why does that bother you?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I really don’t care, except that Catholics accept any other creedal christian baptism. If the church subscribes to the Nicene creed, it’s baptism is valid to the Catholics as far as I know. But I am sure you are better versed in that than I am.

Subscribing to the Nicene Creed is usually what defines being a “christian” to Catholics and Protestants, ironic since of course that didn’t happen until late in the 4th century

No, believing in the nature of God as He has revealed is the requirement. Also, the intent must be the same. And water must be used.

Teaching a false god puts the ixnay on a Mormon baptism.

 

[mfbukowski]

Your statement here is typical of how most LDS see the world from their point of view. The “Gentiles,” as they like to call anyone outside of Mormonism, are the ones who are “anti,” whereas the Mormons are not. Need I remind you that the Mormon church does not recognize any baptism of any faith outside of their own as legitimate? Mormon’s are not in any position to criticize the Catholic rejection of Mormon baptism. I’ll bet you’ve never thought of it that way. That’s because of the bias you’ve been trained to have all of your Mormon life in seeing the world as us versus them. You’re probably not even aware of it, but most Mormons see people in one of two ways: members and non-members. How those people are treated, trusted, and related to depend on which category they fall within. You see us as being anti-Mormon for not accepting Mormon baptism, yet your church does not accept any baptism other than its own. But in your church’s case, that’s not being anti-Catholic, or anti-Baptist, or anti-whatever, is it? There is one standard for you, and another for us, and your judgements depend on the application of those double-standards. So when Mormons criticize the Catholic Church for not accepting Mormon baptism, they should first recognize that they’ve done the same thing to all other religions since the beginning of the LDS church, and then get over it.

Not so.
And what you don’t realize is 1- that I am a convert ex-catholic and 2- at least half my ward is also convert ex-catholics, who were not raised in the Mormon church. Ex- catholics make great Mormons, and we have many many.

 

[mfbukowski]

And I’ll add, the Mormon willingness, almost eagerness, to throw Bruce R under the bus, speaks volumes. Hardly how you would think one treats someone believed to be an apostle.

On second thought, I’ve seen a few Mormons throw St. Paul under the bus. I guess this is “normal” for y’all.

Nah, Bruce R was great. I got to hear him speak once in person. He was very conservative, that’s all and was still a great great apostle. We are all human, and we don’t believe in infallibility as you do. If it’s not canonized scripture, it’s not canonized scripture

 

[mfbukowski]

This is not true. Over on the mormonapologetic site, Bruce McConkie is spoken of very highly. And although his Mormon Doctrine has been criticized (Especially by me), he is still regarded as a good man and as a man of god.

But we all make mistakes and Mormon Doctrine (first edition) is a mistake.

And as far as Paul is concerned, I would claim that Mormons are very Pauline in their understanding of christian life.

Very perceptive. I totally agree. Even if you are half catholic!

 

[mfbukowski]

I think that it would come down to each individual case. Hopefully, bishops would see the human side to it all. People are always in a flux of change. Sometimes it is best to wait and see what happens when people leave the lds church and join another church. Excommunication is a big step in the process. There are many small steps that need to be considered first. And hopefully, bishops would recognize this.

They would, but you are in denial. They would have to violate church policies to allow someone who was baptized into another church to remain a member. Trust me I know-

Should the person have a change of heart after leaving, they could be re-baptized into the LDS church.

Even several of you could be, but it would probably take several dunkings to get you guys clean.

 

[Chris-WA]

Not so.
And what you don’t realize is 1- that I am a convert ex-catholic and 2- at least half my ward is also convert ex-catholics, who were not raised in the Mormon church. Ex- catholics make great Mormons, and we have many many.

That may be your experience based on where you live, but I have also had considerable experience with LDS over the last 18 years and of those that are cradle LDS, this has been my experience. Most of them see people in one of two ways: member or non-member, and structure their relationships accordingly. Obviously adult onverts are going to have a bigger picture simply by virtue that they saw the world before becoming part of the LDS world. It is also my experience that Catholics who become Mormon have a very poor basic knowledge of Catholicism. For the most part, they were Catholic by baptism only. The opposite is true with Mormons. They read their way out of Mormonism into Catholicism, or other religions, not because they were luke-warm Mormons, but because their eyes were opened to what Mormonism really is: a false religion based on a fictional book about fictional people and led by false prophets.

I noticed you did not comment about my double-standard argument. That says a lot.

