The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[BartBurk]

I appreciate your politeness, Fabian. I have never had any intention of trying to persuade anyone that Catholics should accept the LDS baptism.

The answer is [C]: we consider you to be good Christians who do not possess the Priesthood authority, and we believe that Priesthood authority is necessary to baptize.

We believe that loss of the priesthood occurred because of an apostasy, but we do not believe that you, the Catholic/Orthodox churches, were the apostates. Your church did the best with what it had, and we’re grateful for your scholarship and diligence in preserving the holy Bible, and in bringing the knowledge of Christ to so much of the world.

Mormons also see the Holy Spirit as active in history even after the priesthood authority was supposedly lost. For example, the Mormons could say the Holy Spirit guided the compilation of the Bible without accepting the authority of the Catholic priesthood. Mormons believe the Holy Spirit inspired Columbus to travel to the Americas for example and then led many other people to come here. The founders of the U.S. were inspired by the Holy Spirit to bring forth the U.S. Constitution. So in a way Mormons can make the claim that Jesus fulfilled his promise to always be with us even while claiming the church itself apostatized.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Mormons also see the Holy Spirit as active in history even after the priesthood authority was supposedly lost. For example, the Mormons could say the Holy Spirit guided the compilation of the Bible without accepting the authority of the Catholic priesthood. Mormons believe the Holy Spirit inspired Columbus to travel to the Americas for example and then led many other people to come here. The founders of the U.S. were inspired by the Holy Spirit to bring forth the U.S. Constitution. So in a way Mormons can make the claim that Jesus fulfilled his promise to always be with us even while claiming the church itself apostatized.

Excellent points, BartBurk. Thank you. You understand us well.

 

[Stephen168]

I take it you’re not the brightest light on the tree here.

Anyone else want to resolve this conundrum for poor Stev1e? It’s not that complicated. Pre-1993, possibly some collaboration and investment; post-1993, definite annual proclamations that tithes are being invested through Catholic Charities.

Another point I’d like to make is that the LDS attitude towards the Catholic church has changed tremendously since the 1993 clarification in your catechism that unbaptized children aren’t necessarily hellbound. In fact, that very year, the LDS church began to announce in our General conference that a portion of our tithing proceeds were being donated to Catholic Charities.

You claim the Mormon Church did not give money to Catholic Charities before 1993 because the Mormon Church believed incorrectly that the Catholic Church taught unbaptized children were hellbound. My Mormon friends would say you lied, because the Mormon Church gave money to Catholic Charities in the early 1970’s. Either the Mormon Church gave money to Catholic Charities before 1993 (you lied) or it did not (my friends lied).

I do appreciate your name calling so we can all see how “nice” Mormons are, but it doesn’t help your argument.

 

[Stephen168]

I think you would need to point out that the LDS Church does not disclose where its tithing funds go, so that is what makes the “proclamations” so unique.

Also pre-1993, you really wouldn’t know, and post-1993, you really can’t know how much, because, well, you don’t know.

So there would have had to have been an announcement by the Mormon Church in the 1970’s for my friends to know about Mormon Church donations to the Catholic Church?

 

[BartBurk]

You claim the Mormon Church did not give money to Catholic Charities before 1993 because the Mormon Church believed incorrectly that the Catholic Church taught unbaptized children were hellbound. My Mormon friends would say you lied, because the Mormon Church gave money to Catholic Charities in the early 1970’s. Either the Mormon Church gave money to Catholic Charities before 1993 (you lied) or it did not (my friends lied).

I do appreciate your name calling so we can all see how “nice” Mormons are, but it doesn’t help your argument.

I think the Catholic Church may have received money before 1993. That doesn’t mean that Pete lied. It may mean he just didn’t know about it.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

So there would have had to have been an announcement by the Mormon Church in the 1970’s for my friends to know about Mormon Church donations to the Catholic Church?

Nope. Just a leak. Remember we don’t have a professional clergy, so information tends to leak out.

hat I said was this:

Pete:

Another point I’d like to make is that the LDS attitude towards the Catholic church has changed tremendously since the 1993 clarification in your catechism that unbaptized children aren’t necessarily hellbound. In fact, that very year, the LDS church began to announce in our General conference that a portion of our tithing proceeds were being donated to Catholic Charities.

I inferred a connection because the same year your catechism changed, the LDS church started the announcements. My inference may be mistaken. Or your friends may be mistaken. Or we might both be right.

You claim the Mormon Church did not give money to Catholic Charities before 1993

No. I said that we didn’t hear about Catholic Charities in General Conference before 1993.

because the Mormon Church believed incorrectly that the Catholic Church taught unbaptized children were hellbound.

I don’t know if the church believed it, or the people believed it.

