RCC Decision Not to Recognize LDS Baptism!

[Lehl]

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

That is whole point, Z.

I’m going to ask you WHY something a “corrupt professor” whose “creed is an abomination” would have anything significant to say to the “only true and living Church of Jesus Christ, guided and led by living apostles and prophets”?

Are you going to tell me it was only because* what *he said supported LDS theology? So suddenly he is considered an “objective, qualified, non-Mormon expert”?



It ought to greatly worry you and embarrass you that your apologists would rely so heavily on the opinion of just another member (who arguablely was a Mormon since he was 13 according to your own sources)

Now THAT is ridiculous.

 

[hosemonkey]

That is whole point, Z.

I’m going to ask you WHY something a “corrupt professor” whose “creed is an abomination” would have anything significant to say to the “only true and living Church of Jesus Christ, guided and led by living apostles and prophets”?

Are you going to tell me it was only because* what *he said supported LDS theology? So suddenly he is considered an “objective, qualified, non-Mormon expert”?



It ought to greatly worry you and embarrass you that your apologists would rely so heavily on the opinion of just another member (who arguablely was a Mormon since he was 13 according to your own sources)

Now THAT is ridiculous.

Zerinus doesn’t mind looking ridiculous, it is his natural state. One cannot be mormon and not appear ridiculous.

 

[zerinus]

That is whole point, Z.

I’m going to ask you WHY something a “corrupt professor” whose “creed is an abomination” would have anything significant to say to the “only true and living Church of Jesus Christ, guided and led by living apostles and prophets”?

You know perfectly well that that is not what we believe. See my post #240 in this thread.

And by the way, I have updated my blog to reflect the new info.

zerinus

 

[po18guy]

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”

SMALL d divine authority. Ask him what your Mormon family and friends do to you if you leave the cul…I mean Mormon church. And good luck with any intelligible response.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

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

Wow, what bafflegab. An admission of difference amidst a claim that differentiationn is unjust.

What it all comes down to is that to merely say “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is one thing, and to INVOKE the Father who is the one God, the Son who is the one God, and the Holy Spirit who is the one God is another thing altogether – the essence of a Trinitarian invocation.

And there’s the difference.

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[po18guy]

Wow, what bafflegab. An admission of difference amidst a claim that differentiationn is unjust.

What it all comes down to is that to merely say “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” is one thing, and to INVOKE the Father who is the one God, the Son who is the one God, and the Holy Spirit who is the one God is another thing altogether – the essence of a Trinitarian invocation.

And there’s the difference.

Blessings,

Gerry

So true. But, your adversary spits out endless-loop responses. I am about ready to refer him to some reputable de-programmers.

Christ’s peace.

 

[Lehl]

You know perfectly well that that is not what we believe. See my post #240 in this thread.

And by the way, I have updated my blog to reflect the new info.

zerinus

Well, I must say you never fail to amuse me. Doesn’t your brain get tired from all those mental gymnastics?

Regarding your post #240, are you (yet again ) actually offering someone else’s opinion (Elder Wm. Grant Bangerter, who by the way doesn’t speak officially for the church, correct?) to define what the Lord actually meant by “those professors of religion were all corrupt”?

Besides, it sounds as if GBH had amnesia when confronted with those antagonistic ministers who forgot their manners.

Luckily, any of us can read and it cannot be more clear that according to Joseph Smith, the Lord did say that.

Joseph Smith History 1:18-19:
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than **I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—
**19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

So if Elder Wm.Grant Bangerter’s theory were correct that

the Lord Jesus Christ was referring only to that particular group of ministers in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s community who were quarreling and arguing about which church was true.

Then I’ll ask the most obvious question…Why then did the Lord not instruct Joseph Smith to seek out the “right” church with the uncorrupted creed? This is GOD talking, right? You’d think God would have been able to tell Joseph Smith where exactly TO FIND this right church with the uncorrupted creed.

 

[hosemonkey]

Well, I must say you never fail to amuse me. Doesn’t your brain get tired from all those mental gymnastics?

Regarding your post #240, are you (yet again ) actually offering someone else’s opinion (Elder Wm. Grant Bangerter, who by the way doesn’t speak officially for the church, correct?) to define what the Lord actually meant by “those professors of religion were all corrupt”?

Besides, it sounds as if GBH had amnesia when confronted with those antagonistic ministers who forgot their manners.

Luckily, any of us can read and it cannot be more clear that according to Joseph Smith, the Lord did say that.

Joseph Smith History 1:18-19:
18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than **I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—
**19 **I was answered **that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

So if Elder Wm.Grant Bangerter’s theory were correct that

Then I’ll ask the most obvious question…Why then did the Lord not instruct Joseph Smith to seek out the “right” church with the uncorrupted creed? This is GOD talking, right? You’d think God would have been able to tell Joseph Smith where exactly TO FIND this right church with the uncorrupted creed.

