What does it mean to you to be a Mormon?

[volgadon]

And the seal meaning comes from closing something, sealing it up and marking that. So yes, the primary meaning is the one used by Muslims. I still know of no expression like seal of approval.

[flameburns623]

Apologies for what will be to some degree a divergence from the topic at hand:

So if I read you correctly, Catholic baptism also has the requirement of belief in the Trinity.

Not just the Trinity but also specific elements of the role that Christ plays within the Trinity.

The articles of Mormon faith posted here state that they believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. So I cannot reconcile your determination that they do not believe in a three-in-one God especially when you also add that "One God in three Persons is expressly rejected by Mormons". It seems a fine line to be divided along.

Mormons expressly reject and deny the Trinity. They believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate deities, and that worship is to be rendered only to the Father. This is sometimes described as 'henotheism', the belief in multiple gods but the exclusive worship of only one of those gods.

In fairness, not all of the LDS apologists on this board believe that LDS theology is best characterized as 'henotheism'. It is Pretty plain however that Mormonism rejects any form of monotheism--Trinitarian monotheism or otherwise.

As far as which of the two (Mormon or Christian) has the true gospel and which has "another gospel", it seems that if you are Catholic you must deny the apostasy in order to believe that what the RCC has is consistent with what Christ first built. On the other hand, if you believe that the apostasy happened, you cannot believe that the Catholic church survived it and therefore a restoration was necessary.

The third alternative, embraced by Protestants, is that Christ's Church experienced apostasy but survived it to be reformed and purified. The Church may for all intents have been rendered 'invisible' because it became so encrusted with overlays of false doctrine and practice, but it never ceased to exist. In every age there were always at least a little flock of true members of the Body of Christ. This seems to be what the first Protestant reformers believed.

Both Protestants and Catholics agree that the Church which Christ established is 'indefectable' meaning that it cannot be lost. This is one of the things that Joseph Smith, in establishing his 'restored' Church had to reject. Again: the idea that Christ's Church could apostatize so completely as to require direct Divine intervention to restore it is a novel idea, never taught by the Catholic, Orthodox, or historic Protestant churches.

Since the Koran professed an apostasy of both the Jew and the Christian even back in the 7th century, I am inclined to believe that one truly existed. And since the Catholic church has not fundamentally changed since Mohammad's time, and since it did not change in spite of a reform effort by the Protestants, I am inclined to believe that the RCC is still in a state of apostasy. One can draw no other conclusion.

If you presuppose the Qu'ran to be accurate, then you are necessarily drawn to that conclusion.

More confusing is the statement made earlier that Catholics would honor some of the other Protestant baptisms. Where is the logic in accepting another churches baptism as one viable in the Catholic church?

Baptism in the historic Christian tradition did not require a priesthood to bestow. In case of emergency, anyone can perform a baptism--even someone who is not a Christian. To bestow a baptism, one need only 'right matter'--in this case, ordinary water; right object (a person who wishes to be baptised into Christ--or in the case of infants, proper guardians who wish to make this for the infant); right intention (on which I will elaborate momentarily); and right formulary ("In the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost".

The LDS Church, as I indicated earlier, believes that one must have an authoritative priesthood in order to baptise validly. This is one of the ways that Mormonism understands the rite of baptism differently than most other Christians, Protestant or Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church, after examining the matter for some time, concluded that what the LDS teaches about God, and about Christ, is so radically different from what historic Christianity believes that it is impossible for someone who sincerely believes LDS doctrine to form 'right intention' to receive a valid baptism.

Incidentally: when a Protestant who was previously baptised is received into the Roman Catholic Church, they are usually (but not always) re-baptised 'conditionally'--that is, the rite of baptism is perfomed using the words "If you are not already baptised, I now baptise you in the Name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost". This is mainly done to remove any doubt that the Protestant failed to form right intention in his or her previous baptism.

If I am not mistaken, Protestants were ruled heretics when they rebelled against an unchangeable church. When did they stop being heretics according to the RCC?

Beginning in the middle of the 20th century, especially after the Second Vatican Council, Protestants were spoken of in the Church as 'Separated Brethren':

http://www.catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=36409

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Christianity seems confused and divided. Surely God did not create this situation.

No one-least of all Christians--believes He did. We all hope and pray for an end to such divisions.

