Tanyan Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Johnny please once again check your own back yard - http://www.bible.ca/catholic.htm Tanyan LDS JEDI KNIGHT.
Billy Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 ExactlyLike who?(reguarding animal sacrifice)My comment was a hypothetical example. But it has been hinted at in LDS Church history noted below.HC Vol 4 Chapter 11"It is a very prevalent opinion that the sacrifices which were offered were entirely consumed. This was not the case; if you read Leviticus, second chap., second and third verses, you will observe that the priests took a part as a memorial and offered it up before the Lord, while the remainder was kept for the maintenance of the priests; so that the offerings and sacrifices are not all consumed upon the altarâ??but the blood is sprinkled, and the fat and certain other portions are consumed. These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the powers of the Melchisedek Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued. . ."Addendum"Youngâ??s private statements exceeded even the violent language of his public sermons. â??I want their cursed heads cut off that they may atone for their sins,â? he told the Council of Fifty in March 1849.[7] His interpretation of blood atonement evoked the Saintsâ?? vision of themselves as an Old Testament people, an identification so strong that the plans for the Salt Lake temple included an altar â??to Offer Sacrifices.â?[8] Kenney, ed., Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 18 December 1857, 5:140.http://www.cesnur.org/2002/slc/bagley.htm
Flyonthewall Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 That Jesus acknowledges and worships the Father as his Gods follows as a logical consequence if the Trinity and Incarnantion. If Jesus became fully man, and it is human nature to woorship God, then Jesus, as man would worship God. The human worship of Christ is necessarily directed to the Father, as it would make no sense for him to worship himself.This argument assumes that a likeness of man to God implies a likeness of God to man, but it need not work that way. In Catholic theology, the basic pattern for all human life and existence is the inner life of God in the Trinity. God's glory resides in the fact that his nature and happiness are shared in a loving communion of persons. God created the world and human beings so that more persons could share in that joy. For this reason, all human associations, families, political bodies, and the Church itself, are signs and expressions of that Trinitarian life and have their sanctity by virtue of the ways in which they reflect the Trinity. Because the Trinity is the archetype of all parsonal associations, it is appropriate for Jesus to want men to be one "as" he and the Father are. The key here is that "as" is express the relation of an individual to its archetype rather than a relation of two equivalents.This particular point has been the topic of a wide range of Catholic publications in recent years, which you would know if you had ever bothered to study the doctrine that you believe yourself capable of refuting. One book entitled "First Comes Love: Finding Your Family in the Church and in the Trinity" by Scott Hahn is a book-long Trinitarian mediation on the very verse that you have cited as you proof-text. Clearly, if you are ever to achieve a cogent argument against our beliefs, you will need to do some homework.They are distinct as persons, not as beings.They are God inseparably from one another, and none of them exists as God or even has personal identity except in reference to the the other two.Indeed, one would have to if the above premises were a correct description of Trintiarianism. But alas, they reflect only LDS doctrine, which accordingly invents a new meaning for "one' God. It is your theology, not ours, that is criticized by the logic above.The most telltale sign that a person does not know anything about the Trinity is when they treat it as a math problem. There is absolutely no question of mathematical contradiction in the Trinity, which claims one nature in three persons. If one looks at that statement and does not ascribe any particular meaning to "nature" or "person," they tend to drop out of one's perception so that only the numbers one and three remains, which we notice do not equal each other. If one considers the difference between nature and person, however, the problems appears not as a mathematical contradiction but as an existential quandary, and it is in this area where you might be able to make meaningful objection if you would take the time to learn something about these concepts before ramming bible verse down Johnny's throat which, I predict, he will easily be able to interpret in his response.The bolded part sums it up. In Catholic theology. Catholics are not the only group that believes in Christ and can be called Christian.Please forgive me if I mischaracterized the Trinity disrespectfully, that was not my intention. I did not want to turn this into a Trinity thread. The point is that Catholics have their way to interpret scripture, and we have ours. Only Jesus Christ has the authority to determine which is correct, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts, that He would accept any all people that believe in Him, even if they disagreed on His nature. but were sincere in their beliefs.
