Missionaries and Discernment

[Calm]

 

Quote

Frankly I have always had some problems with that idea, being a convert and having experienced "both sides" of the question.

Meaning you don't see much variance in terms of how or how often you felt the Spirit or something else?

-----

I have had a lot of variation of being able to recognize the Spirit over the decades, but it seems mostly tied to the state of my health and the types of drugs I take.  

Edited September 2, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I've heard this statement quite a bit (was it President Hinkley who said it?). It is a lovely sentiment but it downplays the fact that if I were to convert to Mormonism there would be lots of things that I consider "good" that I would have to leave behind. It's not as simple as it sounds -- I can't just add what you have to what I have.

For example, I love Eucharistic Adoration, praying the Rosary, and going on monastic retreats. I have a deep and abiding love and relationship with the Blessed Virgin Mary, who has given me much. There are a few Saints that I regularly pray to. I love the liturgy and the liturgical calendar that sanctifies time. All these things I would have to leave behind if I were to become LDS, which then logically entails that they are not good since they are not something I could bring along. But my personal direct experience is that they are very good.

The sentiment of the statement is nice but the reality is that the only good I could bring with me is that which is in alignment with the LDS church. That makes perfect sense -- that is what a conversion is. But the statement glosses over all of that and makes it seem like I wouldn't be giving up much when in fact I would be.

Let me give you my rebellious advice- you don't have to give them up

Well maybe praying TO Saints would have to go- but I have never seen the need for that frankly, even as a Catholic.  I did not find Christ that intimidating. 

If you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview- that is the ONLY criteria for being LDS.   There are no questions about the rosary, and you do believe that God had a Mother and so do we.

I find no problem in the idea of honoring Mother in Heaven- we simply do not "pray" to her because we see no need.

When I was Catholic I was told that one prays to saints because they are easier to "relate to" than going "direct" to God the Father through Jesus.

I never quite understood that- so I don't miss saints at all.  Christ is my exemplar and of course I honor his mother and Heavenly Mother as part of a Divine Pair of which we all must eventually be a part- yet each member of the Pair has their complimentary functions.

Father organizes, Mother nurtures and loves, the Son is the Messanger- the Word by whom all things were made.  Some LDS even believe that Heavenly Mother is the Holy Ghost, Wisdom.

Again, NONE of that is on the temple recommend interview.  Odd you bring this up- I saw a rosary today and thought it might be interesting to pray it again- but then I believe more in mindfulness meditation than mantras which is essentially what the rosary is to me now.

I recall one litany which has the response "Have mercy on us" and the experience was quite meditative to the point where for me the words lost their meaning.  Soon it became "Havmer see-onus" and other variations.  https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incab3c.htm

If I was not inclined to other forms of meditation I can see myself quite easily getting involved in something like that and making it an LDS practice of my own.  I would not preach it, but in privacy- if it genuinely works for you, I would not hesitate to do things like that.

The words become irrelevant to a degree and the rhythm takes over and one is soon in a deep state of meditation 

Now THAT ain't "Mormon" by any means but if it brings you closer to Christ as a practice, I have no more problem with that than I have with "prayer bricks" designed to help you remember to say your prayers.    (Mormon Cultural Practice, along with folding arms instead of hands)

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I think that is mainly speaking for yourself. There are plenty of Mormons who get upset when evangelicals (or any other group) say that you worship another Jesus or that you are not Christians.

I don't pay any more attention to them than I do to the hawkers outside of General Conference.  But I suppose you don't know what I am talking about.

I just shuffle on by and let them waste their time.

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

20 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Well, you don't accept our baptisms as valid, so all is fair in love and war, eh?

 

Context my dear, context. 

Navidad did not seem to know that some groups did not accept our baptisms.

NOW put up your DUKES!  

 

 

[mfbukowski]

19 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No, it is not dictating. God makes all kinds of promises. One promise is the Holy Ghost as a constant companion of you enter a certain covenant. If we made that promise on our own it would be the height of hubris.

The influence of the Holy Ghost can come to anyone. LDS have the right, if they love worthily, to its continuous presence. I would love to explain the difference but I do not love particularly worthily. There was a time many years ago when I was. The Holy Ghost was with me. It was a kind of optimistic mania but without the bad behavior in a conventional mania. It was like being bathed in contentment and joy. Answers from the heavens came easily or, if a God chose not to answer, I got that answer in a clear and kind way. I could feel the Holy Ghost as an actual presence all the time. I was not always conscious of it but when I checked it was there. That was my experience of it. I cannot promise others would describe it that way.

I have not thought about those days in a long time. I have felt it since but rarely with that intensity. I wish I could get back to what I had before. I just checked and that presence is there. More muted then back in those golden days but you cannot have everything I guess.

I do that too every once in a while when stuff gets hard.

