Why not baptize children?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chris-WA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oooh. I seem to have hit a soft spot here or something. I think you misread my meaning. My intention wasn’t to imply that the Catholic church is corrupt and evil. In fact, today I would say that it is quite the opposite. I merely meant to state that I believe the doctrine is flawed because of evil men throughout the past. You cannot deny that some men of great power and influence in the Catholic church used their influence for wicked purposes. However, I do not condemn the church. I’m sorry if it may have appeared as if I felt that way.

Also, I would be interested in the history of this Mountain Meadow massacre Tmaque speaks of. I don’t deny that our prophets have had their faults. Those who might claim the prophets were perfect are foolish. No prophet in the history of this earth has been perfect. They all did things that they regretted later on. If ANY doctrine is flawed, it is because of the faults of men.

Also, I’m not going to get any deeper into “my church is better than yours” argument. Especially when it comes to how much good has been done. Obviously Catholicism has been around far longer than Mormonism, so any statement I might make could easily be countered. Besides that, it’s not worth my time or yours.

Lets just say that I have my reasons not to believe in Catholicism. You have your reasons not to believe in Mormonism. So what? In the next life we’re all meeting the same maker, and we’ll all discover truth. End of story.

Sincerely,

Isaac T. Madsen
 
I think there are two significant points here. First is that in SPITE of wicked men in the RCC the doctrine has NOT changed. That is evidence that there was no “Great Apostasy”.

The second is that BECAUSE of some good men in the LDS church their doctrine HAS changed.

The true significance of this is that the RCC teaches that the gates of hell will not prevail against the church. It is the same church that Jesus established and teaches the same gospel. We have sacred tradition backed by verifiable history that the doctrine and sacraments haven’t changed. We have a direct apostolic lineage of the prieesthood.

The LDS teach that their prophets lead theit church through direct revelation form God and that God will not allow them to lead the church in error and that EVERYTHING the president of the LDS church speaks shall be received as if it came from the mouth of God. Yet we see LDS prophets denouncing as false doctrine teachings of previous LDS prophets, meaningful changes in ordinances, practices and doctrine and EVRYTHING dependent on Joseph Smith. He is the ONLY link the LDS can even try to claim to Apostolic Authority and even then it requires a unique miracle only witnessed by him to be valid. In a nutshell you only have your emotion based “feeling” of wether or not Joseph Smith’s word is good upon which to base the fate of your eternal soul.

Believe as you will but I feel compelled to warn you that it appears a VERY sandy foundation and I urge you to come to Christ in his Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church.
 
40.png
isaac.madsen:
Oooh. I seem to have hit a soft spot here or something. I think you misread my meaning. My intention wasn’t to imply that the Catholic church is corrupt and evil. In fact, today I would say that it is quite the opposite. I merely meant to state that I believe the doctrine is flawed because of evil men throughout the past. You cannot deny that some men of great power and influence in the Catholic church used their influence for wicked purposes. However, I do not condemn the church. I’m sorry if it may have appeared as if I felt that way.

Also, I would be interested in the history of this Mountain Meadow massacre Tmaque speaks of. I don’t deny that our prophets have had their faults. Those who might claim the prophets were perfect are foolish. No prophet in the history of this earth has been perfect. They all did things that they regretted later on. If ANY doctrine is flawed, it is because of the faults of men.

Also, I’m not going to get any deeper into “my church is better than yours” argument. Especially when it comes to how much good has been done. Obviously Catholicism has been around far longer than Mormonism, so any statement I might make could easily be countered. Besides that, it’s not worth my time or yours.

Lets just say that I have my reasons not to believe in Catholicism. You have your reasons not to believe in Mormonism. So what? In the next life we’re all meeting the same maker, and we’ll all discover truth. End of story.

Sincerely,

Isaac T. Madsen
Click to expand...
I don’t believe Brigham Young ordered the killing in the Mountain Meadow massacre. I believe that some secular historians just see what they want to see in regards to LDS history.

I’m simply pointing out a prevalent inconsistency in LDS arguments against Catholicism. I’ve seen it dozens of times. To use anti-Catholic historians’ writings to condemn Catholicism, and then deny everything negative said about LDS history by the same type of historian is totally inconsistent. But, it happens all the time and is a pattern.

The same tactic is used when dealing with the ECF’s. LDS consistently use obscure non-canonical passages written by the ECF’s in an attempt to show how Catholic teachings have changed. Yet, they cry foul if we use, for example, the Journal of Discourses(which were manistream beliefs at the time) to show how LDS doctrine has changed. There is an intellectual double standard in play with LDS apologists at all times. That’s all I was attempting to show.