Hoops22 Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 1) Only Jesus Christ has the authority to determine which is correct, and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts, that He would accept any all people that believe in Him, even if they disagreed on His nature.2) but were sincere in their beliefs.Doesn't the Holy Spirit have a say in this?What if they sincerely believed Jesus was a sinful man like the rest of us?
ttribe Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Former US President Jimmy Carter, a prominent Southern Baptist, recently told reporters that he not only considers Mormons to be Christian, but also believes his church is becoming too much like "Pharisees" in determining who is acceptable: "When questioned by the Deseret News about the SBC's characterization of Mormons as non-Christians, Carter said his church's leadership has become 'narrow in their definition of what is a proper Christian or certainly even a proper Baptist.'" Carter is also quoted as saying, "I think that the worst thing that we can do, among the worst things we can do, as believers in Christ, is to spend our time condemning others, who profess faith in Christ."-Probably the one time I've agreed with former Pres. Carter - nicely said Jimmy.
captain-jack Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Look, the LDS church claims the all other so called christians are lost and broken, that the LDS church alone is the one true church restored. The LDS church, right or wrong, teaches a different Jesus and a different gospel than the lost a broken churches,other wise why is there a need for a restoration. The LDS church claims that the church's of today, have articles of faith (creeds) that are a abomination before God and those who profess them are corrupt.These doctrines, whether you admit it or not divide Mormonism from the Christian world. What Mormonism does to justify these teachings, is water down the word christian to include just about anyone. It is a I want my cake and eat it to mentality, in one hand LDS theology wants to say everybody else is wrong, lost, and broken, and in the other hand say we are all one family in being christian.So again, LDS doctrine divides, not people.MarkJohn 1:12Nice try Markk, but the side step won't work here. I do admit that LDS doctrine can be a divide from other churches in the world. However, no where do we say others cannot be called Christian based on certain doctrines other than the general label of a 'follower of Christ', whether they are LDS or not.
Hannah Rebekah Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Can anyone explain to me differences between Protastants and LDS?Yeah...IMHO...they seem to protest a lot!!! Just kidding!!!
LeSellers Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 What if they sincerely believed Jesus was a sinful man like the rest of us?You, "the rest of us", can believe as you like.We LDSs believe Him to have been (and remain) sinless.Lehi (exploiter of linguistic ambiguities)
Hoops22 Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 You, "the rest of us", can believe as you like.We LDSs believe Him to have been (and remain) sinless.Lehi (exploiter of linguistic ambiguities)Which, of course, misses the point badly.
saemo Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Oh no. The desire to exclude is quite understandable.Let them with ears to hear, hear.All belong in Christ's Church. No one is excluded.
saemo Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Then let the line that Catholics draw be "you are not Catholic". Let the line that Baptists draw be "you are not Baptists", and so forth.Mormons do not deny anyone their faith in Christ, whether we agree with them or not. To state that we are not Christians is to state we do not believe in Christ, which is to deny our faith in Christ.If you believed that Catholics were Christians, there would be no need for you to convert them to Mormonism. If you believed that anyone else were Christian, there would be no need for you to re-baptize a Mormon convert from Christianity.You have a double standard, that most refuse to acknowledge. It appears that you speak out both sides of your mouth.This whole issue smacks of the story of the 5 blind men and the elephant, where one thinks an elephant is like wall, another, a snake, another a rope, another a spear, and another a tree. Each of the blind men argue with one another because in their view they are right and others are wrong. LDS would be like a man telling each of the blind men that there is some truth to what they say, but is not totally true. The Blind men then band together and tell the LDS that they are not looking at an elephant because what the LDS describe does not fit the views each of the blind men have.What they need is a sighted man that can see the elephant and can teach the others the true nature of it.To my view, LDS are both blind and deaf.
ttribe Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 If you believed that Catholics were Christians, there would be no need for you to convert them to Mormonism. If you believed that anyone else were Christian, there would be no need for you to re-baptize a Mormon convert from Christianity.There's a difference between falling under the broad heading of "Christian" and membership in a specific church. Additionally, we don't believe someone is converting FROM Christianity; your statement implies disparity where we see none.To my view, LDS are both blind and deaf.And the tone of your statement is relatively inflammatory. Care to actually carry on a conversation, or are you only interested in launching barbs?
Calm Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 If you believed that Catholics were Christians, there would be no need for you to convert them to Mormonism. If you believed that anyone else were Christian, there would be no need for you to re-baptize a Mormon convert from Christianity.You have a double standard, that most refuse to acknowledge. It appears that you speak out both sides of your mouth.To my view, LDS are both blind and deaf.On the contrary, we believe we need to even convert Mormons to "Mormonism", to the Gospel. It is an ongoing process in our lives of bringing more and more light to ourselves and to others.Our baptism is not purely a symbolic statement of our commitment to following Christ.
