RCC Decision Not to Recognize LDS Baptism!

  • Thread starter Thread starter zerinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Semper_Fi said:
You re-baptize Christians of any stripe who were baptized in the Trinitarian formula therefore declaring yourselves that your “Ordinance” is different from the Christian Sacrament.
Click to expand...
Sure it is different. The difference is that our baptism is performed by proper divine authority and theirs is not!

zerinus
 
po18guy said:
zerinus, you are displaying a cancerous ignorance. At one time, you might have been as a benign tumor, but your abject ignorance of the Catholic faith, or evil misrepresentation of it, your slavish parroting of clear falsehoods and your lying to Our One God and Catholic Answers when you agreed not to prosthelytize on the forum are unacceptable. Have you no conscience?
Click to expand...
So you are doing your nuts over me because you think I might convert people to Mormonism? Hey, I did’nt know I was that persuasive! Thanks for telling me! 😃

zerinus
 
Semper_Fi said:
Okay, so according to the Utah Mormon Church you need to be married to be saved?
Click to expand...
According to LDS Doctrine all the ordinances (sacraments) of the gospel are necessary for salvation (i.e. in the Celestial kingdom); and yes, that includes the sacrament of marriage for eternity (performed by proper divine authority, not just by anybody).

zerinus
 
ApostateRLDS said:
That’s not the way it was explained to me. The Church was clear at the time on the invalidity of LDS baptisms, but not on RLDS baptisms(apparently the RLDS are closer to Christianlity then their LDS brethren). Father Offut explained the situation and said I had the choice of being baptized in the Church, or be confirmed. Nothing about the baptism being conditional, or a ‘nice Catholic ceremony.’ So you’ll excuse me I take at face value that my baptism was bona fide’ and not contigent.

Yes, I know that the Church doesn’t re-baptize. Sometimes I type faster than I think. What I should have said was that I chose to be baptized.🤷
Click to expand...
I’m just glad that your faith was such that you wanted to leave no doubt whatsoever that you are a baptized Christian. Welcome home and PRAISE JESUS!
Paul
 
zerinus said:
So you are doing your nuts over me because you think I might convert people to Mormonism? Hey, I did’nt know I was that persuasive! Thanks for telling me! 😃

zerinus
Click to expand...
Why won’t you answer honest questions? Deal with the Scriptural issue from the KJV.
 
GandalfTheWhite said:
:whacky:

In Christ,
~G
Click to expand...
Little does he know that he is creating more devout Catholics. He WILL NOT admit that Isaiah Bennett was lured to leave Catholicism and join the Mormons. Why not? Because Isaiah discovered the distorted beliefs, errors and contradictions in Mormonism and fled to the truth, rejoining the Catholic church. Bennett has written books on the Mormons, explaining why they act like a certain poster on this thread. For that person, I heartily recommend: Concise Guide to Managing Behavioural Health.

You see, you still exist if you leave the Catholic church. You leave the Mormons, you become persona non grata.

Truth seeking Mormons, please visit: geocities.com/kathywut/MormonNoMore.html

Christ’s peace.
 
zerinus said:
Thank you for the info. I hadn’t realized that he had cnverted to the LDS Church. Good for him! Great to hear! I shall reflect that in my blog.

As for the rest of you post, those articles you had linked to were all written before his conversion, so there is no deception involved.

This thesis ONLY gained the interest of FARMS and Daniel C. Peterson’s because Jordan Vajda was a Catholic priest at the time he wrote it! If he wrote it as a Mormon, there’d be a whole lot of yawning and asking, “Jordan WHO?”
Nobody rewrites a past article every time one of the details in it changes. BYU and LDS websites host millions of articles by numerous authors. It would be an impossible task to ammend them all every time one of the details changes.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
ApostateRLDS said:
Even though they gave lip service to ‘God in Three Persons’, they don’t teach it. They don’t teach God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. It’s closer to what the LDS believes: God is the Father, Jesus is the Son of God and a completely seperate being.

That’s why growing up RLDS I had such a tough time with concept of Mary being the Mother of God.
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that they had changed their official doctrine regarding the Godhood of Jesus Christ and the Triune nature of the Godhead.
 
zerinus said:
Sure it is different. The difference is that our baptism is performed by proper divine authority and theirs is not!

zerinus
Click to expand...
So you admit our baptisms are different! There’s absolutely no need for this thread. Now we’re on the same page! (except the part about Mormon baptisms being conducted by “proper divine authority”
 
po18guy said:
Never mind me. Thousands are waiting for your explanation of the perfect faith. NO, not your blog. Your answers.
Click to expand...
I made that Blog so that I wouldn’t have to repeatedly answer the same dumb questions. If you are not interested in reading my Blog, I am not interested in answering your question.

zerinus
 
Lehl said:
This thesis ONLY gained the interest of FARMS and Daniel C. Peterson’s because Jordan Vajda was a Catholic priest at the time he wrote it! If he wrote it as a Mormon, there’d be a whole lot of yawning and asking, “Jordan WHO?”
Click to expand...
Suppose it did. What is wrong in that?
It is totally misleading and purposely deceptive that FARMS does not amend this author description:
maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/viewauthor.php?authorID=435
Click to expand...
Of course not. They have just forgotten about it. If you are concerned about that, write to them, and ask them to update it, and I am sure they will.
And put a disclaimer on the other articles since it is clear that the very fact these articles even exist is solely because Jordan Vajda was a priest at the time he wrote the thesis.
Click to expand...
The disclaimer is irelevant. They put that disclaimer on a lot of things. Your objections and criticisms are childish and ridiculous.
I first found it on Jeff Lindsey’s site. The link was in my original post. Although I’ve found a few other sources that say he converted in 2003.
jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_theosis.shtml
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks. I found that too. I would like to obtain more accurate dates of possible.
Even though Jeff Lindsey is honest about Jordan Vajda’s conversion on his site, he still uses him for his apologetics!:rotfl:
Click to expand...
This is my favorite:
Click to expand...
That’s his only example!:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
Click to expand...
Which is also why I posted this link in the first place:
speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11678
Click to expand...
Brother Vajda was interested in being a Mormon from the time he was 13! I told you he was an aberrant priest to begin with! Thats why I find it absolutely hysterical that he is so often quoted by Mormon apologists. He was just another Mormon all along.🤷
I’d also read somewhere that his order was a complete disaster and he personally had many psychological issues.
Click to expand...
Like I said, you criticisms are childish and ridiculous. Like it or not, the fact remains that Vajda was a Catholic when he wrote his thesis, and that is significant from our point of view, and these articles are merely pointing that out. That is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. There is nothing sinister or conspiratorial in any of this.

zerinus
 
Semper_Fi said:
So you admit our baptisms are different! There’s absolutely no need for this thread. Now we’re on the same page! (except the part about Mormon baptisms being conducted by “proper divine authority”
Click to expand...
Of course I admit that they are different. We have always maintained that they are different. That is why we don’t accept anybody else’s baptism except our own. The question is not about what we think, but what the Catholic Chruch thinks, or has thought throughout its history. It is their position that is inconsistent within the context of their history and practice. Our position is perfectly consistent.

zerinus
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top