St. Ignatius who sat of Jesus' lap Matt. 18:3-4 & Mark 9:36 - how can anyone believe that there was a Great Apostacy after the deaths of the Apostles?

[CatholicBryan]

St. John is the funniest argument… a catch 22. If he is not on earth (which is true), then the Mormon Church is wrong and is teaching false doctrine, or if it’s true, then there is no need for a Mormon church because the fullness of the priesthood authority was still on the earth, meaning the Catholic/Orthodox Church is the true Apostolic church.
This stuff that St. John is still walking around … I get such a big kick out of. EVEN if he did have a supped up body … he hasn’t introduced himself to anyone with this new body…ever? so that no one has still ever heard of him? The word that he has talked to people hasn’t spread at all? That he met so and so who told so and so? He hasn’t done any miracles or made himself known in this new bod of his? No TV station, radio or anything or anyone else has ever heard of him. Only common sense is needed for this argument … or that the Mormon church was not necessary because St. John who “still holds priesthood authority” is still on the earth.

More: Every Mormon has a different timeline on when the Apostacy actually happened. Some Mormons like Talmage say it was after the last apostle, others say they are not sure. The Book of Mormon says it wasn’t until the 400’s. It says everyone was corrupt by the 400’s. hhmmm.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) Baptism of the dead is not practiced in any Christian denomination that I know of. It is certainly not taught by the Church, and is not found in the scriptures.

(2) Adam and Eve were certainly not happy about sinning, and being evicted from paradise. Scripture records this. Neither were they predestined to sin. They were free to choose Anybody that told you they were is in serious error. That is not Christian teaching by any stretch of the imagination.

Greggy,
(1) Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”

I realize that it is not taught by your church, but it was taught by Paul.

(2) Here is the reaction of Adam and Eve to being cast out of the garden of Eden as described in Genesis (Note also that LDS have more knowledge about this subject through having more of what Moses wrote about it):

Genesis 3: 9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou?
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
13 And the Lord God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

20 And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

4:1 And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the Lord.

Those reactions of Adam and Eve don’t show regret or unhappiness about their choices. Adam was afraid of being seen, but that’s a different emotion than being unhappy. When Eve said, “I have gotten a man from the Lord,” she sounds happy to me. (Obviously, she didn’t know the kind of life Cain was going to lead.)

 

[greggy53]

Correct, but what is admirable about children, what makes them pure and what Jesus praises is not this selfishness that results from their fallen nature in the generation of Adam, but it is their inherent openness to love, their acceptance and yearning for the unconditional love of their parents–and, most especially, of God. A child’s soul is naturally accepting of God and His love, naturally trusting in the Father. That is what we need to emulate.

That is also what makes baptism so incredibly appropriate for them. A child’s soul freely and happily accepts the Lord when the Lord is offered because it has not been prevented from doing so (“Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them”). A parent properly fulfills their role as a Christian, returning their greatest gift (their child) to God and asking God to make that child a part of His family like they are, through baptismal regeneration out of the generation of Adam and into the generation of Christ. The parents’ faith is transmitted to and sanctifies the child, and the child’s soul joyfully accepts such a gift from the parents and from God Himself in the Sacrament. Whether a child chooses to embrace or reject that gift later in life, the child’s pure beginnings freely welcomed in God’s Grace.

To deny children baptism is to deny them membership into God’s family. I cannot imagine doing that as a parent–it is truly a hateful thing to do to a child, to withhold from them the greatest and most important gift you know, to practically disown them from God’s family in this way. Further, to deny them baptism is to hinder them. Whereas we should be bringing them before the Lord, letting them come to Him and embrace Him and be enfolded in His embrace. Infant baptism is a truly beautiful thing, and denying it is a truly monstrous thing.

Amen, it is their openess and acceptance that Jesus was talking about. They have faith!.

 

[greggy53]

(1) Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?”

I realize that it is not taught by your church, but it was taught by Paul.

Here is the correct explaination for that scritpure:
“That are baptized for the dead”… Some think the apostle here alludes to a ceremony then in use; but others, more probably, to the prayers and penitential labours, performed by the primitive Christians for the souls of the faithful departed; or to the baptism of afflictions and sufferings undergone for sinners spiritually dead.

