Why did the gospel need to be restored?

[gazelam]

I am always amused by this type of argument from Mormons. Without addressing each specific accusation, this argument is problematic for a number of reasons. Firstly, nowhere does the Bible state that everything must be found in the Bible. That proposition itself is non-Biblical. Indeed, the LDS church itself is not Bible-only (nor is the Catholic Church).

Secondly, this argument is essentially cherry-picking. For example, you claim that Communion in the Bible consists of an action of both eating and drinking. Well, lets be specific: communion in the Bible consists of eating unleavened bread and drinking wine. Mormons do not follow the Communion as found in the Bible. So, must the ordinance be performed exactly as done (purportedly) in the Bible?

Thirdly, I always cite the example of the evolution in the LDS initiatory washing and anointing. Originally, this ordinance entailed an actual bath washing and anointing of specific parts of the body. It evolved into dabbing water and oil on specific body parts. Today, as I experienced a few years ago, I was “symbolically” washed and anointed, with water and oil put on my head and the rest of my body was “symbolically” washed and anointed. Then of course there is the Endowment, which has gone under many changes, with additions and subtractions since it was first presented. Clearly the LDS church has had a number of changes in the performance of certain ordinances (apparently baptism was also performed for health/healing in the early LDS church. Where is that in the Bible, going by this argument).

So, I really don’t find this argument convincing, especially when it seems that both churches presumably believe they have Divinely given authority (and perhaps inspiration) to make any changes or adaptations that have been found in the performance of ordinances/sacraments over time.

These are all good points meriting additional discussion. As you know, ultimately what LDS do is present their message and invite the individual to inquire of God to know for himself/herself whether the message is true.

 

[gazelam]

If Mormons object supposedly non-biblical practices Catholics have, how do you square with temple ceremonies, communion with water instead of wine, and other practices that are clearly not biblical? Catholicism at least has a Tradition to which it can refer. What would make the LDS more legitimate (serious question, not intended to mock)?

A very short answer is that we believe in continuing “public” (to use what I think is the Catholic term) revelation and that there are again apostles and prophets on the Earth today to direct the affairs of the Church on the Earth. LDS originally used wine for the sacrament/communion and at one point the question arose of what specifically to use and Joseph Smith received this revelation: lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/27.2?lang=eng

D&C 27:2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

So, I guess this verse may be an LDS equivalent of Catholic Sacred Tradition in that it shed greater light on a Biblical practice.

(As an aside, A Catholic recently told me that water alone could be used in Catholic communion. Is there any merit to that?)

So, regarding temple ceremonies, we also believe they were provided by revelation, and although they are done behind closed doors, we believe we can find some Biblical echos of these ceremonies. For instance, 1 Corinthians 15:29 mentions the practice of vicarious baptism for the deceased, which is an LDS temple practice. Another temple practice is marrying husband and wife together forever - not “til death do you part”. That doctrine is known as “eternal marriage”. 1 Peter 3:7 (KJV) alludes to marriage beyond the grave:

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

So this verse shows that husband and wife are to inherit some sort of “life” together. IMHO this “life” would not be mortality since we each inherit that life individually. However, we do seek to inherit “Eternal Life” which I believe is the “life” referred to here of which husband and wife are “heirs together”.

So, again, I think the LDS “Sacred Tradition” equivalent you’re looking for is modern “public” revelation.

I hope this helps…

 

[PaulfromIowa]

(As an aside, A Catholic recently told me that water alone could be used in Catholic communion. Is there any merit to that?)

Nope.

 

[Wannano]

Nope.

I may not have this right but I understand that a miracle is happening with transubstantiation within each Catholic Eucharist?

Just interesting to recall that Jesus’ first miracle was turning water into wine.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

A very short answer is that we believe in continuing “public” (to use what I think is the Catholic term) revelation and that there are again apostles and prophets on the Earth today to direct the affairs of the Church on the Earth. LDS originally used wine for the sacrament/communion and at one point the question arose of what specifically to use and Joseph Smith received this revelation: lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/27.2?lang=eng

D&C 27:2 For, behold, I say unto you, that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory—remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins.

