Dear Evangelical Friends: Can A Mormon Be A Christian?

[Ringil]

"Well, with an open mind like that any discussion with you would be pretty pointless"

Discussions to share ideas don't have to have a goal of convincing others; a goal of understanding is significantly worthy IMO.

If Ringil is interested in learning how LDS choose to measure our doctrine and allow us to demonstrate how it works for us without a need of either we insisting on denying her beliefs are truth or her insisting our beliefs are wrong, it seems to me the discussion still has a point.

 

 

On the other hand, I really like that LDS doctrine is very limited in our fundamental beliefs.

 

This is an interesting point for me.  One feature of the Latin Church is a need/emphasis to explain every darn thing in a systematice and "boxy" way.  For Eastern Catholic and for the Orthodox from whom they emerge- matters of faith are seen in a more mystical way.  They don't "pin down" everything the way the western Church does.  

 

Here's an example.  Latin Catholics teach that the Consecration (changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ) occurs at one specific time in the Mass.  Eastern Catholics believe that, yes, the bread and wine are transformed, but for them the time isn't important- they simply believe it does occur and leave the technicalities up to God.  

 

But, both ways of tackling issues of faith are equally valid.  Sometimes I wish I wasn't so tied up in the technicalities and fascinated by them so much.  

[Ringil]

I am uncomfortable with the rule of invalidity.

 

I think the Holy See has failed to appreciate the wide variation in doctrine that is permissible to the ministers of LDS baptisms and have instead focused on norms. I would be willing to conclude that most LDS baptisms are invalid, but not all 

But how can you say this as a Catholic.  They do not use the Trinitarian formula- thus their Baptisms cannot be valid.  Does this exclude them from Heaven- I don't believe so and the Church has said as much.  

 

Perhaps, to ways know only by God, they are saved without needing to have a Baptism.  

[JLHPROF]

But how can you say this as a Catholic.  They do not use the Trinitarian formula- thus their Baptisms cannot be valid.  Does this exclude them from Heaven- I don't believe so and the Church has said as much.  

 

Perhaps, to ways know only by God, they are saved without needing to have a Baptism.  

 

But we do use the trinitarian formula.  We baptize in the name "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" just as a Catholic would.  We just believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate people.  We still use the trinitarian formula.

[3DOP]

But how can you say this as a Catholic.  They do not use the Trinitarian formula- thus their Baptisms cannot be valid.  Does this exclude them from Heaven- I don't believe so and the Church has said as much.  

 

Perhaps, to ways know only by God, they are saved without needing to have a Baptism.  

Ringil...hey...We are getting to know each other quickly. I believe in baptism of desire for everybody. But I am talking about valid baptisms in water for LDS.

 

Ringil...Mormons use the correct form. Always..."in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost or Spirit". The Catholic Church has noted that even with the correct form, they ordinarily mean something different. I agree with the Church thus far. Usually, Mormons find our Trinity repugnant. They NEED it to be repugnant to justify their claims of apostasy. Sometimes, some LDS ministers of baptism might stray into a meaning that would make the baptism as valid as that which would be administered by a well-meaning atheist or Jew. In other words, valid. That is why I think a very few LDS baptisms might be valid, and that therefore, the Church has been a little too rigorous in declaring that all LDS converts must be unconditionally baptised without wondering whether they were validly baptized previously.

 

I am a very liberal Catholic in some respects...as you see with regards to this question. On the other hand...my guess is that you will eventually be more taken aback at my traditionalist tendencies than at my liberality.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited November 13, 2014 by 3DOP

[Vance]

Mormons use the correct form. Always..."in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost or Spirit".

True.

What is meant by the speaker is not important to us. What is important is that the Baptism is done in the proper way by someone with the proper authority.

Mormons find our Trinity repugnant.

"Repugnant" is a strong word.

But when the implications of the "Trinity" are understood, then yes, "repugnant" is probably an accurate description. But it applies only to the doctrine, not to the believers of it.

They NEED it to be repugnant to justify their claims of apostasy.

Nah, the apostasy is more about loss of authority than it is about false doctrine entering into the Church.

Catholics, at least have the concept of authority, unlike our Protestant brethren.

Sometimes, some LDS ministers of baptism might stray into a meaning that would make the baptism as valid as that which would be administered by a well-meaning atheist or Jew. In other words, valid. That is why I think a very few LDS baptisms might be valid, and that therefore, the Church has been a little too rigorous in declaring that all LDS converts must be unconditionally baptised without wondering whether they were validly baptized previously.

That is interesting.

[Ringil]

But we do use the trinitarian formula.  We baptize in the name "of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" just as a Catholic would.  We just believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate people.  We still use the trinitarian formula.