 

[mfbukowski]

I noticed you did not comment about my double-standard argument. That says a lot.

I did. Most of my post was about that. We recognize no other baptisms because we believe that no one else has authority to baptize… You guys pick and choose. I don’t care if you define it as a “double standard” or not. We are the only ones with a valid priesthood. Now does that say a lot?

You are the ones who pick and choose, but we are totally consistent.

We don’t even think baptism is necessary until age 8 or so. You believe in infant baptism because of original sin. You better believe anyone can baptize, or you will have a lot of babies in Limbo or whatever you believe now.

Ah yes, invincvible ignorance. That has replaced limbo.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I did. Most of my post was about that. We recognize no other baptisms because we believe that no one else has authority to baptize… You guys pick and choose. I don’t care if you define it as a “double standard” or not. We are the only ones with a valid priesthood. Now does that say a lot?

You are the ones who pick and choose, but we are totally consistent.

We don’t even think baptism is necessary until age 8 or so. You believe in infant baptism because of original sin. You better believe anyone can baptize, or you will have a lot of babies in Limbo or whatever you believe now.

Ah yes, invincvible ignorance. That has replaced limbo.

Your charitability is almost as overwhelming as your twisting of Catholic explanations that have been provided to you in other discussions.

Are Mormon baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ONE God? There has to be major doctrinal differences for the Church to refuse to accept Mormon baptisms.

I have provided questions about your Church having the “only” valid priesthood. Only descendants of Aaron were allowed to be ordained as priests in the Old Testament. How come Lehi was granted this difference, being he and his sons were descendants of Joseph? Why would the “lost tribe of Israel” build a temple in the new civilization when it was Jewish law that temples can only be built upon Mount Moriah?

The other issues lies in the great apostasy you claim happened. You have offered no proof of a great apostasy, what-so-ever. You even claim St. John was translated which would mean Christ broke his promise to be with His Church until the consummation of the world since through translation St. John did not die. Don’t Mormons claim the apostasy took place after the “death” of the last apostle?

Maybe your assertion was no more than the ad hominem jab you have continously displayed on these forums while NOT promoting Moromism as you claim?

Your distortion of invincible ignorance is getting old. Invincible ignorance pertains to people who have not received knowledge of the one true Church Christ started and promised to be with until the consummation of the world, as I understand it. It is our hope it covers everyone but everyone cannot rely upon their own ignorance as a way to salvation. Once again, I have provided a link to the explanation to invincible ignorance, please read it and quit making it out to be something it’s not.

I also notice you still promote yourself as a Catholic convert to Mormonism. How old were you at the time of your conversion? Seems I remember you telling us in another thread you were extremely young when you were Catholic.

 

[mfbukowski]

Your charitability is almost as overwhelming as your twisting of Catholic explanations that have been provided to you in other discussions.

Are Mormon baptisms done in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, ONE God? There has to be major doctrinal differences for the Church to refuse to accept Mormon baptisms.

I have provided questions about your Church having the “only” valid priesthood. Only descendants of Aaron were allowed to be ordained as priests in the Old Testament. How come Lehi was granted this difference, being he and his sons were descendants of Joseph? Why would the “lost tribe of Israel” build a temple in the new civilization when it was Jewish law that temples can only be built upon Mount Moriah?

The other issues lies in the great apostasy you claim happened. You have offered no proof of a great apostasy, what-so-ever. You even claim St. John was translated which would mean Christ broke his promise to be with His Church until the consummation of the world since through translation St. John did not die. Don’t Mormons claim the apostasy took place after the “death” of the last apostle?

Your distortion of invincible ignorance is getting old. Invincible ignorance pertains to people who have not received knowledge of the one true Church Christ started and promised to be with until the consummation of the world, as I understand it. It is our hope it covers everyone but everyone cannot rely upon their own ignorance as a way to salvation. Once again, I have provided a link to the explanation to invincible ignorance, please read it and quit making it out to be something it’s not.

I also notice you still promote yourself as a Catholic convert to Mormonism. How old were you at the time of your conversion? Seems I remember you telling us in another thread you were extremely young when you were Catholic.

For the others on this thread, I feel that I must explain that the two of us have a lot of “bad blood” that goes back a long way.

I was very young indeed. I joined the Mormon church at the age of 31, but I don’t see how that is relevant to anything.

It is not true that the “only” priesthood in the OT is the levitical priesthood. Read up on Melchizadek in the book of Genesis. You really need to read your bible occasionally. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizadek, and honored Melchizadek’s priesthood. It even appears that they conducted a sacrament service in “remembrance” of the prophesied savior who was yet to come.