So, I guess this verse may be an LDS equivalent of Catholic Sacred Tradition in that it shed greater light on a Biblical practice.

This is kind of my point though. If the LDS have a tradition through their living prophets regarding current temple ceremonies, which are not biblical, then how can you criticize non-immersion for baptism?

By the way, out of curiosity, when the LDS practice baptisms, do they use the standard Trinitarian formula that mainstream Christians do, or is there another formula used?

(As an aside, A Catholic recently told me that water alone could be used in Catholic communion. Is there any merit to that?)

I hope that one of the more knowledgeable members can answer this question, because I have no idea.

So, regarding temple ceremonies, we also believe they were provided by revelation, and although they are done behind closed doors, we believe we can find some Biblical echos of these ceremonies. For instance, 1 Corinthians 15:29 mentions the practice of vicarious baptism for the deceased, which is an LDS temple practice. Another temple practice is marrying husband and wife together forever - not “til death do you part”. That doctrine is known as “eternal marriage”. 1 Peter 3:7 (KJV) alludes to marriage beyond the grave:

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

So this verse shows that husband and wife are to inherit some sort of “life” together. IMHO this “life” would not be mortality since we each inherit that life individually. However, we do seek to inherit “Eternal Life” which I believe is the “life” referred to here of which husband and wife are “heirs together”.

So, again, I think the LDS “Sacred Tradition” equivalent you’re looking for is modern “public” revelation.

I hope this helps…

Certainly understand what you’re saying. But there are no hard and fast biblical verses pointing to these practices. As you said, it’s a form of tradition because of the LDS belief in continuing revelation (which is fair). However, if it’s because of tradition, then how can you reject infant baptism even though it’s not specifically mentioned in scripture? There are some verses that claim that “whole households” were baptized. Of course, Evangelicals and LDS would claim that it doesn’t specifically state infants - but if the history of the Church shows that this practice has been done, then why should it be considered a false teaching?

 

[andrewstx]

B

But is an 6 or 8 years old capable of such belief? STandrd age for mormon dunking.

Gazelam: I need to apologize about the post quoted above. it was uncharitable…

But I was curioius about LDS baptism. Do you guys have pre baptism classes? I just could not understand requiring faith and repentence from so young of children.

As an Orthodox Christian, I too was baptized by triple submersion and was confirmed right away. But we call it Chrismation.

 

[TOmNossor]

The reason I look in the history of the Church to find what necessitated a restoration is because I see a miraculous “restoration.” It is the strength of the origins of the CoJCoLDS and the coming forth of the BOM that result in me looking and finding flaws in the early church that I think fit well with the need for a restoration.
I have never been a “restorationsist in waiting” (I term coined by a Catholic friend of mine). I would also not be a “restorationist in waiting” if the CoJCoLDS was eradicated. I lack the confidence in my “private judgement” to declare that a Christianity is wrong and I must wait for a restoration (I think the Ultra Trads produce the most powerful anti-Catholic arguments today, but their flaw in my opinion is the reliance they have upon their “private judgement” above the judgement of the magisterium).
But, the question was “why did the gospel need to be restored.”
I will offer three things I think are sufficient to demonstrate what is wrong with the Catholic Church and what is “restored” thus not wrong with the CoJCoLDS. These things (and others) provide support to the thesis that a restoration was needed. Absent a conviction (intellectual, spiritual, or both) that the CoJCoLDS is from God, I do not think any of these three things should cause a Catholic to decide the Catholic Church could not be from God.