855: The Church's mission stimulates efforts towards Christian unity. Indeed, "divisions among Christians prevent the Church from realizing in practice the fullness of catholicity proper to her in those of her sons who, though joined to her by Baptism, are yet separated from full communion with her. Furthermore, the Church herself finds it more difficult to express in actual life her full catholicity in all its aspects."

817: In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame." The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not just the Trinity but also specific elements of the role that Christ plays within the Trinity.

Mormons expressly reject and deny the Trinity. They believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate deities, and that worship is to be rendered only to the Father. This is sometimes described as 'henotheism', the belief in multiple gods but the exclusive worship of only one of those gods.

In fairness, not all of the LDS apologists on this board believe that LDS theology is best characterized as 'henotheism'. It is Pretty plain however that Mormonism rejects any form of monotheism--Trinitarian monotheism or otherwise.

I think some clarification is need here. We do not believe in the Trinity in the classic sence. That is 3 in one and one in 3. We do believe them to be one in purpose and unity but not one in a physical sense. Other than that I would say your post was fair.

[saemo]

So most Christians do not consider themselves saints?

What makes a Mormon a saint?

The word "saint" is from the Latin "Sanctus", which means sacred. Indeed, this term is used for people, living and dead, within the catholic Churches (East and West). "Saint", for English-speaking catholics, is interchangeable with "holy" or "sanctified". All Christians are Sanctified, made Holy, through Christ. When catholics speak of Saints in Heaven, were are referring to those who have died and have been made Holy, through Christ. (Thus, they are in Heaven.) Certainly we understand one does not have to be dead to be Sanctified by Him. All who are baptized are Sanctified through Him. Baptism is the beginning of a Christian life, which continues to grow and mature.

[Zakuska]

But can a Baptist call himself Mormon?

I know one who does...

http://www.greaterth...hour/index.html

[zerinus]

And the seal meaning comes from closing something, sealing it up and marking that. So yes, the primary meaning is the one used by Muslims.

No, you are wrong about that. That was not the primary purpose of seals. Here is a quote from the Wikipedia article on seals that explains its purpose:

• Seals are used to authenticate documents, applied directly to the face of the document, or attached to the document by cords or ribbons (often in the owner's liveries), or to a narrow strip of the document, sliced and folded down, as a tail but not detached from the document. This helped maintain authenticity by not allowing the reuse of the seal. If a forger tried to remove the seal in the first case, it would break. In the other cases, although the forger could remove the seal intact by ripping the cords from the paper, he would still have to separate the cords to attach it to another document, which would destroy the seal as well because the cords had knots tied in them inside the wax seal. Most governments still attach seals to letters patent. While many instruments required seals for validity (i.e. the deed or covenant) it is rather uncommon for private citizens to use seals anymore.

Thus the purpose of a seal was authenticate or validate something. The idea of closing or ending something is a secondary or derivative meaning. Therefore if Mohammad was the "seal" of the prophets, it means he came to authenticate, validate, approve, bear witness to all former prophets. Interestingly, the context of the Koran backs that interpretation up better than meaning the "last prophet". As I recall, the Koran is full of approving or confirming references to previous (Hebrew) prophets. It is a long time since I read the Koran, so I don't have everything it says on my fingertips; but I found an online searchable version of the Koran here from which I was able to extract the following verses. I am sure they are not the best example; but they are sufficient for my purpose here:

• The Family of Imran: [3.184] But if they reject you, so indeed were rejected before you apostles who came with clear arguments and scriptures and the illuminating book.
  
• The Women: [4.136] O you who believe! believe in Allah and His Apostle and the Book which He has revealed to His Apostle and the Book which He revealed before; and whoever disbelieves in Allah and His angels and His apostles and the last day, he indeed strays off into a remote error. [4.164] And (We sent) apostles We have mentioned to you before and apostles we have not mentioned to you; and to Musa, Allah addressed His Word, speaking (to him):
  
• The Cattle: [6.42] And certainly We sent (apostles) to nations before you then We seized them with distress and affliction in order that they might humble themselves.
  
• The Thunder: [13.38] And certainly We sent apostles before you and gave them wives and children, and it is not in (the power of) an apostle to bring a sign except by Allah's permission; for every term there is an appointment.
  
• Abraham: [14.9] Has not the account reached you of those before you, of the people of Nuh and Ad and Samood, and those after them? None knows them but Allah. Their apostles come to them with clear arguments, but they thrust their hands into their mouths and said: Surely we deny that with which you are sent, and most surely we are in serious doubt as to that to which you invite us.
  
• The Rock: [15.10] And certainly We sent (apostles) before you among the nations of yore.
  