 

Ah, I did not know that.  I thought you guys used a slightly different formula.  Don't know where I picked that up.  Thanks for the clarification.  

[Ringil]

Ringil...hey...We are getting to know each other quickly. I believe in baptism of desire for everybody. But I am talking about valid baptisms in water for LDS.

 

Ringil...Mormons use the correct form. Always..."in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost or Spirit". The Catholic Church has noted that even with the correct form, they ordinarily mean something different. I agree with the Church thus far. Usually, Mormons find our Trinity repugnant. They NEED it to be repugnant to justify their claims of apostasy. Sometimes, some LDS ministers of baptism might stray into a meaning that would make the baptism as valid as that which would be administered by a well-meaning atheist or Jew. In other words, valid. That is why I think a very few LDS baptisms might be valid, and that therefore, the Church has been a little too rigorous in declaring that all LDS converts must be unconditionally baptised without wondering whether they were validly baptized previously.

 

I am a very liberal Catholic in some respects...as you see with regards to this question. On the other hand...my guess is that you will eventually be more taken aback at my traditionalist tendencies than at my liberality.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

 

Oh yes, I also accept baptism or desire.  I think that this is doctrine.  I know some traditionalists don't care for it but that doesn't matter.  

 

Also, only a Baptized individual can Baptize another person right?  Or am I mistaken here?   

[Ringil]

Ringil...hey...We are getting to know each other quickly. I believe in baptism of desire for everybody. But I am talking about valid baptisms in water for LDS.

 

Ringil...Mormons use the correct form. Always..."in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost or Spirit". The Catholic Church has noted that even with the correct form, they ordinarily mean something different. I agree with the Church thus far. Usually, Mormons find our Trinity repugnant. They NEED it to be repugnant to justify their claims of apostasy. Sometimes, some LDS ministers of baptism might stray into a meaning that would make the baptism as valid as that which would be administered by a well-meaning atheist or Jew. In other words, valid. That is why I think a very few LDS baptisms might be valid, and that therefore, the Church has been a little too rigorous in declaring that all LDS converts must be unconditionally baptised without wondering whether they were validly baptized previously.

 

I am a very liberal Catholic in some respects...as you see with regards to this question. On the other hand...my guess is that you will eventually be more taken aback at my traditionalist tendencies than at my liberality.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

 

Sorry, I haven't figured out how to edit a post here- where is the edit feature?

 

Anyway, are you a SSPX sympathizer?  Are you fond of Michael Voris- If you are into the Voris I will have learned everything there is to know about the approach you take to the Faith! lol.     

 

I am somewhat religiously and liturgically conservative- I do like the EF but I also am great with the OF.  I am politically pretty left leaning though.  The extreme politics of Catholicanswersforum is what has gotten to me.  If you ever go over there I use ringil as well.  

[danielwoods]

Lucky for you if you are willing to give up your preconceived ideas and approach God in humble prayer you won't have to accept "someone's" word, you will have God's word.

 

The NT is God's word. 

[ERayR]

The NT is God's word. 

 

Yuup you have that right but what you do not acknowledge is that your interpretation of it is not.

[danielwoods]

Scripture does not teach it in the way you put forth. Something that does not exist cannot be known, unless it is created to that purpose - which is determinism.

It's only determinism if it's controlled. Being created for a certain purpose doesn't determine that the person will choose that occupation or not.

It's only God who knows all things before they exist. Hence, the statement to Jeremiah.

 

God's foreknowledge is based on knowing us during our pre-mortal life. Just as God declares to Jeremiah.

This is false. The passage doesn't state this, nor is it stated anywhere in the Biblical text that we pre-existed, or that we even had a pre-mortal life.

 

You say you can know any number of things can happen, but that is based on experience with and observation of things that exist.

You can predict things based on past events.

God knowing someone before they exist falls into the same category as creating a rock so big He cannot lift it.

Why? How does predictive prophecy work of that's the case?

God prophecies through Daniel that 483 years after the rebuilding of the temple, Christ would come. How can God know this if it didn't exist yet?

 

They are us. Angels are nothing more than pre-mortal or post-mortal men sent on an errand of the Lord. Why do you think they are different from us? Where does it say that angels are anything other than men?

Jesus said they are different than us.

[ERayR]

It's only determinism if it's controlled. Being created for a certain purpose doesn't determine that the person will choose that occupation or not.

It's only God who knows all things before they exist. Hence, the statement to Jeremiah.

 

This is false. The passage doesn't state this, nor is it stated anywhere in the Biblical text that we pre-existed, or that we even had a pre-mortal life.