1. God’s church is led by folks who can receive supernatural public revelation. This was the case in the Old Testament, this was the case in the New Testament. This was Tertullian’s expectation in the third century. The authorities of the Catholic Church responded to the presence of purported revelatory communications from God by claiming that public revelation had ended. The CoJCoLDS has responded to purported revelatory communications by speaking of stewardship and common consent, but we have never declared that God would not be able to teach new truths or reveal divinely sanctioned paths for His Church like He did anciently. It is my opinion that Catholic and LDS authorities have made wrong turns, but that God’s revelation can make course corrections. “Original sin,” – wrong turn. “Adam-God” – wrong turn. I think the recent attempt to correct the doctrine of original sin in the Catholic Church (via declaring contra EVERY pre-19th century Catholic other than Pelagius, unbaptized babies might not be in hell) is a mess far worse than Adam-God. BTW, I do not consider Adam-God as it was understood by some to be revelation from God, the presence of the ability to receive revelation can create messiness because God only has imperfect humans to work through, but it can correct messiness too.
2. Virtually all non-Catholic and many Catholic scholars now see radical development in the position of Pope and monoepiscopal-Bishop. More than a dozen years ago I was invited to read the ECF to see if they were Catholic. I literally screamed, “he doesn’t know he is Pope.” Most folks agree with me. Cardinal Newman’s development theory was viewed with suspicion for many years (Ultra Trads are still not fans in most cases), but this development is necessary to get from there to here. There are still apostolic abilities/authorities absent in the Pope or the bishops, but the different functions of apostles (general authorities) and bishops (local authorities) in the early church is increasingly clear. In the absence of a continued apostolic authority the local bishops filled the void IMO. Well-meaning Christian men did well, but I see the self-declaration that Bishops have apostolic authority to be the same as if an Extraordinary Minister of Holy Communion were to declare that they can transubstantiate the bread and wine. Such self-declarations in a LDS or Catholic paradigm do not substitute for conferral of keys/ordination (LDS) and ordination (Catholic).
3. The covenantal nature of sacraments is essential especially Baptism and Confirmation. Covenants are two way agreements between God and man. Christ’s atonement does account for the failure of our (the human in the covenant) ability to meet our covenantal obligations, but such does not empty these sacraments of their meaning. There is too much (a very qualitative and non-specific claim I know) of sacraments as a vehicle for unmerited grace in the historic practice of Catholic sacraments. Unmerited grace is the only type of grace that exists (and some LDS need to remember this more often), but Infant baptism is flawed because the infant cannot participate in the covenantal nature sufficiently. The parents can prepare a youth to make imperfect steps (imperfect steps are the only steps made by humans even adults who are baptized do not understand fully the covenant they are making myself included), but they cannot be the covenanter. Baptism in Catholic thought puts an indelible mark upon the baptized. A mark not produced via their choice or their willfully entering into a covenant. The CoJCoLDS rectify this by emphasizing the covenantal nature. Even in the practice of “Baptism for the Dead” LDS thought has always (I think always) acknowledged that it the freely chosen reception of this sacrament not the performing of this sacrament that is efficacious.

Let me again state, that I do not believe the above should cause Catholics to decide the Catholic Church cannot be truth. I also do not think knowledge of these “issues” is necessary for a person to be a committed LDS. But, in response to “what needed to be restored?” I offer the above as three things that I think needed to be restored.
Charity, TOm

 

[FabiusMaximus]

1. God’s church is led by folks who can receive supernatural public revelation. This was the case in the Old Testament, this was the case in the New Testament. This was Tertullian’s expectation in the third century. The authorities of the Catholic Church responded to the presence of purported revelatory communications from God by claiming that public revelation had ended. It is my opinion that Catholic and LDS authorities have made wrong turns, but that God’s revelation can make course corrections. “Original sin,” – wrong turn. “Adam-God” – wrong turn. I think the recent attempt to correct the doctrine of original sin in the Catholic Church (via declaring contra EVERY pre-19th century Catholic other than Pelagius, unbaptized babies might not be in hell) is a mess far worse than Adam-God. BTW, I do not consider Adam-God as it was understood by some to be revelation from God, the presence of the ability to receive revelation can create messiness because God only has imperfect humans to work through, but it can correct messiness too.

I’m a little surprised you admitted that prophets in the LDS Church have made doctrinal mistakes. But the Catholic Church has never formally declared in a dogmatic fashion that unbaptized babies would go to hell. It has been a subject of intense debate, and never formally approved by the Church as dogma, and the same idea would go for the concept of Limbo. Pious Catholics would have the opportunity to have legitimate debate on these subjects so long as they don’t contradict previous formal teaching and as long as the Church hasn’t made an official pronouncement. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but, for example, Catholics can still debate whether the Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven alive or after death.