Holders of that priesthood are holders of the very priesthood of Jesus himself, and would have known well about the prophesied savior. It is the greater priesthood, whereas the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood is the lesser. Remember when Moses threw down the tablets, and went back up the mountain? He received the lesser law at that time because the people were not ready for the greater

It was only necessary to have the Levitical priesthood where there were Levites. Since God loves others and grants the priesthood to members of “other folds”, he grants them the priesthood as well. All prophets including Lehi had the Melchizadek priesthood even in old testament times. We know for example that Elijah had the sealing power, which is found only in the Melchizadek priesthood, since he is the one who came back to restore the sealing power to Joseph Smith.

The Nephites lived the law of Moses as nearly as they could, not being in Jerusalem and not being Levites.

I cited invincible ignorance because you no longer believe in limbo, and have no other explanation for why babies who are not baptised do not go to hell. If you want to believe they do, be my guest.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For the others on this thread, I feel that I must explain that the two of us have a lot of “bad blood” that goes back a long way.

Bad blood? Just because you called me satan on another thread? I forgave that long ago.

I was very young indeed. I joined the Mormon church at the age of 31, but I don’t see how that is relevant to anything.

How old were you when you were an “active” Catholic? It has alot to do with it since you make some of the claims you do in this thread alone.

It is not true that the “only” priesthood in the OT is the levitical priesthood. Read up on Melchizadek in the book of Genesis. You really need to read your bible occasionally. Abraham paid tithes to Melchizadek, and honored Melchizadek’s priesthood. It even appears that they conducted a sacrament service in “remembrance” of the prophesied savior who was yet to come.

Holders of that priesthood are holders of the very priesthood of Jesus himself, and would have known well about the prophesied savior. It is the greater priesthood, whereas the Levitical or Aaronic priesthood is the lesser. Remember when Moses threw down the tablets, and went back up the mountain? He received the lesser law at that time because the people were not ready for the greater

It was only necessary to have the Levitical priesthood where there were Levites. Since God loves others and grants the priesthood to members of “other folds”, he grants them the priesthood as well. All prophets including Lehi had the Melchizadek priesthood even in old testament times. We know for example that Elijah had the sealing power, which is found only in the Melchizadek priesthood, since he is the one who came back to restore the sealing power to Joseph Smith.

The Nephites lived the law of Moses as nearly as they could, not being in Jerusalem and not being Levites

I read my Bible, (couldn’t help yourself and had to throw another ad hominem jab out there, are all Mormons as charitable?) I just don’t compare it to anything written by anyone outside the one true Church, especially 1800 years after the death and resurrection of Christ.

So, you bring up Melchizadek but show no lineage to Lehi?

Catholics work from apostolic succession with no 1800 year gaps in between. A lasting priesthood through the one true Church created by Christ and protected by Christ through His promises. If the gates of Hades could not rise up against it, how do you think Mormonism would?

Joseph Smith told several stories of who “visited” him. Which one are you working from now?
.

I cited invincible ignorance because you no longer believe in limbo, and have no other explanation for why babies who are not baptised do not go to hell. If you want to believe they do, be my guest.

Now you’re changing the subject and twisting my beliefs. Does this make your argument stronger? That’s the same as leaving out part of my points to strengthen your position.

I have a testimony for you. I testify that Christ was the Messiah, the only begotten son of God, the Catholic Church is the only one true Church Christ created, the Bible is true and inerrant, the book of Mormon is false, Joseph Smith was a false prophet, there never was a great apostasy and God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit are ONE, in the name of Christ Jesus, I testify.

 

[Chris-WA]

I did. Most of my post was about that.

What are you talking about? This is your entire post:Not so. And what you don’t realize is 1- that I am a convert ex-catholic and 2- at least half my ward is also convert ex-catholics, who were not raised in the Mormon church. Ex- catholics make great Mormons, and we have many many.That in no way addresses the double standard of criticizing the Catholic Church for not recognizing Mormon baptism while the LDS Church does not recognize anyone else’s. I’m asking you to admit your double-standard here. You criticize the Catholic Church for being anti-Mormon because it does not recognize LDS baptism. But your own church doesn’t recognize the baptism of *any *other religion. Does that make Mormons anti-Catholic, or anti-Baptist, or anti-whatever? If you can’t see the double-standard here, than you are not being objective.