"You still there"?

And Yep- He IS!   It just gets so dang NOISY these days.... 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I asked this last night but it hasn't yet been answered, so I'll ask you. What is the practical day-to-day difference of you having the gift of the Holy Ghost as compared to non-LDS Christians. What do you experience that we do not?

"Hey Lord- what do you want me to do?  Should I make a right or a left at this corner?"

 Still small voice of tenderness and love :  LEFT

"OK Boss- thanks!"

Later we find that was the right decision for some clear reason.  Dunno if that works for y'all or not but it did not work for me before I signed up!  

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

54 minutes ago, Calm said:

 

Meaning you don't see much variance in terms of how or how often you felt the Spirit or something else?

-----

I have had a lot of variation of being able to recognize the Spirit over the decades, but it seems mostly tied to the state of my health and the types of drugs I take.  

That sounds familiar- was this addressed to me?

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I think there is much wisdom in your comments. It seems to me that Saints have a minimal understanding of how much a mature Christian's faith and commitment mean to him or her. In attending a ward I wish there was a stronger sense of worship in the Sacrament meeting. I love Sunday School - great teacher, and the Elder's Quorum is delightful. A cacophony of strong opinions from older men. Love it. I enjoy the ward, but there is much we miss because of not having a church of our faith to go to. It just seems that whenever I talk with Saints and they talk about adding to the faith; it is always them adding to my faith what is missing. We never get to where I might be able to add to theirs. That is not something that seems to enter their minds. Makes me sad.

I think Saints would do well to allow for Holy Envy.

I sometimes wonder if we (generally speaking) at times avoid learning about other faiths because then it would be harder to ask or even think about asking people to leave their home behind and move into ours and missionary work is so fundamental to our faith, we unconsciously avoid things that make it more difficult.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That sounds familiar- was this addressed to me?

Sorry, should have put your name on it.  Yes, the first part question is to you, mfb.  

The second part was just a bit of data I thought I would add to the conversation.

add-on:  I experience that sense of someone always being there...more than they are listening, "aware" of me is closer...I don't know, maybe like being perpetually embraced?  I lost this for several years when I was on medication.  It was hard not having that.  It makes me feel understood and very few other things do and that is very, very important to me.

I would not tell nonLDS that they would not feel the same way.  Since I don't remember pre8, I can't even say this is how I personally experience the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

 

CALM

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

It is said that non members can experience direct revelations from the Holy Ghost- if not then they could not even be converted.  As your quote states though, the doctrine is that after one is confirmed one has the right to "constant communication" with the Holy Ghost as one remains righteous- Catholics might say "in a state of grace".

The doctrine is that this does not apply to non-members- ie that they can have "visits" from the Holy Ghost but not "constant companionship"

Frankly I have always had some problems with that idea, being a convert and having experienced "both sides" of the question.

Well I am not sure on reflecting on it that I felt any real difference when I was first baptized I think but I think that has changed over the years.

Now it's kind of like walking through life with someone next to you- maybe walking on a long walk or journey.  Sometimes you converse, sometimes you just say a couple of words or comment on some weird thing that happened-   sometimes there's nothing to be said- you are just walking.

I ride my bike a lot and I do in fact talk to God about theological things.  Sometimes aloud but thank goodness I am out in the boonies with no one around to hear me.

People laugh at us when we say that the Spirit can help us find our keys but I will testify all day long that that is the case.  I am quite messy - my desk is a stack of papers but I usually know that what I want is in that stack of files on the middle right about two inches down, for example.

Sometimes I am wrong.   I will ask "Where is it?"  and get the quiet reply   "No no silly- it's on the left right on top !!"

And there it is.

Doesn't prove much I know but that is what it is like!

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Context my dear, context. 

Navidad did not seem to know that some groups did not accept our baptisms.

NOW put up your DUKES!  

 

 

Amigo, let me clarify. I know there are some groups that don't accept your baptism for membership in their church. There are groups that wouldn't accept mine as well (for membership). I know of no group other than Mormons who would say the same thing about your baptism or mine related to salvation. They are two different issues (membership and salvation). Most evangelical groups do not believe in baptismal regeneration. The large majority don't. Therefore they would have no reason to reject your baptism for salvation, when they (we) don't believe baptism is a factor in salvation to begin with.  I better understand the frustration of Saints when fundamentalists insist on telling you what you believe. I am a card-carrying 70 year old evangelical. I know what we believe and what we don't. I am constantly tickled and frustrated when you all insist on telling us our beliefs, especially about creeds and such. How about, in the words of the late great LDS ancient scripture scholar Stephen Robinson, you just ask us! As the folks here say, Somos a sus ordenes!

[Navidad]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

CALM

Well I am not sure on reflecting on it that I felt any real difference when I was first baptized I think but I think that has changed over the years.