The difference is also that if Brigham Young is a prophet, he shouldn’t be uttering false doctrines. If you’re stating that Young formally professed Adam-God in his capacity as prophet (and I’m not sure if you are), then you are stating that a prophet of the Lord has led his sheep astray. If a prophet receives actual revelation from God, it would never lead his Church in the wrong direction. And that’s also a big difference between the LDS prophet and the papacy. Popes can only be infallible when they profess doctrine in the name of the whole Church in accordance with previous teaching. If Pope Francis tomorrow came out with the Adam-God doctrine tomorrow and proclaimed that this is what the whole Church believes, I can tell you he wouldn’t be Pope for very much longer.

1. Virtually all non-Catholic and many Catholic scholars now see radical development in the position of Pope and monoepiscopal-Bishop. More than a dozen years ago I was invited to read the ECF to see if they were Catholic. I literally screamed, “he doesn’t know he is Pope.” Most folks agree with me. Cardinal Newman’s development theory was viewed with suspicion for many years (Ultra Trads are still not fans in most cases), but this development is necessary to get from there to here. There are still apostolic abilities/authorities absent in the Pope or the bishops, but the different functions of apostles (general authorities) and bishops (local authorities) in the early church is increasingly clear. In the absence of a continued apostolic authority the local bishops filled the void IMO.

This one is a bit unfair. Of course non-Catholics aren’t going to see the papacy in the Early Church Fathers - they’re non-Catholics. If they did, they would have converted to Catholicism by now! Given that Catholics make up approximately 50% of the worldwide Christian population, then I’d say that the numbers are a little more equal . On a personal level, I do see the papacy and its supremacy being expressed in the early Church.

1. The covenantal nature of sacraments is essential especially Baptism and Confirmation. Covenants are two way agreements between God and man. Christ’s atonement does account for the failure of our (the human in the covenant) ability to meet our covenantal obligations, but such does not empty these sacraments of their meaning. There is too much (a very qualitative and non-specific claim I know) of sacraments as a vehicle for unmerited grace in the historic practice of Catholic sacraments. Unmerited grace is the only type of grace that exists (and some LDS need to remember this more often), but Infant baptism is flawed because the infant cannot participate in the covenantal nature sufficiently. The parents can prepare a youth to make imperfect steps (imperfect steps are the only steps made by humans even adults who are baptized do not understand fully the covenant they are making myself included), but they cannot be the covenanter. Baptism in Catholic thought puts an indelible mark upon the baptized. A mark not produced via their choice or their willfully entering into a covenant. The CoJCoLDS rectify this by emphasizing the covenantal nature. Even in the practice of “Baptism for the Dead” LDS thought has always (I think always) acknowledged that it the freely chosen reception of this sacrament not the performing of this sacrament that is efficacious.

With all due respect, I question the ability of an 8 year-old to be able to decide for himself on whether he understands baptism and wants to be received into the Church. I’d question the ability of a 12 or 13 year old for that matter as well. This isn’t just with regards to Mormons, but with Evangelicals as well. I wanted to be baptized when I was like 10 or 11, and my parents flatly refused because I wasn’t old enough to understand the meaning of baptism in their eyes. Not sure I can blame them.

 

[TOmNossor]

I’m a little surprised you admitted that prophets in the LDS Church have made doctrinal mistakes. But the Catholic Church has never formally declared in a dogmatic fashion that unbaptized babies would go to hell. It has been a subject of intense debate, and never formally approved by the Church as dogma, and the same idea would go for the concept of Limbo. Pious Catholics would have the opportunity to have legitimate debate on these subjects so long as they don’t contradict previous formal teaching and as long as the Church hasn’t made an official pronouncement. Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but, for example, Catholics can still debate whether the Virgin Mary was assumed into heaven alive or after death.

I generally view Ecumenical Councils as being the main source of infallible dogma. In past discussions, I have highlighted what I see from the Council of Florence (and the Council of Lyons), “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” My confidence should matter little to you, but I will say two things.

I am confident that the Fathers at the Council of Florence meant that unbaptized babies die in
“original sin alone” and thus go “straightaway to hell.”
I am confident that an understanding of the Council of Florence that discards the original understanding of the Fathers at the Council of Florence creates a window through which virtually any dogma may be radically modified and essential overturned.