We recognize no other baptisms because we believe that no one else has authority to baptize… You guys pick and choose. I don’t care if you define it as a “double standard” or not. We are the only ones with a valid priesthood. Now does that say a lot?

Now you’re just being mean. No one is picking and choosing one religion over another when it comes to valid baptism. The Catholic Church has very definitive criteria for a valid baptism, just as Mormonism does. One of our criteria is the proper formula of baptising in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And in order for that formula to be valid, there must be a proper understanding of what is meant by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Mormonism’s rejection of a trinitarian godhead is the reason why its baptism is not considered to be valid. No one is “picking and choosing” one religion over another as you claim.

You are the ones who pick and choose, but we are totally consistent.

I’m not even sure what you mean by that.

We don’t even think baptism is necessary until age 8 or so. You believe in infant baptism because of original sin. You better believe anyone can baptize, or you will have a lot of babies in Limbo or whatever you believe now.

For being a former Catholic, you seem quite ignorant of Catholic doctrine. Although I’m not surprised because I freely admit that Catholic faith formation is sadly lacking in many places. Limbo is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was a theory put forth as a possible answer to the problem of what happens to babies who died without baptism. Some places unfortunately taught it as doctrine (Mormons have a ton of experience with this kind of problem), but it is not.

I’m aware of why you don’t baptize until age 8, but the bottom line is that you left the Catholic Church without really knowing what it teaches, and that’s no way to leave any church.

 

[mfbukowski]

What are you talking about? This is your entire post:Not so. And what you don’t realize is 1- that I am a convert ex-catholic and 2- at least half my ward is also convert ex-catholics, who were not raised in the Mormon church. Ex- catholics make great Mormons, and we have many many.That in no way addresses the double standard of criticizing the Catholic Church for not recognizing Mormon baptism while the LDS Church does not recognize anyone else’s. I’m asking you to admit your double-standard here. You criticize the Catholic Church for being anti-Mormon because it does not recognize LDS baptism. But your own church doesn’t recognize the baptism of *any *other religion. Does that make Mormons anti-Catholic, or anti-Baptist, or anti-whatever? If you can’t see the double-standard here, than you are not being objective.

Now you’re just being mean. No one is picking and choosing one religion over another when it comes to valid baptism. The Catholic Church has very definitive criteria for a valid baptism, just as Mormonism does. One of our criteria is the proper formula of baptising in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And in order for that formula to be valid, there must be a proper understanding of what is meant by the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Mormonism’s rejection of a trinitarian godhead is the reason why its baptism is not considered to be valid. No one is “picking and choosing” one religion over another as you claim.

I’m not even sure what you mean by that.

For being a former Catholic, you seem quite ignorant of Catholic doctrine. Although I’m not surprised because I freely admit that Catholic faith formation is sadly lacking in many places. Limbo is not a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It was a theory put forth as a possible answer to the problem of what happens to babies who died without baptism. Some places unfortunately taught it as doctrine (Mormons have a ton of experience with this kind of problem), but it is not.

I’m aware of why you don’t baptize until age 8, but the bottom line is that you left the Catholic Church without really knowing what it teaches, and that’s no way to leave any church.

We seem to have trouble communicating.

You speak of a double standard. I guess I am not sure what you mean if my meaning is not clear to you. It doesn’t matter. Catholics do not honor our baptism, we honor no one’s baptism. I don’t care if you call that a double standard or not. You brought up the term, I only presented the difference to show that the Catholic church has recently become more “anti-mormon”. They used to accept our baptism, now they don’t.

I don’t consider it “mean” that Catholics don’t accept our baptism.

Would you characterize no longer honoring our baptism as “pro-mormon”? What is wrong with being “anti- mormon” if you disagree with mormons? I cannot mention political parties but if you are for one, aren’t you “anti” the other? This is a semantic problem and is of no consequence.

I cannot accept the real presence, papal infallibility, apostolic succession, the Immaculate Conception, original sin, the need for intercession by saints, that the mass is a sacrifice, and a few other things that I can’t even think of at the moment. I am sure there are other doctrines I do not understand, but I think disbelief of those doctrines stated would be sufficient to disqualify me from being catholic even if I went to confession. Oh there’s another one. I don’t believe that catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins, or more precisely, to pronounce absolution.

Other than these, I could become a Catholic tomorrow.

I forgot purgatory and indulgences: just the notion that we can pray someone out of purgatory. Maybe that has been changed too.