Look, my point here is that I admire your Pope, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, for instituting the change in the catechism that expresses the hope, based in our Lord’s love, that unbaptized children will be saved. Please stop trying to gainsay my words of praise for your church into some kind of offense.

 

[Stephen168]

I think the Catholic Church may have received money before 1993. That doesn’t mean that Pete lied. It may mean he just didn’t know about it.

I agree

 

[Denise1957]

Yes, that’s why I said “1993 clarification in your catechism” rather than the “change in your doctrine.”

Lots of mormons, and some Catholics, believed that the Catholic Church’s position was that unbaptized infants were hellbound. Your 1993 clarification corrected the record.

Why is this issue regarding unbaptized infants so important to Mormons?

 

[BartBurk]

Why is this issue regarding unbaptized infants so important to Mormons?

Perhaps because their infants are unbaptized. In fact most infants are unbaptized so it would seem a matter of injustice to send them to hell (or to limbo for that matter) when they hadn’t done anything worthy of condemnation besides being born.

 

[Denise1957]

Perhaps because their infants are unbaptized. In fact most infants are unbaptized so it would seem a matter of injustice to send them to hell (or to limbo for that matter) when they hadn’t done anything worthy of condemnation besides being born.

Alright, but why do Mormons care so much about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding this issue?

 

[Stephen168]

I inferred a connection because the same year your catechism changed, the LDS church started the announcements. My inference may be mistaken. Or your friends may be mistaken. Or we might both be right.

No. I said that we didn’t hear about Catholic Charities in General Conference before 1993.

I don’t know if the church believed it, or the people believed it.

Look, my point here is that I admire your Pope, then-Cardinal Ratzinger, for instituting the change in the catechism that expresses the hope, based in our Lord’s love, that unbaptized children will be saved. Please stop trying to gainsay my words of praise for your church into** some kind of offense**.

The offense was that you suggested the Catholic Church taught something it NEVER had. You’ve made that claim several times across a few threads and I wanted you to know that your suggested claim was wrong. Now that you know it is wrong to can stop making it.

 

[BartBurk]

Alright, but why do Mormons care so much about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding this issue?

I’m not sure the Mormon Church cares so much about what the Catholic Church teaches on this issue. Of course Mormons on this forum care because it is difficult for Mormons to understand how an innocent child could be kept out of heaven. I’m one of those Catholics who believe unbaptized children will enjoy the presence of God in Heaven.

 

[Denise1957]

I’m not sure the Mormon Church cares so much about what the Catholic Church teaches on this issue. Of course Mormons on this forum care because it is difficult for Mormons to understand how an innocent child could be kept out of heaven. I’m one of those Catholics who believe unbaptized children will enjoy the presence of God in Heaven.

Thanks, but this doesn’t answer my question. Hopefully Pete will address it.

 

[KathleenGee]

This is a new tact by Mormon ‘scholars’, saying the Catholic Church has taught this or that, or that early church fathers are proving Joseph Smith right by their admission we become gods. They convince charitable people like Pete to come into the front lines.

It is not working, Mormon scholars.

 

[OHCAC]

I have never even suggested that Catholics should accept LDS baptism. And I’ve said nothing about how other Christians should conduct their churches. Why do so many of you insist on acting as if I’d made such an argument? OK, so you want to turn a holy sacrament into an issue of political reciprocity?

Just to be clear - what you’re suggesting was not my point. My point was based on a misunderstanding of what you were getting at by bringing up how Jews would look at the Catholic view of God. I respect that LDS do not accept our baptism and that you understand that we do not accept yours. And now, through the other post I hope it’s more clear why we don’t and why we do accept that baptism of many other faiths.

I thought you were coming from the same place many other LDS have when I’ve discussed this point with them - that they’re offended that we don’t accept LDS baptism and then turn right around with a straight face and say, “But of course we don’t accept your baptism” without knowing, or usually caring, as it struck me, why we don’t. It’s their behavior and attitude that bothers me.

That was my point - nothing more. Has nothing to do with turning a sacrament into an issue of political reciprocity.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I appreciate your politeness, Fabian. I have never had any intention of trying to persuade anyone that Catholics should accept the LDS baptism. I have no objection to the Catholic decision on LDS baptism! I’ve simply attempted to correct misstatements about our theology.

Fair enough

The answer is [C]: we consider you to be good Christians who do not possess the Priesthood authority, and we believe that Priesthood authority is necessary to baptize.

We believe that loss of the priesthood occurred because of an apostasy, but we do not believe that you, the Catholic/Orthodox churches, were the apostates. Your church did the best with what it had, and we’re grateful for your scholarship and diligence in preserving the holy Bible, and in bringing the knowledge of Christ to so much of the world.