• The Bee: [16.63] By Allah, most certainly We sent (apostles) to nations before you, but the Shaitan made their deeds fair-seeming to them, so he is their guardian today, and they shall have a painful punishment.
  
• The Children of Israel: [17.77] (This is Our) course with regard to those of Our apostles whom We sent before you, and you shall not find a change in Our course.
  
• The Prophets: [21.41] And certainly apostles before you were scoffed at, then there befell those of them who scoffed that at which they had scoffed.
  
• The Romans: [30.47] And certainly We sent before you apostles to their people, so they came to them with clear arguments, then We gave the punishment to those who were guilty; and helping the believers is ever incumbent on Us.
  
• The Originator: [35.4] And if they call you a liar, truly apostles before you were called liars, and to Allah are all affairs returned.
  
• [35.25] And if they call you a liar, so did those before them indeed call (their apostles) liars; their apostles had come to them with clear arguments, and with scriptures, and with the illuminating book.
  
• The Believer: [40.78] And certainly We sent apostles before you: there are some of them that We have mentioned to you and there are others whom We have not mentioned to you, and it was not meet for an apostle that he should bring a sign except with Allah's permission, but when the command of Allah came, judgment was given with truth, and those who treated (it) as a lie were lost.
  
• Ha Mim: [41.43] Naught is said to you but what was said indeed to the apostles before you; surely your Lord is the Lord of forgiveness and the Lord of painful retribution.

I still know of no expression like seal of approval.

That is an English expression; but it conveys the meaning of the interpretation I am placing on it rather well.

[Calm]

Ooops. Sorry.

You mean I actually have to read these threads?

Absolutely not, you can always pay me to give you the Cliff Notes version.....

[flameburns623]

So most Christians do not consider themselves saints?

What makes a Mormon a saint?

The word "saint" is from the Latin "Sanctus", which means sacred. Indeed, this term is used for people, living and dead, within the catholic Churches (East and West). "Saint", for English-speaking catholics, is interchangeable with "holy" or "sanctified". All Christians are Sanctified, made Holy, through Christ. When catholics speak of Saints in Heaven, were are referring to those who have died and have been made Holy, through Christ. (Thus, they are in Heaven.) Certainly we understand one does not have to be dead to be Sanctified by Him. All who are baptized are Sanctified through Him. Baptism is the beginning of a Christian life, which continues to grow and mature.

A bit more elaboration: Christians all believe that the term 'saint' in it's general application belongs to all saved persons, living or departed. The term can be properly applied to any person who is in the grace of God and who will be received into God's Heaven after death. Even those souls who are in purgatory are, in this generic sense, 'saints', since they will ultimately be received into the full glory of God.

However, one can never be absolutely certain in this lifetime that one will perservere to the end and that one will in fact be named among the Heavenly throng.

In the Catholic tradition (whether Roman Catholic or Orthodox), it became common for the Church to point to the heroic virtue of some and declare that the example of these shows that they are in fact absolutely numbered among those in Heaven. In the Roman Catholic tradition this declaration is made, after a very thorough examination of an individual's life--which may take decades or even centuries. The formal declaration of Sainthood is considered to be an infallible decree of the Church. (The process works differently in the Eastern tradition, but I do not know the details).

It came to be customary in the Catholic tradition to reserve the term 'Saint' primarily to describe those formally declared by the Church to be in Heaven. The concern was to avoid the sin of 'presumption', of presuming a status one has no certain way of knowing one has achieved. This has never been an absolute rule, and after Vatican II it became more common even in Catholic circles to refer to all believers as 'saints'. Even before Vatican II, most people assumed their own godly departed family members to be 'saints' even without a formal declaration of such. Hence you hear Catholics in literature sometimes refering to their 'sainted mother' or 'sainted grandmother'.

In the Protestant tradition there was a rejection of the authority of the Church to 'declare' anyone a saint, by infallible authority or otherwise. So even among historic Protestant bodies, there has been a long tradition of refering to all saved believers. This is not a unique practice among Mormons: they simply appropriated the term 'Saint' in much the way that the Campbellite movement refused to call themselves by any denominational name and prefer to refer to themselves simply as 'Christians'.

[saemo]

What makes a Mormon a saint?

