Questions on Limbo or more importantly the Fate of the Unbaptized Baby

[Stephen168]

The Pope does not claim to receive revelation, but claims to infallibly speak concerning faith and morals.
The Prophet claims to receive revelation, but does not claim to infallibly speak concerning faith and morals or geography.

No, As I have shown in post #93, Mormon Presidents claim to GIVE revelation on ANY SUBJECT. Only Christ and the Apostles GIVE revelation. When Mormon Presidents speak it is revelation. But we also know from history and science Mormon ‘prophets’ do not actually give revelation because they have been proven wrong so many times. So their claim is false. Francis is a Pope. St. Peter was an Apostle and a Pope. The facts of science and history prove Mormon Presidents are not Apostles or prophets.
So again comparing the claims of Popes and the claims of Mormon ‘prophets’ is not comparing apples to apples.

 

[Stephen168]

So you may offer a different solution than I did as to how to align Florence with the prevalent teaching today, but for me ignoring Florence IMO is not a Catholic thing to do.

While Christianity has never been lead by a prophet, the founder of Mormonism claimed to be one. He was the first in a line of Mormon ‘Prophets’ who “gave revelations on all kinds of subjects.” Revelation on the success of a bank, history of the American Indians, God the Father, Adam the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost, blood atonements, etc. Of course we see that these revelations have been shown to be false, or contradict each other.

Christianity gets its revelation from the Word, the second person of the trinity, Jesus Christ. Christ establish a Church and his first Vicar, St Peter, encourages Christians to always be ready to give an account of the hope that is in them (1 Pet 3:15-16). The revelation of Christ gives the greatest hope to those who are baptized (Mark 16:16) and receive the Eucharist (John 6:53). We are to baptize in the singular name of the one triune God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). Christ also told us that all things are possible with God (Mark 10:27). While we all died because of Adam we all live because of the resurrection of Christ (1 Corin 15:20-22). By the example of Christ we know he can save without baptism of water. He saved the penitent thief (Luke 23:42-43) and he also saved because of the faith of others (Mark 2:1-5). So the Word revealed that the ordinary way of salvation is by the sacraments of baptism and the Eucharist, but he can make all things possible.

While Mormonism rejects the Eucharist, the trinity, and has made the sin of Adam a goal, like limbo, we don’t know what their future holds, because Christ gave no revelation on Mormonism.

 

[TOmNossor]

Yes and no.

The Pope does not claim to receive revelation, but claims to infallibly speak concerning faith and morals.

And?

The Prophet claims to receive revelation, but does not claim to infallibly speak concerning faith and morals or geography.

WRONG! Please stop being dishonest about your past leaders! First, js was clear that God would NEVER let a prophet lead his people astrayt…so you are wrong!. Second, you are trying desperately to cover the fact that your past prophets have lied or that your lds god has. What about Adam-God?

As for the geography, you STILL have not explained how a guy who talks to God can get it so wrong. You have STILL not explained how God would allow SO MANY PROPHETS to be wrong about Cumorah since HE TALKS TO THEM. Nice try. But you have failed mightily

Differences yes.
The bulk of my posts on this thread have been about the Catholic claims (though I have responded to a lot of requests for comparisons, which I am doing now).

No…you are afraid to respond to me. I am guessing it is because, as a former active mormon, you KNOW I know that what you say is wrong.

Now how can we compare them:

Sure…if you agree that your "prophets do not really, have never really, spoken to God…I am ok with that

and since you NEED to compare them, the only way to be fair about the comparing is that you admit that fact. As you continue to do so shows me that you KNOW they do not talk and have never spoken to God, so the comparison is fair.
Hello TexanKnight, I usually do not respond to you because you are so busy saying I am dishonest, I said other lied, my church leaders lied, … it suggest to me that I shouldn’t waste time responding to you. And it just feel yucky.
But…

I of course offered a way to compare Pope and Prophet which you didn’t quote.

You are the one who is wrong about LDS Prophet’s claiming to be infallible.
I would say the closest thing any LDS believes about LDS prophets is that since this is the “last dispensation” it is impossible for the LDS prophet to lead the church such that another restoration outside the priesthood of God becomes necessary. While there are some splinter groups that claim this has happened, I do not agree with them and neither do most LDS. So I believe that the LDS prophet has not lead the church astray as I stated above, and thus their claim to be protected or ??? in this way is defendable.