You know, bandying words with zerinus and those like him is an interesting excersize, but when you are dealing with people at this level of brainwashing, only the intervention of the Holy Spirit(not the mormon Holy Spirit) or a major deprogramming effort will have any impact. These folks are programmed to go into an automatic denial mode when confronted by any questioning of the party line or any view that differs from the group-think that they have been indoctrinated with. Notice how zerinus goes into denial/diversion mode when directly questioned about mormon doctrine. It is hard not to laugh at his antics when he is pinned down, he always tries to divert you to his tedious blog, as if lies and distortions will gain credibility by being in another place. Funny.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You have not understood. Blind obedience is not something that is expected of Latter-day Saints.

zerinus

Of course that is what is fully expected. How could you believe otherwise?

 

[zerinus]

Well, I must say you never fail to amuse me. Doesn’t your brain get tired from all those mental gymnastics?

Yes it does. That is why I keep most of my replies short, and very often don’t reply to dumb posts at all (like your)! You are lucky that I am in a good mood today, and decided to reply to this one, because it is as dumb as the rest of them!

Then I’ll ask the most obvious question…Why then did the Lord not instruct Joseph Smith to seek out the “right” church with the uncorrupted creed? This is GOD talking, right? You’d think God would have been able to tell Joseph Smith where exactly TO FIND this right church with the uncorrupted creed.

Simple! Because Christianity is apostate, and there were no “right church” left in the world. But as I had said a million times before, that does not mean that there were no more good Christians left in the world—both among the laity and the clergy. Got it this time? Can your simple brain manage to cope with that somehow? I doubt it; but you have to do your best, don’t you. As you can see, I am being terribly patient!

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are right of course Bart; but the focus of attention in that exchange between the Lord and Joseph Smith was even narrower than what you have described. The Lord was not referring to all the ministers of other religions either; but only those few whom Joseph had encountered in that “religious excitement” he talked about, who later became his greatest persecutors. The following extract from a fireside address given by Elder Wm. Grant Bangerter, and published in the July 1986 issue of the Ensign under the heading: “It’s a Two-Way Street,” is relevant here:
I had cause for a few moments of reflection as President Gordon B. Hinckley was greeting a group of ministers during the open house in the Jordan River Temple several years ago. After he had welcomed them as our guests and expressed the appreciation we have for their service in bringing people to righteousness, he invited their questions. Two or three in the group, forgetting their manners as guests in a warm and friendly situation, asked some cutting and antagonistic questions. Central to their criticism was a demand for President Hinckley to justify the declaration mentioned in Joseph Smith’s testimony, as he beheld the Father and the Son, that those professors of religion were all corrupt. President Hinckley responded that the Lord did not say that.

As I have pondered the same question, I have wondered: Do we really believe that all ministers of other churches are corrupt? Of course not. Joseph Smith certainly did not intend to communicate that. By reading the passage carefully, we find that the Lord Jesus Christ was referring only to that particular group of ministers in the Prophet Joseph Smith’s community who were quarreling and arguing about which church was true. The Savior (not Joseph Smith) said that they were drawing “near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” (JS–H 1:19.)

---

It is a fact, however, that Joseph Smith was roughly handled by the members and ministers of various prominent religions. These individuals tarred and feathered him, took up arms against him and his people, imprisoned him, and finally instigated his murder and martyrdom. Today, some like them follow a similar course of ridicule and persecution. Their antagonism, however, must not warp our understanding and conduct.

Are ministers of other churches inspired of God? Of course they are, if they are righteous and sincere. Do they accomplish good? Certainly.zerinus

Which, none of this is LDS scripture so it means nothing…according to you.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s obvious Mormons don’t accept Catholic baptisms – I had a visit from my Bishop last night demanding that I either leave the Catholic Church, resign from the LDS Church or have a church court. My letter of resignation is going out today!

Congratulations!!

 

[zerinus]

Which, none of this is LDS scripture so it means nothing…according to you.

It looks like I am going to have to add a new post to my Blog to thwart off another series of dumb question. Don’t worry. It will be done shortly. I am too busy to do it right now.

zerinus

 

[RebeccaJ]

It looks like I am going to have to add a new post to my Blog to thwart off another series of dumb question. Don’t worry. It will be done shortly. I am too busy to do it right now.

zerinus

When other people use non-scriptural quotes that originate with a mormon prophet or GA, you immediately reply with “not doctrine”.

Yet, you do the same yourself and call me dumb for calling you on it?

When someone STICKS to scripture, and KJV at that, and asks you to respond to that scripture you tell them you refuse to respond because you don’t like their tone! And yet continue to repeatedly rely on name calling.

As for your blog…it is comes across as nothing more than you trying to iron out your own doubts. Good luck with that.

 

[hosemonkey]

It looks like I am going to have to add a new post to my Blog to thwart off another series of dumb question. Don’t worry. It will be done shortly. I am too busy to do it right now.

zerinus

Don’t bother zerinus, nobody cares. Your blog is as tedious and untruthful as you are. And after that last comment, I must categorize you, in all charity, as the last part of the horse to go over the fence. You really need to go to some other forum and annoy the other people with your inanities. Go bother the Baptists, they deserve you.

