This is a good example of how a mormon baptizer, intending to do what the mormon church does when she baptizes, is not intending to do what the Catholic Church does when she baptizes. Baptism, as understood by the Catholic Church, is a permanent condition that can not be revoked.
If that is how you feel about it, why are you still a Mormon? I think it is hypocritical and dishonest to remain a member of a church which you feel that way about.
Actually, that is not “automatic”. It will depend on the circumstances.
I have already answered that question twice on this thread. Do you have a problem with your eyesight? Perhaps you need reading glasses. You should see an eye specialist.
Like I said, if that is how you feel about it, then you should leave the LDS Church now. That is the honest and decent thing to do for someone in your situation.
For your information, that “beautiful cathedral” was renovated some years ago with the help of financial assistance of the LDS Church. LDS Church has no quarrel with the Catholic Church.But thanks for your prayers. I think I seem more lost than I am. Or maybe was. lol. I am headed into RCIA, and went to a pre-RCIA where Mass was explained and a theological tour of the Cathedral. It was intensely beautiful.And I have good conversations with a Catholic friend who will be my RCIA sponsor (hi).
Praise God!!!I’d say that is why a mormon baptism is invalid, to anyone, mormonism is all based on lies and something based on a lie has no truth in it. I could baptize my dog and have about the same effect.
The revoked baptism is from the POV of a mormon, so that was a response to Zerinus. His church would excommunicate me the minute any mormon ratted out that I had indeed done such a thing. So, my mormon baptism would be revoked in their eyes anyway, so what is it to them if I am baptized somewhere else and whether or not that somewhere else sees my revoked baptism as valid? From their POV I would no longer be baptized anyway.
In short, Zerinus is complaining about a Catholic POV that has no bearing whatsoever to his own beliefs. I don’t even know WHY he would even bother posting about it. it is no problem to him.
From a Catholic POV I understand the “issues”, and were I to join the Catholic church I would want to be baptized as a Catholic, because as it is, the only thing that I find valuable in my mormon baptism is that it was done by my father. But that doesn’t have anything to do with theology, more just a strong sentiment re: someone I love.
But thanks for your prayers. I think I seem more lost than I am. Or maybe was. lol. I am headed into RCIA, and went to a pre-RCIA where Mass was explained and a theological tour of the Cathedral. It was intensely beautiful.
Welcome Home! I was a little worried when I saw that you lived in SLC! You are part of a movement of God. A month ago, my wife’s podiatrist told her, after the subject of faith came up on her first visit, that he realizes that Mormonism is not the true faith, and is considering conversion to Catholicism. Two weeks later, I speak with a young woman who is also dissatisfied with it, and whose beloved grandmother was Catholic. She is very receptive and has agreed to attend mass! On the Catholic Answers Radio Program, also about two weeks ago, an ordained Mormon Bishop named Richard advised Jimmy Akin that he was converting! Now, your wonderful post. I am overjoyed! The Lord is clearly at work here. We are moving toward unity in Christ via the One Church founded by Christ. He is returning to judge the living and the dead. Praise God!
It seems a lot of Mormons are waking up to the shortcomings in Mormon scriptures and teachings. It would be a natural thing for a Mormon who has not lost faith in Christ to gravitate towards the Catholic Church simply because of the authority issue. What attracted me initially was the Catholic Church’s consistent stand on pro-life and pro-family issues. Too many other churches have simply compromised with the world by accepting too many exceptions for abortion, accepting artificial birth control and accepting homosexual relationships. The Mormons haven’t accepted homosexual relationships yet, but they have compromised on abortion and artificial birth control. And who knows when they might again approve plural marriage. The Catholic Church is safe harbor for those seeking to follow Christ fully.Praise God!!!
“Has now decided?” What are you rambling on about? That the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize LDS baptisms? That’s old news, ancient history. Besides it’s kind of hypocritical of you to keep whining on about that, considering that I would have to be re-baptized if ever I decided to convert to Mormonism(though I’d sooner convert to Islam, at least their monotheists).
.
However, if you want to compare gaff’s, does Gordo still maintain that wives are their husbands’ possessions, or that he doesn’t know why blacks were barred from the LDS priesthood in until 1978, etc, etc.Huh? In what way?