I could say much more about this, but it is really not germane to what I am offering here.

I suppose you might say that the Catholic Church has never made doctrinal mistakes that could have been rectified by God’s revelation. I would disagree here and at other places. However, you cannot say that the Catholic Church has never made non-doctrinal mistakes that could have been rectified by God’s supernatural public revelation. I merely suggest that after the Catholic authorities responded to the purported revelations in the third (and maybe second) century by claiming public revelation had ended, they cut themselves off from God’s way of leading God’s church. This had to be restored as it was essential to God’s Church.

I do not think a Catholic can agree with the above, but it is a very consistent and solid position from a LDS perspective and aligns well with the Old and New Testament.

I’m a little surprised you admitted that prophets in the LDS Church have made doctrinal mistakes. …

The difference is also that if Brigham Young is a prophet, he shouldn’t be uttering false doctrines. If you’re stating that Young formally professed Adam-God in his capacity as prophet (and I’m not sure if you are), then you are stating that a prophet of the Lord has led his sheep astray.

To make my point, I do not need to say or unsay how official Brigham Young’s position was. What Brigham Young taught was in error. It was never accepted by common consent and always had members of the twelve who opposed its acceptance. But again this is not what is most important. That you believe this is an example of the purported “prophet of the Lord … {leading} his sheep astray” communicates what you expect of a prophet. From the BOM to Joseph Smith to Brigham Young and throughout the history of the CoJCoLDS there has been a rejection of infallibility. Whatever “not leading the church astray” means, it does not mean infallibility.

And, the allowance for continued public revelation to lead the church can address missteps in ways that are not available for the Catholic Church. Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed because that is what Jonah understood God was telling him to say. As a result Nineveh repented and God’s will was realized and God spared Nineveh. Jonah was pissed, but he didn’t cease to be a prophet and after his little fit he continued to serve God. The allowance for misunderstandings exists. Continued revelation corrects missteps and it is example #1 in my list of what NEEDED to be restored.

Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

To make my point, I do not need to say or unsay how official Brigham Young’s position was. What Brigham Young taught was in error. **It was never accepted by common ****consent and always had members of the twelve who opposed its acceptance. ** But again this is not what is most important. That you believe this is an example of the purported “prophet of the Lord … {leading} his sheep astray” communicates what you expect of a prophet. From the BOM to Joseph Smith to Brigham Young and throughout the history of the CoJCoLDS there has been a rejection of infallibility. Whatever “not leading the church astray” means, it does not mean infallibility.

Charity, TOm

Hi TOm - Would you please provide some sources for this claim?

Thank you.

 

[TOmNossor]

This one is a bit unfair. Of course non-Catholics aren’t going to see the papacy in the Early Church Fathers - they’re non-Catholics. If they did, they would have converted to Catholicism by now! Given that Catholics make up approximately 50% of the worldwide Christian population, then I’d say that the numbers are a little more equal . On a personal level, I do see the papacy and its supremacy being expressed in the early Church.

I said more than “non-Catholics.”

Let me offer you some Catholics.

Father Francis Sullivan From Apostles to Bishops details this development.

Catholic scholar Robert Eno’s book The Rise of the Papacy details this development.

I also mention Newman’s development theory. Newman’s development theory today is used to explain what Father Sullivan and Robert Eno see in the history of the Early Church.

However, the thread asked what needed to be restored from a LDS perspective. I answer the Apostolic authority to lead the entire church needed to be restored. The historical rational for not believing Peter’s authority was passed to Linus, Cletus, and Clement (or was it passed directly to Clement as the Roman Church believed for many years and as the spurious Pseudo Clementine literature suggests) is a very solid read of history. It is my position that this authority needed to be restored.

With all due respect, I question the ability of an 8 year-old to be able to decide for himself on whether he understands baptism and wants to be received into the Church. I’d question the ability of a 12 or 13 year old for that matter as well. This isn’t just with regards to Mormons, but with Evangelicals as well. I wanted to be baptized when I was like 10 or 11, and my parents flatly refused because I wasn’t old enough to understand the meaning of baptism in their eyes. Not sure I can blame them.