Now it's kind of like walking through life with someone next to you- maybe walking on a long walk or journey.  Sometimes you converse, sometimes you just say a couple of words or comment on some weird thing that happened-   sometimes there's nothing to be said- you are just walking.

I ride my bike a lot and I do in fact talk to God about theological things.  Sometimes aloud but thank goodness I am out in the boonies with no one around to hear me.

People laugh at us when we say that the Spirit can help us find our keys but I will testify all day long that that is the case.  I am quite messy - my desk is a stack of papers but I usually know that what I want is in that stack of files on the middle right about two inches down, for example.

Sometimes I am wrong.   I will ask "Where is it?"  and get the quiet reply   "No no silly- it's on the left right on top !!"

And there it is.

Doesn't prove much I know but that is what it is like!

 

In terms of what you are saying . . . my wife must be the Holy Spirit incarnate. Whether it is my glasses or my keys, she always knows where to tell me to find them!

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I do wonder, though, why you draw the line at Latter-day Saints and not with other faith groups whose beliefs conflict with Catholicism in some respects. Seems like discrimination.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

If I understand correctly, it is necessary for the baptism to be understood in the same way that the RCC understands it, including the nature of God and what the baptism is meant to accomplish.  Doctrines not impacting the nature of the baptism are therefore irrelevant.

Calm got it. For a baptism (or any of the seven sacraments) to be valid in Catholic eyes, it has to have the correct matter, form, and intention. In the case of baptism, the matter is water, the form is "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," and the intention is to initiate into Christianity and the mystical Body of Christ and to wash away original sin.

LDS baptism was declared invalid because of form and intention. While the words of LDS baptism are the same, the Vatican determined that the meaning behind those terms (in other words, non-Trinitarian and the Lorenzo Snow couplet) was enough of a variation from Catholicism to make the form invalid. The intention is also invalid because of the lack of belief in original sin.

The Vatican released a document explaining the reasoning behind this decision, which can be found here.

Some interesting points.

First, they refer to the LDS church by its formal name and then common name for clarification. And this prior to President Nelson's announcement. And they even got the hyphen/capitalization right  

Quote

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given a negative response to a "Dubium" regarding the validity of Baptism conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormons.

They point out that doctrinal errors do not invalidate baptism. This is why protestant baptisms are considered valid:

Quote

... errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism.

The document goes on to reaffirm that as long as the intention is accurate, it doesn't matter who performs the baptism. This is just a reaffirmation that priesthood authority is not necessary for baptism (which is a divergence from Mormonism, I know):

Quote

Even non-Catholics can validly administer Baptism. In every case, however, it is the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which does not belong to those who separate themselves from her but to the Church from which they have separated themselves (cf. Augustine, On Baptism 1, 12,9). This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes (cf. Augustine, Treatise on the Gospel of John VI, 1,7; cf. CCC n. 1127). The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617).

Then the issue of form is discussed and specifically concerns the Trinity:

Quote

There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed.,Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). 

This seems to me an accurate representation of the LDS view. I appreciate that the document quotes from an LDS source and even uses the formal name for the LDS church. I think this document is trying to be as respectful to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it can while it denies the validity of LDS baptism.

Next, the intention is discussed, particularly about original sin:

Quote

According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid.

I think it is fair that the idea of apostasy is brought up here as concerns infant baptism.

The document ends with this diplomatic conclusion:

Quote

It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect.

We do work together on a range of problems and I, too, hope that through further good will, we can increase understanding and mutual respect.

The decision to consider LDS baptisms invalid doesn't originate from a discriminatory attitude towards Latter-day Saints, but from a reasoned view based on what Catholics believe make baptism valid.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Let me give you my rebellious advice- you don't have to give them up

Well maybe praying TO Saints would have to go- but I have never seen the need for that frankly, even as a Catholic.  I did not find Christ that intimidating. 

If you can honestly pass a temple recommend interview- that is the ONLY criteria for being LDS.   There are no questions about the rosary, and you do believe that God had a Mother and so do we.

I find no problem in the idea of honoring Mother in Heaven- we simply do not "pray" to her because we see no need.

When I was Catholic I was told that one prays to saints because they are easier to "relate to" than going "direct" to God the Father through Jesus.

I never quite understood that- so I don't miss saints at all.  Christ is my exemplar and of course I honor his mother and Heavenly Mother as part of a Divine Pair of which we all must eventually be a part- yet each member of the Pair has their complimentary functions.

Father organizes, Mother nurtures and loves, the Son is the Messanger- the Word by whom all things were made.  Some LDS even believe that Heavenly Mother is the Holy Ghost, Wisdom.