I was educated through high school in a catholic high schools, but that was up until about 1963. I don’t think those of you who joined the catholic church or were born after Vatican II realize how much the church changed. I was definitely taught limbo as doctrine. There is not much point in discussing it with you “youngsters” If there are any adults around, let’s talk!

I have heard all the talk about only the “externals” changing, but if that is true, why are there all these different “traditional catholic” movements some of which we are not permitted to discuss here.

Anyway, that is all immaterial. I may be ignorant of doctrine as taught today, but I know enough to know that I can’t believe it.

I also know that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I guess that’s a small problem in becoming Catholic too.

 

[majick275]

We seem to have trouble communicating.

You speak of a double standard. I guess I am not sure what you mean if my meaning is not clear to you. It doesn’t matter. Catholics do not honor our baptism, we honor no one’s baptism. I don’t care if you call that a double standard or not. You brought up the term, I only presented the difference to show that the Catholic church has recently become more “anti-mormon”. They used to accept our baptism, now they don’t.

of course there is that mormon “scripture” in the PoGP that calls all of our creeds ABOMINATIONS and al who profess them corrupt. in the pre-1990 temple ceremony mormons openly mocked non-LDS clergy as ignorant hirelings of Satan and explicitly called out popes and priests as Satan’s minions

I don’t consider it “mean” that Catholics don’t accept our baptism.

yet you consider it important to point out here as some type of “change” marking an “anti-mormon” stance.

Would you characterize no longer honoring our baptism as “pro-mormon”? What is wrong with being “anti- mormon” if you disagree with mormons? I cannot mention political parties but if you are for one, aren’t you “anti” the other? This is a semantic problem and is of no consequence.

I agree with you on this!!! AMEN!!! call it like it is. i may disagree with your doctrine but can respect you for owning up to it.

I cannot accept the real presence, papal infallibility, apostolic succession, the Immaculate Conception, original sin, the need for intercession by saints, that the mass is a sacrifice, and a few other things that I can’t even think of at the moment. I am sure there are other doctrines I do not understand, but I think disbelief of those doctrines stated would be sufficient to disqualify me from being catholic even if I went to confession. Oh there’s another one. I don’t believe that catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins, or more precisely, to pronounce absolution.

good summary. well said. you disagree with those doctrines. i think them correct but i am glad that you at least point out what you believe in. I would point out that LDS don’t ever pronounce absolution even in church disciplinary courts. I also think it significant that Jesus specifically gave his apostles the authority to forgive sins.

Other than these, I could become a Catholic tomorrow.

I forgot purgatory and indulgences: just the notion that we can pray someone out of purgatory. Maybe that has been changed too.

yet you are good with vicariously baptizing someone out of “spirit prison” and ordaining, washing and anointing, endowing and sealing them into the celestial kingsdom…

I was educated through high school in a catholic high schools, but that was up until about 1963. I don’t think those of you who joined the catholic church or were born after Vatican II realize how much the church changed. I was definitely taught limbo as doctrine. There is not much point in discussing it with you “youngsters” If there are any adults around, let’s talk!

i am an exmo convert to the catholic church but i attend i a fairly traditional parish now and i did study the pre-vatican 2 church a lot. i also grew up with catholic neighbors and friends and learned a tad bit from seeing them in action. I would point out the massive changes the LDS church went through in the 70’s too. (on top of the previous changes in kirtland, Nauvoo, and utah)

I have heard all the talk about only the “externals” changing, but if that is true, why are there all these different “traditional catholic” movements some of which we are not permitted to discuss here.

prolly same as all the FLDS groups you can’t discuss too much on the MADB boards.

Anyway, that is all immaterial. I may be ignorant of doctrine as taught today, but I know enough to know that I can’t believe it.

fair enough. good that you just tell us you know catholic doctrine and you don’t believe it. I will say the same about mormonism.

I also know that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I guess that’s a small problem in becoming Catholic too.

i have a problem with this. you BELIEVE JS was a prophet. you don’t KNOW it. The LDS testimony is so inculcated from toddler stage on up to always say you KNOW so as to promote the revelation aspect of mormonism and attempt to create the illusion of perfect knowledge in areas of faith. now having said that…I KNOW JS was a fraud, BY was worse and Thomas Monson is not a prophet. I KNOW the BoM is false, the D&C worse and the PoGP the worst of all. I BELIEVE in the Bible and One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic church and every bit of the nicene creed.