Your people seem to have taken a few scriptures out of context, and built an entire religion from it. The basic premise of the nature of the fall from grace in the garden seems to be one of them.

 

[greggy53]

 More:  Every Mormon has a different timeline on when the Apostacy actually happened.  Some Mormons like Talmage say it was after the last apostle, others say they are not sure.  The Book of Mormon says it wasn't until the 400's.  It says everyone was corrupt by the 400's.  hhmmm.

The SDA produce the same kind of propaganda stating that “The real true church went into hiding, and the truth was suppressed etc late in the 4th century". No one can come up with any evidence for it. Just their off -the -wall interpretations of scripture. Mormons go one better than the SDA. They wrote their own book and called it scripture. I wonder, do we even consider LDS Christian? What does the Church say?

 

[Arandur]

The SDA produce the same kind of propaganda stating that “The real true church went into hiding, and the truth was suppressed etc late in the 4th century". No one can come up with any evidence for it. Just their off -the -wall interpretations of scripture. Mormons go one better than the SDA. They wrote their own book and called it scripture. I wonder, do we even consider LDS Christian? What does the Church say?

The LDS/Mormons the Church does not recognize as validly-baptized Christians because they believe in a multiplicity of gods rather than the One True God in three persons (Trinity).
BUT, lest you infer too much from this, not all who believe the BoM believe this. There are many sects of Smithians (those who follow Joseph Smiths teachings and writings). The LDS are the only ones, to my knowledge, who reject the Trinity in favor of a different Godhead. I don’t know about the FLDS or the Strangites and similar groups, but the RLDS/Community of Christ and the Restoration (and, I think, Remnant) Branches do believe in the Trinity and do have valid baptisms. The Community of Christ is, I think, the second largest Smithian sect and they have become much like liberalized Protestants. The Restoration Branches are more like conservative Protestants.

I wish we had more Smithians of the other groups available to talk with. It would be nice to hear more of their beliefs and it would be easier to communicate with them, since their use of terms and their beliefs have more in common with how most other Christians use them.

 

[CatholicBryan]

greggy53: The Catholic Church and the other Christian churches do not consider the Mormons to be Christian (but a quasi-christian sect at best). This is mostly because of the person of Jesus Christ and how they view Him. They believe in many gods; in fact Jesus is a god, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. While Mormons are really nice people, obviously, this teaching does not match up with Orthodox Christianity. The balso believe in a pre-existent life; they believe that good Mormons can become gods and rule their own planets; that Jesus and Satan are brothers and a whole host of other doctrines not taught or found in true Christianity. I have made a list of close to 50 major differences between Mormons and Catholics. Consequently, as stated above, their Baptism is not valid.

 

[greggy53]

The LDS/Mormons the Church does not recognize as validly-baptized Christians because they believe in a multiplicity of gods rather than the One True God in three persons (Trinity).
BUT, lest you infer too much from this, not all who believe the BoM believe this. There are many sects of Smithians (those who follow Joseph Smiths teachings and writings). The LDS are the only ones, to my knowledge, who reject the Trinity in favor of a different Godhead. I don’t know about the FLDS or the Strangites and similar groups, but the RLDS/Community of Christ and the Restoration (and, I think, Remnant) Branches do believe in the Trinity and do have valid baptisms. The Community of Christ is, I think, the second largest Smithian sect and they have become much like liberalized Protestants. The Restoration Branches are more like conservative Protestants.

I wish we had more Smithians of the other groups available to talk with. It would be nice to hear more of their beliefs and it would be easier to communicate with them, since their use of terms and their beliefs have more in common with how most other Christians use them.

So, do the Smithians then accept the Mormon bible? If so that would bring their Christianity into question as well…It all sounds pretty typical of the Churches that spawned from the so-called reformation; Dividing over and over again into a multitude of sects every time there is a disagreement over something.

 

[greggy53]

greggy53: The Catholic Church and the other Christian churches do not consider the Mormons to be Christian (but a quasi-christian sect at best). This is mostly because of the person of Jesus Christ and how they view Him. They believe in many gods; in fact Jesus is a god, as is the Father and the Holy Spirit. While Mormons are really nice people, obviously, this teaching does not match up with Orthodox Christianity. The balso believe in a pre-existent life; they believe that good Mormons can become gods and rule their own planets; that Jesus and Satan are brothers and a whole host of other doctrines not taught or found in true Christianity. I have made a list of close to 50 major differences between Mormons and Catholics. Consequently, as stated above, their Baptism is not valid.