I question this too and thought I made such perfectly clear in my previous post. 8 year olds, 12 year olds, and TOm do not fully appreciate the covenants we enter into. But, “imperfect steps” are all the covenanters make regardless of their age or understanding. Catholics generally use 7 years old as the “age of reason.” It is again not important for 8 to be universally the correct age. I am saying that Baptism and Confirmation are invalid if they are not covenantal in nature and that the practice of infant baptism which purportedly leaves an “indelible mark” on the soul of the infant is not a covenantal baptism and is thus not Christian. Some 8 year olds will have a poor understanding of this covenant, some will have a good one, but absent this understanding the sacrament is not a covenant and not a “vehicle of Grace.” This IMO is a big problem for the Christian Church and the proper understanding of this had to be restored. Again, I do not expect you to agree, but from an LDS perspective this IMO needed to be restored.

Btw, the Biblical evidence for infant baptism is debatable, but I think there is STRONG evidence that in the 2nd century infant baptism HAPPENED and little or no evidence that in the 1st or 2nd century infant baptism was condemned or debated. In response to this, I can only say that postponing baptism was VERY common until as late as the 5th century, but I think the Catholic case that infant baptism is not as problematic as I believe it to be can be supported by the historical record.

Charity, TOm

 

[lax16]

Btw, the Biblical evidence for infant baptism is debatable, but I think there is STRONG evidence that in the 2nd century infant baptism HAPPENED and little or no evidence that in the 1st or 2nd century infant baptism was condemned or debated. In response to this, I can only say that postponing baptism was VERY common until as late as the 5th century, but I think the Catholic case that infant baptism is not as problematic as I believe it to be can be supported by the historical record.

Charity, TOm

There is archaeological evidence of infant baptism in the catacombs.

Also, don’t you think infant baptism has always made sense due to the high mortality rates of babies throughout history?

 

[wmscott]

SO… just how did the LDS come by the notion 1800 years after Christ that Christianity was lost and needed to be restored?

 

[truthseeker32]

Former Mormon here. The short answer is the same answer given by all of the many restorationist movements, from Islam to Seventh-day Adventism: Somewhere along the way the original went off course. What these restorationist movements also have in common are prophetic or charismatic figures that supposedly have privileged information from God that makes their claims seem more legitimate. As a result, even if historical and manuscript evidence undermines the claims of these supposed reformation, believers can rest assured because their leader has a direct connection with God, and that trumps historical evidence.

In my own experience, as an undergraduate and then a graduate student in history and religious studies, the pile of things I had to do mental gymnastics around just to preserve my Mormon faith eventually became insurmountable. I studied Jewish temple theology and found that it looked nothing like the temple rites I had experienced in the LDS faith. I studied the early Church and found that it looked a lot more Orthodox/Catholic than it did Mormon.

Mormonism survives by being a moving target. It can overturn previous revelations, previous “truths” because it posits continuing prophetic revelation. Furthermore, they can appeal to gaps in the historical and archaeological records to survive criticisms, i.e. “we can’t know for sure what happened between 30 and 70 AD!” Eventually, though, there will be fewer gaps to appeal to.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I generally view Ecumenical Councils as being the main source of infallible dogma. In past discussions, I have highlighted what I see from the Council of Florence (and the Council of Lyons), “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.” My confidence should matter little to you, but I will say two things.

I am confident that the Fathers at the Council of Florence meant that unbaptized babies die in
“original sin alone” and thus go “straightaway to hell.”

You are “confident”? The council taught that sin brings to hell, but it doesn’t specifically mention what happens to unbaptized infants. As far as we know, original sin casts one to hell. Interestingly enough, the quote you provided referred to “unequal pains,” making a very important distinction. There is not much more information. It certainly does not discuss what “differing pains” means. The Church is simply cautious on pronouncing itself further. Again, there is no specific discussion of Limbo here. St Thomas Aquinas himself had stated that God’s power to confer grace for the unborn can go beyond the power of the sacraments. So the teaching that it is left to God’s mercy makes perfect, logical sense.