However, there is a LONG tradition (with a small “t”) of LDS prophets claiming they are fallible. Here are a few things:

From the BOM:

Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, … but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been

Joseph Smith - “I told them that I was but a man, and they must not expect me to be perfect.”

Lorenzo Snow (as quoted by Elder Maxwell in 1984 general conference, I wonder who listened):

I can fellowship the President of the Church,” he said, “if he does not know everything I know … I saw the … imperfections in [Joseph Smith] … I thanked God that He would put upon a man who had those imperfections the power and authority He placed upon him … for I knew that I myself had weakness, and I thought there was a chance for me … I thanked God that I saw these imperfections.

Cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

Another from the same General Conference address, this time from B.H. Roberts (a member of the 70, but speaking of the prophet):

Joseph Smith … claimed for himself no special sanctity, no faultless life, no perfection of character, no inerrancy for every word spoken by him. And as he did not claim these things for himself, so can they not be claimed for him by others. …

“Yet to Joseph Smith was given,” said Brother Roberts, “access to the mind of Deity, through the revelations of God to him.” (Comprehensive History, 2:360–61.)
I have already shared with you Harold B. Lee’s statement:
Harold B. Lee:
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

And the recent article published by the church:
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine

Now, I will not deny that there are things said by LDS leaders that emphasize just how important it is to follow what they are teaching. I concur even, but that does not mean they are infallible.
And since you mentioned comparisons, was the prophet Jonah infallible? Was the prophet Jonah quite convinced he knew absolutely the Lord’s will? Yes. Why was Jonah convinced of this? Because Jonah was the prophet and he did speak with God. Jonah was so convinced he got the message right from God, Jonah was pissed at God for telling him to prophesy something that God didn’t do, making Jonah look foolish. I wasn’t there, but I do not believe God lied to Jonah or Jonah lied to the people. Instead, I believe God told the truth, Jonah prophesied what he thought was truth, and God made use of it as God has of so many other things.
Hope this helps. I will continue to reserve the right to ignore you when you call me a liar (or when I don’t have time or …), but I thought I would pull up my Kevlar underwear and say, “Hey!”
Charity, TOm

 

[Nicea325]

Apparently, Tom would have us believe that God will tell js to order the other Mormons to build js a house. God will tell js who to send on a mission. God will tell js about what land to buy. God will tell js just about anything…according to D&C…but when it comes to things like Cumorah, God either is silent and allows his prophets to mislead His people, or God is just wrong.

You have to love a religion where God is concerned about whether his "prophet’ can get a free house, but not so much about something as important as Cumorah…

It is so apparent Tom refuses to admit the past lds prophets were all fakes or God is a great liar?

 

[Stephen168]

Apparently, Tom would have us believe that God will tell js to order the other Mormons to build js a house. God will tell js who to send on a mission. God will tell js about what land to buy. God will tell js just about anything…according to D&C…but when it comes to things like Cumorah, God either is silent and allows his prophets to mislead His people, or God is just wrong.

You have to love a religion where God is concerned about whether his "prophet’ can get a free house, but not so much about something as important as Cumorah…

God also told him the Book of Mormon is “giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent, and the source from whence they sprang.” But it was not true.

 

[iepuras]

I could be wrong, but I recall that LDS believe any concept of original sin was atoned for via Christ’s atonement. LDS view on all being guilty of sin is much closer to the EO tradition than the Catholic tradition. You know Augustine developed the doctrine of original sin using a Bible translations that scholars acknowledge was flawed. The EO Church understood Greek and didn’t follow him.

I think that is quite an ugly way of describing LDS thought BTW. Paul (and at least one Catholic Saint from 600-1600AD that I might be able to dig up) spoke positively of Baptism for the Dead. LDS believe that every human ever born will receive BFTD. LDS also believe that our service as we provide BFTD will help us become more like Christ AND link us to the entire human family.

Finally, individual choice is preserved because the proxy ordinance is only efficacious if it is accepted.

I am sure I could try to make a more elegant case for LDS beliefs, but I could hardly make a worse one than you did. No wonder you ceased to be a LDS, if I believed that I would too.
Charity, TOm

I was LDS for 35 years. I attended early morning seminary, attended BYU, was completely faithful for most of my adult life, the whole 9 yards. I was even an ordinance worker at the temple. The LDS church absolutely rejects the concept of original sin. The Fall wasn’t even a sin. It was a transgression (see 2nd Article of Faith, “We believe in being punished for our own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.” Emphasis mine.) Perhaps you will find institute classes to be helpful.