What a shame. I had a Catholic friend years ago who’s son converted to LDS when he moved out to Utah. My friend and his wife were very uspet about it and now I know why.

 

[Arandur]

So, do the Smithians then accept the Mormon bible? If so that would bring their Christianity into question as well…It all sounds pretty typical of the Churches that spawned from the so-called reformation; Dividing over and over again into a multitude of sects every time there is a disagreement over something.

I should be clearer: when I use the term “Smithian,” I apply it to all of the sects that have grown out of Joseph Smith’s works and that accept at least some of his works in some way as a foundation for their faith. All of them believe themselves to be the true “Restoration” of the church, and separate themselves from the Protestants by saying that they have the true restored gospel and priesthood authority.

So yes, all Smithians (to my knowledge) accept the Book of Mormon (they also accept the OT and NT of the Bible). They vary in how they interpret the BoM (and also the Bible), as well as the other works and teachings of Smith and his inner circle. The Mormons are the most inclusive, accepting virtually everything Smith said and did as pretty official, deriving many of their teachings from his later sermons. Some of the other groups (like the RLDS/CoC and Restoration Branches, the two others I am most familiar with) don’t exactly think Smith apostasized, but also don’t really take some of his more alien, later teachings at face value. They find some other way to rationalize them. The Mormons believe Smith’s Pearl of Great Price and Book of Abraham are Scripture and have a Doctrine and Covenants (sort of like a collection of encyclicals from their prophets/presidents) differing from the others based upon when the schisms occurred (since they keep adding to the D&C, each sect only accepts those additions from their own branch made after whatever schism occurred). However, the Mormons don’t seem to accept the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of the King James Bible to be their official translation of the Bible; they use the KJV.

The Restoration branches don’t quite have an “official” version, but they seem to use the JST about as extensively as the KJV, and they don’t include the Pearl of Great Price or Book of Abraham in their scriptures.

It is not belief in the BoM that calls into question one’s Christianity (in the sense of a valid baptism coming from invocation of the One Triune God and worship of Him); the BoM actually doesn’t support many of the LDS teachings as much as Smith’s later works do. So, as I said, there are some sects of Smithians that have beliefs closer to mainline Protestantism, believing in the One Triune God and rejecting things like polygamy and becoming gods in the afterlife.

Hopefully you would not say that Protestants are not Christian? Certainly they suffer from many divisions and many false teachings often stemming from original charismatic teachers, but still validly baptized, sincerely worshipping God and understanding Him to be Triune, with Jesus as our Savior. So, too, are some of the Smithian sects still Christian.

 

[1beleevr]

Was thinking out loud yesterday, while watching inmates having “mass”, and taking communion:" What if a man/woman was baptized as an infant, cradle catholic, had confirmation, and then murdered three people in cold blood? Is found guilty, and sentenced to life without parole. What do you believe is the status of his/her salvation?

 

[greggy53]

Hopefully you would not say that Protestants are not Christian? Certainly they suffer from many divisions and many false teachings often stemming from original charismatic teachers, but still validly baptized, sincerely worshipping God and understanding Him to be Triune, with Jesus as our Savior. So, too, are some of the Smithian sects still Christian.

No, I accept most Protestants as brothers…but not all.

 

[greggy53]

Was thinking out loud yesterday, while watching inmates having “mass”, and taking communion:" What if a man/woman was baptized as an infant, cradle catholic, had confirmation, and then murdered three people in cold blood? Is found guilty, and sentenced to life without parole. What do you believe is the status of his/her salvation?

To Catholics salvation is a process not a one time event. It is possible to loose your salvation. If he/she repents I don’t see why he wouldn’t regain salvation. It’s not over until it’s over. God is always ready to forgive…even though the debt to society must be paid.