 

Why? How does predictive prophecy work of that's the case?

God prophecies through Daniel that 483 years after the rebuilding of the temple, Christ would come. How can God know this if it didn't exist yet?

 

Jesus said they are different than us.

 

If this is what you are comfortable with that is OK.

[Vance]

It's only determinism if it's controlled.

Correct.

Being created for a certain purpose doesn't determine that the person will choose that occupation or not.

So, God creates a person for a certain purpose (to preform a certain function) and then it doesn't perform that function??????

So, either God is incompetent, or He is not omnipotent, or He is not omniscient.

Which one is it?

It's only God who knows all things before they exist.

Apparently not. He apparently doesn't know how to create an individual that will perform the function for which He created it.

Hence, the statement to Jeremiah.

Nah, the statement to Jeremiah show the preexistence of man.

[Vance]

Jesus said they are different than us.

Really???

CFR

[JLHPROF]

 

 

 

Jesus said they are different than us.

 

Really???

CFR

 

 

You guys are running in circles getting nowhere: 954

[danielwoods]

Really???

CFR

 

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection."

 

In the resurrection, we will be like the angels, but currently we are not like them. 

[3DOP]

True.

What is meant by the speaker is not important to us. What is important is that the Baptism is done in the proper way by someone with the proper authority.

"Repugnant" is a strong word.

But when the implications of the "Trinity" are understood, then yes, "repugnant" is probably an accurate description. But it applies only to the doctrine, not to the believers of it.

Nah, the apostasy is more about loss of authority than it is about false doctrine entering into the Church.

Catholics, at least have the concept of authority, unlike our Protestant brethren.

That is interesting.

 

Vance...hey. Fair enough. Repugnant was too strong and of course I would never say that any negativity that LDS attach to the Nicene Trinity is applied to Nicene Trinitarians. Anyway, I appreciate the analysis.

 

Let me say it this way. I tend think it is easier to pose an apostasy when our doctrine of God is really fouled up, even if not unto "repugnance". I agree and understand that it is about authority, but if we were spot on with our doctrines of God? Don't you think an apostasy would be a little less desirable when it only involved arguments about the way to maintain apostolic authority? I think that can get confusing for most folks. Since our Trinity can be confusing too, I think it can help to make an apostasy seem more obvious. That is what I meant to say. But I completely agree that authority is the main question, and indeed, my understanding of apostolic authority is the only reason I hold to the Nicene Trinity.   

 

Sorry, I haven't figured out how to edit a post here- where is the edit feature?

 

Anyway, are you a SSPX sympathizer?  Are you fond of Michael Voris- If you are into the Voris I will have learned everything there is to know about the approach you take to the Faith! lol.     

 

I am somewhat religiously and liturgically conservative- I do like the EF but I also am great with the OF.  I am politically pretty left leaning though.  The extreme politics of Catholicanswersforum is what has gotten to me.  If you ever go over there I use ringil as well.  

 

Ringil, it wasn't supposed to be THAT easy to peg me. Hey, I resemble your question. How did you do that? My son is a SSPX seminarian, so I guess you could say I am sympathetic. Here at this board, my identity had been maintained as merely a "Catholic" for almost ten years. I think it is the LDS enthusiasm for Pope Francis that has led me to define some of my distinctive opinions with more clarity. I am kind of glad that it has worked out that way. Of course they don't understand the ins and outs, but I think they are aware that many Catholics disapprove of the SSPX. If you do, I understand and I don't take it personally. 

 

I only peek over at Cath Answers since I was banned a year or two ago. I can get on with older names if I want, but I don't. Having been banned does not exactly qualify me as an unbiased judge so I won't offer my opinion. What was the most frustrating is that they removed my strongest posts! Do you mean that they attacked you because of your political heresies...er...sympathies? Which forum? I might go browsing. I am glad you like the Traditional Mass.

 

I don't follow Michael Voris. I know who he is. I am jealous of his hair.

 

Once again allow me to express my pleasure at being joined by a fellow Catholic here. I hope your stay is a long one.

 

Regards,

 

Rory

Edited November 13, 2014 by 3DOP

[Vance]

Vance...hey. Fair enough. Repugnant was too strong and I was not thinking that you hold Trinitarians with contempt, repugna

I did not, and do not, want to express or imply that you, in any way, meant that we hold Trinitarians with contempt.

If I did so, I am sorry.

[3DOP]

I did not, and do not, want to express or imply that you, in any way, meant that we hold Trinitarians with contempt.

If I did so, I am sorry.

No worries, mate. Still fair enough...But I didn't finish my post to you...I didn't realize I combined it with another post. Anyway, there is an edited version to you available if you are interested.