On the other hand, how do you square Brigham Young’s teachings on Adam-God with subsequent revelation of the LDS Church? How is it possible that the Prophet and Seer of God’s restored Church, who can never lead the Church astray, provide an incorrect doctrine?

And, the allowance for continued public revelation to lead the church can address missteps in ways that are not available for the Catholic Church. Jonah prophesied that Nineveh would be destroyed because that is what Jonah understood God was telling him to say. As a result Nineveh repented and God’s will was realized and God spared Nineveh. Jonah was pissed, but he didn’t cease to be a prophet and after his little fit he continued to serve God. The allowance for misunderstandings exists. Continued revelation corrects missteps and it is example #1 in my list of what NEEDED to be restored.

Tom, this was a conditional prophecy. This is why Jonah was ordered to go to Nineveh and he fled, because he knew God was merciful.

*"He prayed to the Lord, “Isn’t this what I said, Lord, when I was still at home? That is what I tried to forestall by fleeing to Tarshish. I knew that you are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abounding in love, a God who relents from sending calamity. 3 Now, Lord, take away my life, for it is better for me to die than to live.” *(Jonah 4:1-3)

Jonah didn’t make a false prophecy, it was that the conditions of the prophecy were changed. Nineveh repented, and therefore, God relented. It’s not the same as the Adam-God doctrine.
*
"Some years ago,** I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God**, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold derision. Had I revealed the doctrine of baptism from [sic] the dead instead Joseph Smith there are men around me who would have ridiculed the idea until dooms day. But they are ignorant and stupid like the dumb **."

Is God misguiding his prophet?

Father Francis Sullivan From Apostles to Bishops details this development.

Catholic scholar Robert Eno’s book The Rise of the Papacy details this development.

I also mention Newman’s development theory. Newman’s development theory today is used to explain what Father Sullivan and Robert Eno see in the history of the Early Church.

Are you suggesting that these three reject the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, or are you simply stating that they believe that the doctrine developed. If so, so what?

 

[TOmNossor]

There is archaeological evidence of infant baptism in the catacombs.

Also, don’t you think infant baptism has always made sense due to the high mortality rates of babies throughout history?

The evidence in the catacombs as I understand it is contemporary with the evidence I already sited from the 2nd century. It is also true as I mentioned that folks like St. Monica didn’t baptize their infants AND many folks delayed baptism.
That being said, I am less enamored with my position #3 than I was when I wrote it. The specific application of this concept to Baptism was my extension from an essay I last read more than 5 years ago.
A point I thought of as I was thinking about this is that Old Testament “circumcision” has been linked to New Testament “baptism.” It would seem that my concern over the “age of reason” is applicable to “circumcision” and the Bible is pretty clear that this should be done at 8 days old. I will need to re-read Noel Reynolds essay while thinking about Baptism and Circumcision and see if I still feel he has as strong of points as I thought long ago.

I think I will leave this here for now.
Charity, TOm

 

[gazelam]

Gazelam: I need to apologize about the post quoted above. it was uncharitable…

No offense taken… That reminded me when I first arrived to the area of my LDS mission, the Mission President was asking the LDS missionaries (you know, those occasionally immature 19-25 year olds) to stop calling those who were almost ready to be baptized as “dunky”.

But I was curioius about LDS baptism. Do you guys have pre baptism classes? I just could not understand requiring faith and repentence from so young of children.

Each Sunday in most of the world each congregation meets for 3 hours of meetings. The worship service is called Sacrament Meeting and lasts about 70 minutes. The remaining time the children are in age-appropriate instructional meetings geared for ages 3 and up. So by age eight the children would have had 1 1/2 hours of instruction weekly for 4-5 years. Also parents are encouraged to teach their children in the home. LDS believe that people should only be baptized who are accountable for their actions and by age of eight a child knows the difference between right and wrong. I hope this helps…

As an Orthodox Christian, I too was baptized by triple submersion and was confirmed right away. But we call it Chrismation.

Is it called “Chrismation” because of the use of chrism as part of the ceremony?