 

[1beleevr]

I was baptized by full immersion in 1968. I heard from different people that there was a religion that was sprinkling, or pouringwater over people to baptize them! Baptism is like being buried with Christ, and then being resurrected, as a new creation, so full immersion makes sense in that context I for one, am not at liberty to say that sprinkling/pouring is right or wrong, or appropriate. But the bottom line is even though baptism does not save you, you MUST be baptized, by whatever method. If one sprinkles, or pours, is the baptism complete?

 

[1beleevr]

[To Catholics salvation is a process not a one time event. It is possible to loose your salvation. If he/she repents I don’t see why he wouldn’t regain salvation. It’s not over until it’s over. God is always ready to forgive…even though the debt to society must be paid.]

To me, salvation is something that begins when you say “YES!”, to Jesus’s invitation of eternal life through faith, saved by grace. The journey begins, and the hard roads lie ahead(John 16:33) I cannot say with certainty, that a person can or cannot lose their salvationI know that we sin even after we are saved, but by the divine grace of God, we are forgiven of our sins(past,present and future). Does this mean we can go on sinning, and make a mockery of Christ’s sacrifice? No, a 1000 times, no! But even though I don’t know what is in a man’s heart, I do tend to doubt the sincerity of someone’s salvation, when they completely deny God and turn from their conversion! OSAS is a touchy, and often contentious subject, with neither side having solid evidence either way!

 

[1beleevr]

[To Catholics salvation is a process not a one time event. It is possible to loose your salvation. If he/she repents I don’t see why he wouldn’t regain salvation. It’s not over until it’s over. God is always ready to forgive…even though the debt to society must be paid.

The hope here would be that the criminal sincerely repented, and confessed of his/her sin to the Father(God), before he dies in prison, and in unforgiven sin! I have seen so many, who have denied their guilt, until their death!
[/quote]

 

[greggy53]

To me, salvation is something that begins when you say “YES!”, to Jesus’s invitation of eternal life through faith, saved by grace. The journey begins, and the hard roads lie ahead(John 16:33) I cannot say with certainty, that a person can or cannot lose their salvationI know that we sin even after we are saved, but by the divine grace of God, we are forgiven of our sins(past,present and future). Does this mean we can go on sinning, and make a mockery of Christ’s sacrifice? No, a 1000 times, no! But even though I don’t know what is in a man’s heart, I do tend to doubt the sincerity of someone’s salvation, when they completely deny God and turn from their conversion! OSAS is a touchy, and often contentious subject, with neither side having solid evidence either way!

What did Jesus say when asked how many times must we forgive our brothers??

 

[greggy53]

I … by whatever method. If one sprinkles, or pours, is the baptism complete?

What is that supposed to mean? incomplete baptism?? Thats a new one for me.

 

[CatholicBryan]

1beleevr:

Ummm, good questions but wrong forum. This one is on Mormonism. But FYI, Scripture is clear that Baptism does “save you”. It’s not an Eternal security thing, but none the less the bible says Baptism “now SAVES you”. (1 Peter 3:19-21; Mk. 16:16 among others).

I would love it if we could stick to Mormonism or start a new Forum on this topic, but that’s just my 2 cents

 

[Arandur]

What is that supposed to mean? incomplete baptism?? Thats a new one for me.

I find it sad that Catholics are often accused of being exclusive and judgmental of others when we have perhaps the most open understanding and acceptance of baptism into Christ’s grace. We are also accused of being legalistic in the sense of following unnecessary man-made legal strictures, when others judge and condemn baptisms because they didn’t meet their own particulars.

The same folks may be surprised and may (though I hope not) be offended to find that the Catholic Church is actually so inclusive as to accept not only any Trinitarian baptism, but also to consider all those so baptized to be part of the extended catholic family. To go further, we believe that to the extent that people believe in what is true and accept God’s love regardless of circumstance or religion, they are catholic (just not in full communion with Christ).

So some may call us unbaptized because we were poured on or we were baptized as infants (like Irenaeus, likely baptized as an infant around 140AD by Polycarp who was appointed bishop and taught by St. John the Evangelist). Or maybe even because we were baptized by someone without authority (as if baptism does not itself properly and directly invoke none but the very authority of God Himself and relies not at all upon the authority of any other than Jesus Christ the High Priest Himself; certainly no sinners of themselves could have such authority anyway). But we would most likely call our accusers baptized brothers and sisters.