It is not a question of “revoking” anybody’s baptism. The LDS Church does not “revoke” anybody’s baptism. Baptism is the gateway for entrance into the kingdom of God here on earth (and ultimately in heaven). It is the door by which one enters into His Church. When somebody leaves the Church, or is excommunicated, that means that he is no longer in it; and the only way that he can get back in is by the same door that he left, which is baptism. There is no “backdoor” by which he can enter in.
Then you must have even bigger problem with your eyes than I thought! If it “doesn’t matter,” why do Catholic posters bring it up, and try to use it to bash the LDS Church? I entirely agree that, ultimately, it “doesn’t matter”. But like it or not, this is a place where people like to exchange their opinions about religion; and this is a subject that has come up in the past, and no doubt will come up again in the future, and therefore needs to be addressed.
I believe no such thing. After all, we don’t recognize their baptisms, so why should they recognize ours? What is significant, and you should bear in mind, and not forget, if that is not too much to expect, is that we refused acknowledge their baptism looooong before they refused to acknowledge ours!
That is the main difference. Our position is consistent; there is not!
It is not a question of “revoking” anybody’s baptism. The LDS Church does not “revoke” anybody’s baptism. Baptism is the gateway for entrance into the kingdom of God here on earth (and ultimately in heaven). It is the door by which one enters into His Church. When somebody leaves the Church, or is excommunicated, that means that he is no longer in it; and the only way that he can get back in is by the same door that he left, which is baptism. There is no “backdoor” by which he can enter in.
Christ never explained baptism in this manner. There was no “leaving”, only repentance.
Then you must have even bigger problem with your eyes than I thought! If it “doesn’t matter,” why do Catholic posters bring it up, and try to use it to bash the LDS Church? I entirely agree that, ultimately, it “doesn’t matter”. But like it or not, this is a place where people like to exchange their opinions about religion; and this is a subject that has come up in the past, and no doubt will come up again in the future, and therefore needs to be addressed.
I have seen debate. I have seen questions. I have seen statements that are from a very definitive Catholic POV, but hello, this is a Catholic forum. I have not seen anything that would be bashing.
Another way that it “matters” is purely as an academic exercise. It matters in the same way that history matters. Just as it is good to study history to learn the truth about the past; it is also good to study these things to learn the truth about them, and not rely on somebody’s guesswork or half-truths (or untruths).
Ah yes, then you should take your own advise and study and learn the truth.
I believe no such thing. After all, we don’t recognize their baptisms, so why should they recognize ours? What is significant, and you should bear in mind, and not forget, if that is not too much to expect, is that we refused acknowledge their baptism looooong before they refused to acknowledge ours!
I am well aware of the exclusionary nature of mormonism.
It has been explained to you why the Catholic church does not recognize a mormon baptism. To boil it down…Mormonism is such a fringe religion the Vatican considered them the same as any other protestant religion. You and I know that is not the truth. When the Vatican was made aware of the differences in baptisms, they realized that a mormon baptism does not meet the definition as you can read in the Catholic catechism. The Catholic church did not change, their understanding of what a mormon baptism is (or rather is not) did.
zerinus
Consider it a father’s blessing, something that, surely, any loving parent, regardless of creed, may give to a child.
Everything that I have studied regarding mormonism points to the fact that this so-called “religion” is not of God, but is very much of Man. Con-man. Wether Joseph Smith dreamed up the whole thing or it resulted from a conspiracy created by Smith and his associates, everything leads to not the glorification of God, but to the exaltation of Man. Even their doctrine of polygamy is directed at the achievement of “godhood” by Man. Of course, he must have the assistance of his “wife/wives” in this effort, who don’t get to share in the glory, but get only to do the heavy lifting and get to stay eternally pregnant. Not much equality there. Emma Smith saw this early on and called it what it really was, “divine” fornication to the benefit of 'ol Joe Smith. What continues to amaze me is that otherwise intelligent people continue to fall for this thinly-disguised scam.
You must have a very short memory. You have posted more than 6000 posts, so you have been here a long time; and you ought to know that this subject has been broght up here many times before, and not by me.
zerinus,
I don’t understand your question. What relevance does it have to the subject of the thread?
So, don’t accuse others of bringing up the subject. You’re the one who brought up the subject.