 

[Lehl]

You know, bandying words with zerinus and those like him is an interesting excersize, but when you are dealing with people at this level of brainwashing, only the intervention of the Holy Spirit(not the mormon Holy Spirit) or a major deprogramming effort will have any impact. These folks are programmed to go into an automatic denial mode when confronted by any questioning of the party line or any view that differs from the group-think that they have been indoctrinated with. Notice how zerinus goes into denial/diversion mode when directly questioned about mormon doctrine. It is hard not to laugh at his antics when he is pinned down, he always tries to divert you to his tedious blog, as if lies and distortions will gain credibility by being in another place. Funny.

I know, I’ve seen it all many times before.

I used to be a regular poster on the Mormon apologetic FAIR’s forum. Very few Catholics on there. I realized it was sucking up way too much of my precious time, so I had to restrain myself. Now with the kids back in school, perhaps I’ll go back.

At times it was very worth it since I received several PM’s from doubting Mormons who were interested in Catholicism. I would like to think my posts helped guide them Home.

 

[zerinus]

When other people use non-scriptural quotes that originate with a mormon prophet or GA, you immediately reply with “not doctrine”.

That is not true. That is not what I do. I say any doctrine that anyone teaches, that conforms to LDS scripture is LDS doctrine. So if Elder Bangerter (or anybody else) says something that conforms to, or can be supported by LDS scripture, that is true LDS doctrine. If it cannot be supported by it, then it is speculation. If it outright contradicts it, then it is false. As it happens, what Elder Bangertter has said is in agreement with LDS scripture.

Yet, you do the same yourself and call me dumb for calling you on it?

I wouldn’t call you dumb. I called your question dumb!

When someone STICKS to scripture, and KJV at that, and asks you to respond to that scripture you tell them you refuse to respond because you don’t like their tone! And yet continue to repeatedly rely on name calling.

That is not true. That is not what I do at all.

As for your blog…it is comes across as nothing more than you trying to iron out your own doubts. Good luck with that.

I made that Blog for a purpose. If I refer someone to my Blog, and they say that they don’t want to read it, that is the surest sign to me that they are not really interested in the answer, but just want to argue, or have some other agenda up their sleeve; and I am not here to answer those kinds of posts. So that suits me very well. Some people think that when I refer them to my Blog, and they say that they don’t want to read it, that throws me off! Actually, it doesn’t. It enables me to throw them off!

zerinus

 

[Philothea53]

It’s obvious Mormons don’t accept Catholic baptisms – I had a visit from my Bishop last night demanding that I either leave the Catholic Church, resign from the LDS Church or have a church court. My letter of resignation is going out today!

You are actually fortunate (congratulations, by the way ) that they are making it easy for you. When I made my way back across the Tiber after a hiccup in my good sense, the local Bishop and Stake President made me jump through some hoops before they would take my letter requesting removal of my name from the rolls of the church (and those of my family members.) It took probably a year before I could be sure that we were no longer listed among them.

 

[Philothea53]

As for the missionaries being untraiined. Maybe. They do have four year of seminary in high school…

You really think they learn anything in that half hour before school in the morning? For my boys it was donut and wake up time. I don’t believe it would be much different in other areas.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That is not true. That is not what I do. I say any doctrine that anyone teaches, that conforms to LDS scripture is LDS doctrine. So if Elder Bangerter (or anybody else) says something that conforms to, or can be supported by LDS scripture, that is true LDS doctrine. If it cannot be supported by it, then it is speculation. If it outright contradicts it, then it is false. As it happens, what Elder Bangertter has said is in agreement with LDS scripture.

Well good luck figuring out which lds comments conform to lds scripture. I have found it to be a pointless exercise.

I wouldn’t call you dumb. I called your question dumb!

There is no such thing as a dumb question. Only questions that you do not want to answer are dumb, to you.

That is not true. That is not what I do at all.

Sure it is.

I made that Blog for a purpose. If I refer someone to my Blog, and they say that they don’t want to read it, that is the surest sign to me that they are not really interested in the answer, but just want to argue, or have some other agenda up their sleeve; and I am not here to answer those kinds of posts. So that suits me very well. Some people think that when I refer them to my Blog, and they say that they don’t want to read it, that throws me off! Actually, it doesn’t. It enables me to throw them off!

Zerinus, you have a bunch of people here who used to be mormon.Your blog answers nothing, and we know why. It is because there are no answers to the questions that we’re asking. Not from you. Not from any mormon source anywhere.

I have found more answers from Roman Catholicism in one year than I found in decades of asking them of mormons. Your religion makes no sense and contains no truth. No amount of zerinus-blogging is going to change that. No one here is waiting for the privilege of reading what has yet to come from your brain-washed mind.

zerinus