I know what the LDS church teaches. Now that I see that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, I am able to actually take LDS teachings to their logical conclusion. Just because you don’t like that conclusion doesn’t make it “ugly”.

The verses from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that LDS love to use to justify baptism for the dead are taken out of context. Paul was teaching on the resurrection. Please read the following for details as to how these verses are taken out of context by the LDS church and what they really mean. catholic.com/tracts/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead. Or do Catholics still not understand Greek?

The plan of salvation and work for the dead had absolutely nothing to do with me leaving the LDS church. In fact, it was the last thing for me to mentally give up. Two people convinced me that Joseph Smith was a false prophet - Zina Huntington Jacobs and Helen Mar Kimball. God would never command anyone to steal another man’s wife. Also, Joseph Smith exchanging eternal salvation for marriage to Helen Mar Kimball, who was 14, is just creepy. I loved the plan of salvation. I didn’t want to reject it because I thought it was beautiful. I had to reject it because of the corrupt source.

BTW, my husband is former Eastern Orthodox, now Eastern Catholic. Please don’t make any comparisions between Eastern Christian traditions and understandings and LDS teachings. They are nothing alike.

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom: Hello TexanKnight, I usually do not respond to you because you are so busy saying I am dishonest, I said other lied, my church leaders lied, … it suggest to me that I shouldn’t waste time responding to you. And it just feel yucky.
But…

TK: Wrong. I am busy proving it. Your problem is, you cannot refute what I say and you ignore the quotes from your leaders that prove what I say. You ignore your past leaders when convenient

Tom:I of course offered a way to compare Pope and Prophet which you didn’t quote.

TK:Because it is irrelevant. I have quoted your leaders and you understandably ignore them. You want us to believe that God will tell Js to have folks build him a house for free, but when Js tells us about cumorah, he is wrong

Tom: You are the one who is wrong about LDS Prophet’s claiming to be infallible.

TK: only if you ignore their quotes that say they are

 

[TexanKnight]

It is so apparent Tom refuses to admit the past lds prophets were all fakes or God is a great liar?

Yep. Easy to do when you ignore their teachings

 

[iepuras]

I have already shared with you Harold B. Lee’s statement:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold B. Lee
If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

If I am remembering history correctly, Ezra Taft Benson was prophet after Harold B. Lee. Therefore, anything Benson says trumps Lee.

 

[Stephen168]

Children are incapable of sin before the age of 8. Because the LDS church rejects Original Sin, there is no need for children under the age of 8 to be baptized. Any children who die before turning 8, automatically go to the celestial kingdom.

I’ve never had a Mormon make their teaching on baptism look rational. When Joseph Smith tried bring a Catholic teaching on baptism together with an anti-baptist teaching on baptism, he got an irrational mess. Which doesn’t say much for a guy that called himself a prophet

 

[iepuras]

I’ve never had a Mormon make their teaching on baptism look rational. When Joseph Smith tried bring a Catholic teaching on baptism together with an anti-baptist teaching on baptism, he got an irrational mess. Which doesn’t say much for a guy that called himself a prophet

It is an irrational mess. For example, if a child dies the day before they turn 8, he is incapable of sinning and receives an automatic ticket to the celestial kingdom with no baptism required. If the child waits one more day to die, he is fully capable of sin and requires baptism by proxy if he wasn’t baptized on his birthday. When I was a teenager, I spent a lot of time thinking about this and thought that children who died before the “age of accountability” were lucky. I sometimes wondered why I wasn’t so lucky, or so faithful in the pre-mortal existence, to earn an automatic ticket to the celestial kingdom through premature death. It is truly morbid to think of such things, but that is one of the conclusions that comes from LDS teachings on baptism if someone actually stops to think about it.

 

[ffg]

Jesus said ‘let the children come to me’.

He didn’t say ‘let only the baptized children come to me’.

 

[TOmNossor]

I was LDS for 35 years. I attended early morning seminary, attended BYU, was completely faithful for most of my adult life, the whole 9 yards. I was even an ordinance worker at the temple. The LDS church absolutely rejects the concept of original sin. The Fall wasn’t even a sin. It was a transgression (see 2nd Article of Faith, "We believe in being punished for our own sins

and not for Adam’s transgression." Emphasis mine.) Perhaps you will find institute classes to be helpful.