Are Mormons not at all troubled by the significant differences though that exist between Mormonism and, for instance, Catholicism?

A lot of Evangelical Christians already have huge problems with Catholic saint intercession. Do Mormons feel uncomfortable about that?

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Just to be clear - what you’re suggesting was not my point. My point was based on a misunderstanding of what you were getting at by bringing up how Jews would look at the Catholic view of God. I respect that LDS do not accept our baptism and that you understand that we do not accept yours. And now, through the other post I hope it’s more clear why we don’t and why we do accept that baptism of many other faiths.

It is, and I’m very grateful for those that participated to help me understand your doctrine and procedures with regard to baptismal authority, in contrast to your position on the holy sacrament of the Eucharist.

I thought you were coming from the same place many other LDS have when I’ve discussed this point with them - that they’re offended that we don’t accept LDS baptism and then turn right around with a straight face and say, “But of course we don’t accept your baptism” without knowing, or usually caring, as it struck me, why we don’t. It’s their behavior and attitude that bothers me.

Absolutely. That sounds terribly arrogant. Unless what bothers them (as it bothers me) is the reasoning behind the decision to not accept the LDS baptism.

We don’t accept your baptism as an LDS baptism, but we do recognize that in your baptism, that your intention is to make a covenant with the same God that we worship, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the God who was made flesh, was born of a virgin, dwelt among us doing miracles, and died on the cross for our sins so that all of us might live again. He who defeated death and hell.

What upsets me, and what I suspect upsets other Mormons, is that some of you attack our intentions with regard to worshiping Jesus Christ. We only question your authority; we do not question your Christianity.

Are Mormons not at all troubled by the significant differences though that exist between Mormonism and, for instance, Catholicism?

I don’t think the church is, and I’m not, since I found out about the 1993 Catechism, and the actual position of your church on the questionable necessity of infant baptism. Some churches still do teach that God only saves a predestined elite, and that God sends unbaptized children to hell, and we regard those doctrines as abominations.

But this is not an issue of reciprocity. Regardless of how you regard us, we regard you as our brothers and sisters in Christ. Your views of our beliefs may be inaccurate, and even when you correctly understand our doctrine, your evaluation may hurt our feelings, but that does not change your relationship with Christ, and therefore should not change how we regard our relationship with you. It simply affects, say, whether I would send my boys to a Catholic Bible camp.

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

This is a new tact by Mormon ‘scholars’, saying the Catholic Church has taught this or that, or that early church fathers are proving Joseph Smith right by their admission we become gods. They convince charitable people like Pete to come into the front lines.

Kathleen, you are too kind to me by calling me charitable. I’ve been overly gruff to some people on this forum, and my church leaders would probably be annoyed with my bristly responses to Rebecca and Steve168’s accusations that I was being dishonest. I am not the sort of man that my church would send to the front lines. I am a sinner; I am not a good Mormon; I don’t even hold a temple recommend anymore.

I doubt very much that my Church leaders consider this board or any Catholic society the “front lines” of any battle. We do not see ourselves as at war with the Catholic church.

I am here, because although was born LDS, served a mission, and married in the temple, I was raised in Catholic communities. My boss, my co-workers, and most of my clients are Spanish-speaking Catholics. I’ve been to Mass, although I know to fold my arms and receive the blessing rather than taking communion. In many respects you might say that I’m culturally Catholic.

I remain firmly persuaded that Joseph Smith was a prophet, that the Book of Mormon is scripture, that Jesus Christ had sheep that were not of the fold in Jerusalem and Rome, and that he visited them. That God’s word does not end with the Bible. But I’m happy to agree to disagree with you regarding those issues. It wounds me that people that I consider my brothers and sisters in Christ, people that I respect and identify with, question my Christianity, because of issues that have nothing to do with the core of Christianity, i.e. the Atonement and the Resurrection.

God bless,

Peter

 

[Cowboy_Pete]

Alright, but why do Mormons care so much about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding this issue?

Because the Book of Mormon, which is the cornerstone of our faith, presents the doctrine of hellbound infants as an “abomination” that we are obligated to oppose whenever we encounter it.

 

[Denise1957]

Because the Book of Mormon, which is the cornerstone of our faith, presents the doctrine of hellbound infants as an “abomination” that we are obligated to oppose whenever we encounter it.

Okay, but why would your Church care about the stance of the Catholic Church on this issue? After all, you have said that the Mormon church believes that the Catholic Church apostatized (in the first century, right?), and that the Catholic priesthood is not valid, and so therefore Catholic baptism is not valid. So, given this, why should Mormons give a hoot about what the Catholic Church teaches?