 

[Chris-WA]

You speak of a double standard. I guess I am not sure what you mean if my meaning is not clear to you. It doesn’t matter. Catholics do not honor our baptism, we honor no one’s baptism. I don’t care if you call that a double standard or not. You brought up the term, I only presented the difference to show that the Catholic church has recently become more “anti-mormon”. They used to accept our baptism, now they don’t.

Did the Catholic Church previously accept Mormon baptism as valid? Or did the Catholic Church just recently clarify that it does not accept Mormon baptism? Show me some documentation to support your claims.

Would you characterize no longer honoring our baptism as “pro-mormon”? What is wrong with being “anti- mormon” if you disagree with mormons? I cannot mention political parties but if you are for one, aren’t you “anti” the other? This is a semantic problem and is of no consequence.

I’ll tell you the problem, and unless you’ve been living under a rock ever since you became a Mormon, you should darn well know exactly what the problem is. You know as well as I that the term “anti-Mormon,” as used so frequently by Mormons themselves, has a very negative connotation. It doesn’t mean “somebody that disagrees with us.” It means somebody whose sole aim is to tear down and destroy the Mormon Church. So what you may think is of no consequence is actually of great consequence to most LDS. If you really don’t understand this, at your next set of Sunday meetings go and ask any LDS what “anti-Mormon” means to them. Using the term “anti-Mormon” is a very common tactic Mormon apologists use to dismiss a detractor’s argument without considering its content. Mormons are encouraged to steer clear of anything “anti-Mormon,” are they not? If it’s of no consequence, what’s the big deal?

I cannot accept the real presence, papal infallibility, apostolic succession, the Immaculate Conception, original sin, the need for intercession by saints, that the mass is a sacrifice, and a few other things that I can’t even think of at the moment. I am sure there are other doctrines I do not understand, but I think disbelief of those doctrines stated would be sufficient to disqualify me from being catholic even if I went to confession. Oh there’s another one. I don’t believe that catholic priests have the authority to forgive sins, or more precisely, to pronounce absolution.

Naming doctrines and actually understanding them are two very different things. Based on what you’ve said about other Catholic things, I have a suspicision that you probably don’t understand the doctrines/teachings you named.

I was educated through high school in a catholic high schools, but that was up until about 1963. I don’t think those of you who joined the catholic church or were born after Vatican II realize how much the church changed. I was definitely taught limbo as doctrine. There is not much point in discussing it with you “youngsters” If there are any adults around, let’s talk!

If you have problems with changing doctrines/teachings, then the Mormon church is certainly not the right place for you! Don’t let feelings get in the way of objectively studying LDS history. Shall I name a few changes?

Blacks in the priesthood
Polygamy
Adam as God
God was once a man with a god above Him
Endless numbers of gods
Catholic Church as the ‘great and abominable church’
Black race as the curse of Cain
Abortion
Contraception
Lamanites as the principal ancestors of Native Americans
Book of Mormon geography
Joseph’s First Vision

 

[zaffiroborant]

Name one.

The one on Aquinas.

All I know is that since I have been on these forums, I have become more and more anti-catholic and I don’t like it.

I find the MADB has the same effect. The anti-Catholicism seems to have been turned up lately.

 

[RC_Matt]

I really don’t care, except that Catholics accept any other creedal christian baptism. If the church subscribes to the Nicene creed, it’s baptism is valid to the Catholics as far as I know. But I am sure you are better versed in that than I am.

Subscribing to the Nicene Creed is usually what defines being a “christian” to Catholics and Protestants, ironic since of course that didn’t happen until late in the 4th century

The reason is that Mormonism is so far afield from Christianity that it doesn’t even fall into the category of being an Abrahamic faith. The cosmologies are mutually exclusive and totally irreconcilable. Mormonism falls into its own category, like Buddhism or Hinduism, with a godhead, eschatological beliefs, and a body of canonized scripture that are absolutely unique to the faith. That’s not a criticism, it’s not “hate,” it’s not “anti-Mormon,” nor does it mean that Mormons are “bad” or won’t be “saved;” but that’s why no Christian tradition of which I am aware considers a Mormon baptism to be a Christian Baptism. Mormons acknowledge this gulf themselves by considering only a Mormon baptism to be valid baptism. And, like you, I don’t really care; but that’s the reason.

 

[PaulDupre]

All I know is that since I have been on these forums, I have become more and more anti-catholic and I don’t like it.

Since you’ve been on these fora, you have caused us all to become more anti-Mormon.