I know what the LDS church teaches. Now that I see that Joseph Smith was a false prophet, I am able to actually take LDS teachings to their logical conclusion. Just because you don’t like that conclusion doesn’t make it “ugly”.

The verses from St. Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians that LDS love to use to justify baptism for the dead are taken out of context. Paul was teaching on the resurrection. Please read the following for details as to how these verses are taken out of context by the LDS church and what they really mean. catholic.com/tracts/mormonisms-baptism-for-the-dead. Or do Catholics still not understand Greek?

The plan of salvation and work for the dead had absolutely nothing to do with me leaving the LDS church. In fact, it was the last thing for me to mentally give up. Two people convinced me that Joseph Smith was a false prophet - Zina Huntington Jacobs and Helen Mar Kimball. God would never command anyone to steal another man’s wife. Also, Joseph Smith exchanging eternal salvation for marriage to Helen Mar Kimball, who was 14, is just creepy. I loved the plan of salvation. I didn’t want to reject it because I thought it was beautiful. I had to reject it because of the corrupt source.

BTW, my husband is former Eastern Orthodox, now Eastern Catholic. Please don’t make any comparisions between Eastern Christian traditions and understandings and LDS teachings. They are nothing alike.
I have read all the CA tracts. I think they are poor. My former Catholic friend shared that assessment while he was still Catholic. I have something I can offer on them if it is important to you.
I read them before the NIHIL OBSTAT was added.
When it was added I remember thinking that was clear evidence that the Bishop who added it was not a valid holder and the infallibility of Catholicism had failed. Even with errors that may be agreed upon by Catholics, this is not correct BTW.

I think you and I are saying very similar things regarding LDS views of original sin. If you want me to further defend my statement, I can.

Finally, I will try to dig up my notes on EO views of original sin. It is well accepted in and out of the Catholic Church that Augustine used a POOR translation of the bible when he developed the original sin doctrine (that affected his reading of a passage directly applicable). I can document this and maybe from Catholic authors if you like.

Charity, TOm

 

[Stephen168]

You know Augustine developed the doctrine of original sin using a Bible translations that scholars acknowledge was flawed. The EO Church understood Greek and didn’t follow him

You are wrong.

 

[Stephen168]

The LDS church absolutely rejects the concept of original sin. The Fall wasn’t even a sin. It was a transgression (see 2nd Article of Faith, “We believe in being punished for our own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.” Emphasis mine.)

In my post #122 to Tom about the fate of unbaptized babies, I believe not only do Mormons reject original sin (the desire to be God) they have made it a goal.

 

[Stephen168]

I read them before the NIHIL OBSTAT was added.
When it was added I remember thinking that was clear evidence that the Bishop who added it was not a valid holder and the infallibility of Catholicism had failed. Even with errors that may be agreed upon by Catholics, this is not correct BTW.

 

[TRH1292]

I have read all the CA tracts. I think they are poor. My former Catholic friend shared that assessment while he was still Catholic. I have something I can offer on them if it is important to you.
I read them before the NIHIL OBSTAT was added.
When it was added I remember thinking that was clear evidence that the Bishop who added it was not a valid holder and the infallibility of Catholicism had failed. Even with errors that may be agreed upon by Catholics, this is not correct BTW.

I think you and I are saying very similar things regarding LDS views of original sin. If you want me to further defend my statement, I can.

Finally, I will try to dig up my notes on EO views of original sin. It is well accepted in and out of the Catholic Church that Augustine used a POOR translation of the bible when he developed the original sin doctrine (that affected his reading of a passage directly applicable). I can document this and maybe from Catholic authors if you like.

Charity, TOm

What are you talking about? An individual bishop is never infallible and certainly not when he is approving a tract.

 

[Stephen168]

I am not sure what you are after from me.

I’d like a yes or a no answer before the rambling starts.

Now you offer a quote from Florence which you claimed gave you certainty that the Catholic Church has changed its doctrine.

Are you saying now that Florence doesn’t give you that certainty?

Or did post #122 clear it up for you.

 

[TOmNossor]

What are you talking about? An individual bishop is never infallible and certainly not when he is approving a tract.

You are correct.
That is what I realized and tried to state.
I didn’t know that when I jumped to that conclusion.
Charity, TOm