The details of the Mountain Meadow massacre from a non-LDS perspective can be found in many books. Under The Banner of Heaven is the particular book I was refering to. The author believed that Brigham Young was complicit in the killings.
 
Majick,

You’re wasting my time. If your heart is so hard set that you won’t even make an attempt to see things from an LDS perspective, I have no discussion with you. All it leads to is irritation and frustration between us, and that is something I don’t want. It is obvious that you have your bias against the LDS, and I understand that. It is also obvious to me that you are not willing to see that your religion has changed over the years. This is a fact that is quite obvious to me because of the political nature of your church. The LDS system is a completely different form of leadership that you simply do not understand, and it would seem that you aren’t making any attempts to understand, but to try and prove Mormonism wrong.

Tmaque,

I appreciate your comments and I understand your point of view. I also agree that it is a ridiculous display, but I’ve seen the same in Catholicism. Agree that there have been changes in certain teachings, but I don’t agree that the doctrine has changed. We believe the same things about God, heaven, hell, etc. as has been taught since early Prophets. The way it is applied changes, however, according to the needs and issues of the current world. For example, I believe that it was necessary to institute polygamy in the early church. This was not the first time God had instituted polygamy amongst his people. The institution of polygamy in modern times was in direct fulfillment of prophecy, according to the teachings of Isaiah and the Revelation of Saint John. In other words, the doctrine has not changed; only the principles by which doctrine is applied have changed.

Also, it has been said that the Book of Mormon has been altered from the original publishing. While this is true, the original translation by Joseph Smith was used to make those alterations. In other words, the original publication of the Book of Mormon was not completely in alignment with Joseph Smith’s text. The revisions were made in order to bring the current publications back into alignment.

Also, take note that the Book of Mormon makes no claims to be the entire history of the Americas. There may have been hundreds of other nations throughout history who have come over various ways from various lands, populating the American Continents. Current concensus (among historians and scientists) is that Native American bloodlines are most closely related to Asian populations, as are genetic samples of the majority of excavated human remains. While this is true, I feel it doesn’t prove anything about the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is the history a few nations. I’m sure that there are hundreds, if not thousands of books, stone tablets, scrolls, etc. waiting to be unearthed, and it wouldn’t surprise me if there were corrolations to the Book of Mormon, along with religious histories corrolating to various other religions that may have existed. I can only hope that whoever may find them and/or translate them will not destroy them for fanatical religious reasons.

Anyway, I hope some of this made sense. I can’t tell you that I understand everything because I don’t, but I’d say that I’ve been far more educated on Mormonism and other religions that the average Mormon or the average citizen for that matter, and I assume the same is true for most of the people on this forum.
  • Isaac T. Madsen
 
Isaac, I apologize if I came off as irritating, etc. my intent was to show truth. I think I HAVE tried VERY hard to see the LDS perspective. I was born LDS and tried my best to completely get into it and just act as if it was true, thinking I would see it. I was married in the Temple, served in all kinds of callings like Elders Quorum president, seminary teacher, gospel doctrine teacher, I’ve been a counselor in the bishopric and a veil worker in the Temple. I REALLY tried with all my heart. Finally I found the truth in the Catholic Church.
 
Sorry for my misjudgement.

Well, now we got that squared away, lets just hope it doesn’t happen again. I can see you mean well, and I hope there is no enmity between us. Now I see a larger picture that perhaps I missed before, and I think I understand now.

I gather from what you’ve said that you tried to understand and believe LDS doctrine, but failed to find what you were searching for in Mormonism, despite your callings, temple work, etc. Eventually, you were led to the Catholic church, which provided what you were searching for. It’s not that you were led away. It’s that you didn’t believe in the first place, despite your attempts to believe. This makes sense to me. I, on the other hand, have always believed, and I’ve had experiences that would make it very difficult to sway my opinion, though I am open to the possibility that I might be wrong. I just haven’t found anything to persuade me in that direction.

Again, sorry.
  • Ike
 
Pretty close. There were times when I thought I beleived, when I actively disalowed doubts and questions and just flat out refused to consider alternatives. i did what the BoM said and acted as if it were true, wanting to believe. I have just been given so much proof of the real Gospel that I must be Catholic or knowingly reject the teachings of God.

May God bless you for your faith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top