The word "saint" is from the Latin "Sanctus", which means sacred. Indeed, this term is used for people, living and dead, within the catholic Churches (East and West). "Saint", for English-speaking catholics, is interchangeable with "holy" or "sanctified". All Christians are Sanctified, made Holy, through Christ. When catholics speak of Saints in Heaven, were are referring to those who have died and have been made Holy, through Christ. (Thus, they are in Heaven.) Certainly we understand one does not have to be dead to be Sanctified by Him. All who are baptized are Sanctified through Him. Baptism is the beginning of a Christian life, which continues to grow and mature.

Hence you hear Catholics in literature sometimes refering to their 'sainted mother' or 'sainted grandmother'.

Mormons call them 'gods'.

For the OP: What does a Muslim call a person who is in Heaven?

[Doctor Steuss]

So both Baptists and Mormons call yourselves Christians?

But can a Baptist call himself Mormon?

And do Mormons call themselves Baptists?

You are telling me that A = C and B = C but A does not equal B.

So if you leave me with nothing more, I would have to say that neither are Christian.

Giraffes are Mammals. Cats are Mammals. Giraffes are not Cats.

G = M and C = M but G does not equal C.

Leaving you with nothing more, I hope you would not have to say that neither are mammals.

(Well, in my opinion, cats are heretical mammals).

[saemo]

Giraffes are Mammals. Cats are Mammals. Giraffes are not Cats.

G = M and C = M but G does not equal C.

Leaving you with nothing more, I hope you would not have to say that neither are mammals.

(Well, in my opinion, cats are heretical mammals).

I was informed once that cats are atheists. This was when I was an atheist. I felt insulted.

[Doctor Steuss]

I was informed once that cats are atheists. This was when I was an atheist. I felt insulted.

Imagine how insulted the cats felt.

(I keed, I keed. )

[saemo]

Imagine how insulted the cats felt.

(I keed, I keed. )

[Calm]

I was informed once that cats are atheists. This was when I was an atheist. I felt insulted.

I've always thought of cats as unversalists---if they take food from anyone for their physical needs, I figure they'll accept one and all spiritually as well.

[volgadon]

Cats are internet mammals, dogs are chapel ones.

[Pahoran]

Hence you hear Catholics in literature sometimes refering to their 'sainted mother' or 'sainted grandmother'.

Mormons call them 'gods'.

No. We do not.

Perhaps you meant that as a joke. If so, it was in poor taste, and fell rather flat.

Considering your proudly proclaimed allegiance to a church and faith with an inexhaustible supply of material for satire and ridicule, it might behove you to be a little more circumspect in the future.

Regards,

Pahoran

[saemo]

No. We do not.

Perhaps you meant that as a joke. If so, it was in poor taste, and fell rather flat.

Considering your proudly proclaimed allegiance to a church and faith with an inexhaustible supply of material for satire and ridicule, it might behove you to be a little more circumspect in the future.

Regards,

Pahoran

poor Pahoran. always so picked on!

I think though that theologically speaking, I am not incorrect. If I were a mormon this is what I'd be thinking. Is it so bad to think the best of the people you love, who have died. Isn't the best thought for a Mormon?

I also think if it was a mormon who said this there would be people in agreement. You just are ever so sensitive against that evil apostate who found the truth, and found it where it began. Not in some startup 19th century spawn of "enlightenment".

[Pahoran]

I think though that theologically speaking, I am not incorrect. If I were a mormon this is what I'd be thinking. Is it so bad to think the best of the people you love, who have died. Isn't the best thought for a Mormon?

I'm sure, Saemo, that if you were a Mormon, you'd actually be informed about what Mormons believe. In which case, you'd know that the Judgement and the Resurrection haven't happened yet, so none of our known ancestors could have entered into their exaltation. That is an event yet future.

And you would also know that none of us on the earth are qualified to judge of the eternal destiny of any other person; Jesus Christ is the one judge, and He alone knows the thoughts and intents of all hearts.

So imagining that "Mormons call [their deceased grandparents] 'gods'" is not only theologically wrong in every possible way, but it also demonstrates the most abysmal ignorance of how Latter-day Saints think and speak. I have never heard any Latter-day Saint speak of his or her ancestors thus; and I, unlike you, actually know some.

I also think if it was a mormon who said this there would be people in agreement.

I don't.

You just are ever so sensitive against that evil apostate who found the truth, and found it where it began. Not in some startup 19th century spawn of "enlightenment".

I'm sure you believe that your medieval hodgepodge of Mediterranean superstition, with its structure founded by Numa Pompilius and its thin veneer of Christianity, represents the "truth."