 

[lax16]

The evidence in the catacombs as I understand it is contemporary with the evidence I already sited from the 2nd century. It is also true as I mentioned that folks like St. Monica didn’t baptize their infants AND many folks delayed baptism.
That being said, I am less enamored with my position #3 than I was when I wrote it. The specific application of this concept to Baptism was my extension from an essay I last read more than 5 years ago.
A point I thought of as I was thinking about this is that Old Testament “circumcision” has been linked to New Testament “baptism.” It would seem that my concern over the “age of reason” is applicable to “circumcision” and the Bible is pretty clear that this should be done at 8 days old. I will need to re-read Noel Reynolds essay while thinking about Baptism and Circumcision and see if I still feel he has as strong of points as I thought long ago.

I think I will leave this here for now.
Charity, TOm

I’m not sure what you mean about St. Monica not baptizing her children because she didn’t want to or she didn’t think it was important? Her husband wouldn’t allow it. Are you aware of that?

I agree about the connection between circumcision and baptism.

 

[gazelam]

As for Baptism…in the Bible, entire households were baptized. This reasonably would have included children. There is some basis for infant baptism. I invite you to read our teachings about this here:
catholic.com/tracts/infant-baptism

Here are a response I recently gave on a different thread about the Biblical accounts of households being baptized…

Regarding the household of Cornelius, Peter said in Acts 10:43 To him all the prophets bear witness, that everyone who believes in him will receive forgiveness of sins through his name. And then in Acts 11:14 it states “who will speak words to you by which you and all your household will be saved.”

Sounds like the entire household was old enough to believe, and therefore definitely there were not any infants.

Regarding Crispus, Acts 18:8 states "Crispus, the synagogue official, came to believe in the Lord along with his entire household, and many of the Corinthians who heard believed and were baptized.

Again, sounds like the entire household was old enough to believe, and therefore definitely there were not any infants.

And then there’s the jailer…

Acts 16:33, 34 He took them in at that hour of the night and bathed their wounds; then he and all his family were baptized at once. He brought them up into his house and provided a meal and with his household rejoiced at having come to faith in God.

Infants are too young to rejoice.

Also, the household of Stephanas was also baptized (1 Corinthians 1:16). 1 Corinthians 16:15 goes on to say “I urge you, brothers—you know that the household of Stephanas is the firstfruits of Achaia and that they have devoted themselves to the service of the holy ones”.

Infants are just a tad young to devote themselves to the service of others.

Here is info on immersion vs sprinkling/pouring. You’d be interested to know, perhaps, that some Catholic Churches do utilize immersion Baptism, however, we do not see it as a requirement.Neither is this spelled out in the Bible. Here is more info:

catholic.com/tracts/baptism-immersion-only

Ephesians 4:5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism

Doesn’t allowing three different methods amount to three different baptisms?

Baptism was also not necessarily followed by Confirmation in the Bible. When non-baptized adults are received into the Catholic Church, they receive the Sacraments of Baptism, followed by Confirmation and Eucharist. The Apostles received the Holy Spirit 49 days after Easter, at Pentecost, as per scripture. Presumably they were baptized previous to this.

The Minister of Confirmation, normally the Bishop, does practice the laying on of hands at the Confirmation rite. More info here:
catholic.com/encyclopedia/imposition-of-hands

Presumably they were baptized and confirmed prior to this.

I don’t know what you mean by Communion by eating and drinking, but Catholics practice Communion to the fullest extent it can be…we believe Communion is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ…Jesus instituted this Sacrament and it can be found in the Gospel of John.

Do not Catholics believe that the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ is found fully in both the species of the wine and the bread? And isn’t that why a Catholic meets his or her communion obligation by receiving either the bread or the wine?

Thanks!

You are welcome!! Thank you for your comments

 

[gazelam]

By the way, out of curiosity, when the LDS practice baptisms, do they use the standard Trinitarian formula that mainstream Christians do, or is there another formula used?

Good question. The person performing the baptism states the following: Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen (D&C 20:73)

You see we do baptize in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, however, we believe the doctrine for the Trinity is false. (We believe they are one in purpose only, not one in substance, or “consubstantial”.) The CC rejects LDS baptism as invalid even though we use words it agrees with. I hope this helps…