[3DOP]

Oh yes, I also accept baptism or desire.  I think that this is doctrine.  I know some traditionalists don't care for it but that doesn't matter.  

 

Also, only a Baptized individual can Baptize another person right?  Or am I mistaken here?   

 

Of course for a solemn baptism in church it should be a priest. But anyone may baptize, so long as they "intend to do what the Church does":

 

"In case of necessity, however, not only a priest or a deacon, but even a layman or a woman, yes even a pagan and a heretic can baptize, so long as he preserves the form of the Church and has the intention to do what the Church does."

 

From the 17th Ecumenical Council of Florence, Exultate Deo, Nov. 22, 1439 (Denzinger #696)

[Vance]

Let me say it this way. I tend think it is easier to pose an apostasy when our doctrine of God is really fouled up, even if not unto "repugnance".

I suppose so.

It is interesting, (as one who accepts Joseph Smith as a called of God) that he learned of the apostasy at the same time that he learned the true nature of God.

I agree and understand that it is about authority, but if we were spot on with our doctrines of God? Don't you think an apostasy would be a little less desirable when it only involved arguments about the way to maintain apostolic authority?

Perhaps. We can only speculate, but, from where I stand, I would have to disagree (mildly, of course).

Since our Trinity can be confusing too, I think it can help to make an apostasy seem more obvious. That is what I meant to say.

You have a point. When I look at the doctrine of the Trinity, it very much reinforces to me that there was an apostasy.

But I completely agree that authority is the main question, and indeed, my understanding of apostolic authority is the only reason I hold to the Nicene Trinity.

I have to admit that if I weren't LDS I would have to seriously consider being a Catholic. And the primary reason is authority. But, the reason that authority is so important to me is because I am LDS.

To me, it is rather obvious, that IF you accept that apostolic authority continued in the church beyond the apostles, THEN any changes incorporated by that apostolic authority should be accepted and honored.

I find it rather ironic that our Protestant brethren so vehemently reject the apostolic authority of the Catholic Church while so vehemently accepting/defending so many of the doctrines determined/defined by the Catholic Church after the disappearance of the Apostles, specifically the doctrine of the Trinity.

[Flyonthewall]

It's only determinism if it's controlled. Being created for a certain purpose doesn't determine that the person will choose that occupation or not.

It's only God who knows all things before they exist. Hence, the statement to Jeremiah.

This is false. The passage doesn't state this, nor is it stated anywhere in the Biblical text that we pre-existed, or that we even had a pre-mortal life.

God has declared it to his prophets. Disagree all you want but it will not change truth.

 

Why? How does predictive prophecy work of that's the case?

God prophecies through Daniel that 483 years after the rebuilding of the temple, Christ would come. How can God know this if it didn't exist yet?

There is a difference between declaring a temple will be rebuilt, and a specific person making a specific choice or choices. If a person is created to make a specific choice, that is pre-programming- God does not work that way.

 

Jesus said they are different than us.

I must have missed that. Where is that exactly?

[Flyonthewall]

Luke 20:34 Jesus replied, “The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. 35 But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, 36 and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. They are God’s children, since they are children of the resurrection."

 

In the resurrection, we will be like the angels, but currently we are not like them.

This does not say what you think it says. Angels cannot die. Neither could we in our pre-mortal life. In our post mortal life, we cannot die either.

An angel is simply a person on an errand of the Lord. A servant.

[cdowis]

To me, it is rather obvious, that IF you accept that apostolic authority continued in the church beyond the apostles, THEN any changes incorporated by that apostolic authority should be accepted and honored.

 

 

In the Council of Nicea, the church bishops and leaders did not give any particular recognition or deference to the authority of the representative for the bishop of Rome.  He was just one of many other participants with no particular authority being recognized by the Council.

 

I draw from that observation that the doctrine of the pre-eminence of the Bishop of Rome was a later doctrine, and not recognized at that time.  Indeed, Constantine was pretty much running the show, including banishing those bishops who voted against the creed.

Edited November 14, 2014 by cdowis

[Vance]

In the Council of Nicea, the church bishops and leaders did not give any particular recognition or deference to the authority of the representative for the bishop of Rome.  He was just one of many other participants with no particular authority being recognized by the Council.

That is interesting.

I draw from that observation that the doctrine of the pre-eminence of the Bishop of Rome was a later doctrine, and not recognized at that time.

So, it wasn't recognized, at that time, that the Bishop of Rome had supposedly been given the higher authority of Peter?

That is interesting indeed.

Indeed, Constantine was pretty much running the show, including banishing those bishops who voted against the creed.

The irony is even greater that our Protestant brethren swallow the doctrine decided upon in that council.