You see Saemo, I can keep this up just as long as you can. Your windows are a whole lot bigger than mine, but to make up for it, I have a lot more rocks available to throw.

So run off now and count your Hindu prayer beads.

(For 3DOP and Flameburns: the above does not represent how I actually view Catholicism. It merely demonstrates to Saemo how her technique can be turned against her.)

Regards,

Pahoran

[saemo]

I'm sure, Saemo, that if you were a Mormon, you'd actually be informed about what Mormons believe. In which case, you'd know that the Judgement and the Resurrection haven't happened yet, so none of our known ancestors could have entered into their exaltation. That is an event yet future.

And you would also know that none of us on the earth are qualified to judge of the eternal destiny of any other person; Jesus Christ is the one judge, and He alone knows the thoughts and intents of all hearts.

So imagining that "Mormons call [their deceased grandparents] 'gods'" is not only theologically wrong in every possible way, but it also demonstrates the most abysmal ignorance of how Latter-day Saints think and speak. I have never heard any Latter-day Saint speak of his or her ancestors thus; and I, unlike you, actually know some.

I don't.

Almost there....just 1000 more years of badge-wearing, tracting, door-slamming. You know they can taste it. The anticipation must be killing 'em. Oh wait.

I'm sure you believe that your medieval hodgepodge of Mediterranean superstition, with its structure founded by Numa Pompilius and its thin veneer of Christianity, represents the "truth."

You see Saemo, I can keep this up just as long as you can. Your windows are a whole lot bigger than mine, but to make up for it, I have a lot more rocks available to throw.

So run off now and count your Hindu prayer beads.

I knew I could count on you.

See you next time around, after you've had some time to pray to your Kolob-living, exalted man-god, of this universe.

[flameburns623]

Hence you hear Catholics in literature sometimes refering to their 'sainted mother' or 'sainted grandmother'.

Mormons call them 'gods'.

No. We do not.

Perhaps you meant that as a joke. If so, it was in poor taste, and fell rather flat.

Considering your proudly proclaimed allegiance to a church and faith with an inexhaustible supply of material for satire and ridicule, it might behove you to be a little more circumspect in the future.

Regards,

Pahoran

I thought after seeing Saemo's post that I had missed out on some sort of inside Mormon joke. Hadn't realized it was a barbed commnent. After all, the comment was accompanied by a smiley: I'd've taken for granted that Saemo was intending some gentle humor.

Now back to our regularly-scheduled topic.

[Pahoran]

Almost there....just 1000 more years of badge-wearing, tracting, door-slamming. You know they can taste it. The anticipation must be killing 'em. Oh wait

I knew I could count on you

See you next time around, after you've had some time to pray to your Kolob-living, exalted man-god, of this universe.

I had a payment-in-kind post ready to go, but I decided against it. It is time, I think, for one of us to set an example of how Christians should behave, and I knew it wasn't going to be you.

Saemo, when are you going to get it? For every item of my faith that you can find to malign, misrepresent and ridicule, I can find at least two in yours. As you prove practically every time you post, It takes only the most superficial knowledge and absolutely no talent at all to trash-talk someone else's religion.

Think about that next time you want to let fly with another gratuitous slam.

Regards,

Pahoran

[saemo]

I had a payment-in-kind post ready to go, but I decided against it. It is time, I think, for one of us to set an example of how Christians should behave, and I knew it wasn't going to be you.

Saemo, when are you going to get it? For every item of my faith that you can find to malign, misrepresent and ridicule, I can find at least two in yours. As you prove practically every time you post, It takes only the most superficial knowledge and absolutely no talent at all to trash-talk someone else's religion.

Think about that next time you want to let fly with another gratuitous slam.

Regards,

Pahoran

Apparently, you think I take what you say to me far more seriously than I do. Such a softie.

[Sevenbak]

So both Baptists and Mormons call yourselves Christians?

But can a Baptist call himself Mormon?

And do Mormons call themselves Baptists?

You are telling me that A = C and B = C but A does not equal B.

So if you leave me with nothing more, I would have to say that neither are Christian.

Cairbre, Mormon is a nickname of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Mormon was an ancient prophet and servant of Christ. It is from his abridgment of an ancient record of many Christian prophets (The Book of Mormon) that bears his name that we are sometimes called.

Hope that helps

[Cairbre]

Cats are internet mammals, dogs are chapel ones.

Meow.

[Cairbre]

Thanks again everyone. Just wanted you to know I read your posts. Don't feel much like replying this morning. Happy new year to all.