Flyonthewall Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 If you believed that Catholics were Christians, there would be no need for you to convert them to Mormonism. If you believed that anyone else were Christian, there would be no need for you to re-baptize a Mormon convert from Christianity.Except that one of the big differences between mormonism and traditional christianity, is the proper authority to administer His church. Not having the proper authority does not preclude someone having faith in christ.You have a double standard, that most refuse to acknowledge. It appears that you speak out both sides of your mouth. If the double standard is allowing others to be christian without being mormon, then I guess I do.
saemo Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 There's a difference between falling under the broad heading of "Christian" and membership in a specific church. Additionally, we don't believe someone is converting FROM Christianity; your statement implies disparity where we see none.Then why baptize a Christian if you do not believe them to be Christian to begin with? Why do Mormons state they are converting people to Christ...when they are talking about CHRISTIANS.Perhaps your definition of "church" is different than mine.And the tone of your statement is relatively inflammatory. Care to actually carry on a conversation, or are you only interested in launching barbs?You get tone through text? Cool.I try to say what I mean, clearly, and precisely. Sometimes, I am not as good at it as I imagine. "Hear" my tone as cake and ice cream...with chocolate sprinkles.
saemo Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Except that one of the big differences between mormonism and traditional christianity, is the proper authority to administer His church. Not having the proper authority does not preclude someone having faith in christ.Yes, I agree, Mormons lack the authority to baptize. If the double standard is allowing others to be christian without being mormon, then I guess I do.If the double standard is, not recognizing Christians as being Christian, by virtue of their baptism, then yeah, it is a double standard.
MatthewG Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Yes, I agree, Mormons lack the authority to baptize.If the double standard is, not recognizing Christians as being Christian, by virtue of their baptism, then yeah, it is a double standard.LOL, what??? this coming from an organization that will accept baptism from everyone other protestant religion but not the LDS Church.
saemo Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 LOL, what??? this coming from an organization that will accept baptism from everyone other protestant religion but not the LDS Church.And what double standard is there? The Catholic church clearly states it position, and practices what it states. You claim to be Christian (which, I don't care what you call yourselves), you say I am Christian, yet in practice, you clearly show that you believe I am not.
MatthewG Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 And what double standard is there? The Catholic church clearly states it position, and practices what it states. You claim to be Christian (which, I don't care what you call yourselves), you say I am Christian, yet in practice, you clearly show that you believe I am not.How in practice do I show I don't believe you're Christian. Have you not read any of my posts? I make 0 judgments who is and isn't Christian. That is only for Christ to decide.
Billy Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 How in practice do I show I don't believe you're Christian. Have you not read any of my posts? I make 0 judgments who is and isn't Christian. That is only for Christ to decide.Can a Christian who is not LDS and does not have the LDS ordinances go to the Celestial Kingdom and be with God the Father? (If he never accepts the LDS ordinances in this life or the next)
Log Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Can a Christian who is not LDS and does not have the LDS ordinances go to the Celestial Kingdom and be with God the Father?No, but he might live in Jesus's presence. Isn't that a nice teaching of ours?
saemo Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 How in practice do I show I don't believe you're Christian. Have you not read any of my posts? I make 0 judgments who is and isn't Christian. That is only for Christ to decide.What initiates a person into Christianity? If, say, a Buddhist were to convert to Mormonism, what is the first step in becoming a Mormon Christian?For a Catholic, it is baptism. We believe baptism brings a person, physically and metaphysically, into full communion with Christ's Church, which is lead by Christ. And so, our baptism brings us into full communion with Christ Himself.This is the first step in becoming a Catholic Christian.The Catholic church states that a Mormon baptism is not a valid Christian baptism. And so, a convert to Catholicism from Mormonism is re-baptized.This is why I say, if you (the collective you) are baptizing an already baptized Christian, that is a clear statement that you do not believe the person to be a Christian.In the sense of the word, the definition in the dictionary, certainly I believe that you consider a Catholic a Christian. But in the deeper sense, the baptismal sense, which is where Christian initiation occurs, neither of us believes the other to be a Christian.No, but he might live in Jesus's presence. Isn't that a nice teaching of ours?I live in Jesus' Presence today. Isn't that a nice teaching of ours?
ttribe Posted September 1, 2008 Posted September 1, 2008 Then why baptize a Christian if you do not believe them to be Christian to begin with? Why do Mormons state they are converting people to Christ...when they are talking about CHRISTIANS.Perhaps your definition of "church" is different than mine.I believe you have all the answers you need with respect to the notion of authority to perform an ordinance; obviously a devout Catholic and an equally devout Mormon are going to disagree on who has what authority. Furthermore, I think you would find that, while baptism is an outward sign of Christianity, and is an initial ordinance in the Church, it is not how most of us Mormon's will define a Christian.You get tone through text? Cool.I try to say what I mean, clearly, and precisely. Sometimes, I am not as good at it as I imagine. "Hear" my tone as cake and ice cream...with chocolate sprinkles.Got it...you just want to launch sarcasm-laced barbs. Carry on with someone else then.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.