Again, NONE of that is on the temple recommend interview.  Odd you bring this up- I saw a rosary today and thought it might be interesting to pray it again- but then I believe more in mindfulness meditation than mantras which is essentially what the rosary is to me now.

I recall one litany which has the response "Have mercy on us" and the experience was quite meditative to the point where for me the words lost their meaning.  Soon it became "Havmer see-onus" and other variations.  https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incab3c.htm

If I was not inclined to other forms of meditation I can see myself quite easily getting involved in something like that and making it an LDS practice of my own.  I would not preach it, but in privacy- if it genuinely works for you, I would not hesitate to do things like that.

The words become irrelevant to a degree and the rhythm takes over and one is soon in a deep state of meditation 

Now THAT ain't "Mormon" by any means but if it brings you closer to Christ as a practice, I have no more problem with that than I have with "prayer bricks" designed to help you remember to say your prayers.    (Mormon Cultural Practice, along with folding arms instead of hands)

 

Mark, another post tonight that I really appreciate. I, too, look at the Rosary and Litanies as "mantras." The words they express are true and good, but the purpose is actually beyond the words. The more you say them, the less they mean until words themselves disappear and you are left with a wordless longing of God. As you say, the rhythm takes over and deep meditation/contemplation occurs. I find this is especially true when I pray the Rosary and Litanies in Latin (which I almost always do). The use of a sacred dead language highlights the fact that language is the vehicle to the ineffable.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I don't pay any more attention to them than I do to the hawkers outside of General Conference.  But I suppose you don't know what I am talking about.

I just shuffle on by and let them waste their time.

 

How funny. I still (jokingly) hold that Salt Lake City, or at least around temple square (yes, I have been there) should declare itself a sovereign state like Vatican City. And if you made it smaller than Vatican City, you could then hold the honor of the smallest country in the world.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

"Hey Lord- what do you want me to do?  Should I make a right or a left at this corner?"

 Still small voice of tenderness and love :  LEFT

"OK Boss- thanks!"

Later we find that was the right decision for some clear reason.  Dunno if that works for y'all or not but it did not work for me before I signed up!  

 

So, without the LDS gift of the Holy Ghost, I guess I'll just have to rely on Google maps  

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

CALM

Well I am not sure on reflecting on it that I felt any real difference when I was first baptized I think but I think that has changed over the years.

Now it's kind of like walking through life with someone next to you- maybe walking on a long walk or journey.  Sometimes you converse, sometimes you just say a couple of words or comment on some weird thing that happened-   sometimes there's nothing to be said- you are just walking.

I ride my bike a lot and I do in fact talk to God about theological things.  Sometimes aloud but thank goodness I am out in the boonies with no one around to hear me.

People laugh at us when we say that the Spirit can help us find our keys but I will testify all day long that that is the case.  I am quite messy - my desk is a stack of papers but I usually know that what I want is in that stack of files on the middle right about two inches down, for example.

Sometimes I am wrong.   I will ask "Where is it?"  and get the quiet reply   "No no silly- it's on the left right on top !!"

And there it is.

Doesn't prove much I know but that is what it is like!

 

You know, I do the same, talking to God or the Blessed Virgin or some Saint, usually while walking my dog (sometimes I pray the Rosary during walks, too). I think it is key to living spirituality, that everyday moments like a walk or a bike-ride are somehow sanctified, given to God. So yes, finding keys can be part of that. Or experiencing a direct connection with God. Or everything in-between.

Edited September 3, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[mfbukowski]

23 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Mark, another post tonight that I really appreciate. I, too, look at the Rosary and Litanies as "mantras." The words they express are true and good, but the purpose is actually beyond the words. The more you say them, the less they mean until words themselves disappear and you are left with a wordless longing of God. As you say, the rhythm takes over and deep meditation/contemplation occurs. I find this is especially true when I pray the Rosary and Litanies in Latin (which I almost always do). The use of a sacred dead language highlights the fact that language is the vehicle to the ineffable.

I like Latin too, one can say so much in few words due to all the case endings. Change one letter and now it's dative or genitve or ablative and the whole sentence changes meaning. 

 

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

You know, I do the same, talking to God or the Blessed Virgin or some Saint, usually while walking my dog (sometimes I pray the Rosary during walks, too). I think it is key to a living spirituality, that everyday moments like a walk or a bike-ride are somehow sanctified, given to God. So yes, finding keys can be part of that. Or experiencing a direct connection with God. Or everything in-between.

Swimming in an Olympic pool is great for meditation. Just you and watching the dots on the lane markers going by...

[MiserereNobis]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I like Latin too, one can say so much in few words due to all the case endings. Change one letter and now it's dative or genitve or ablative and the whole sentence changes meaning. 

 

Yes, Latinate grammar is pretty awesome. I'm fluent in Czech and it has case endings, too. I remember when I first learned that word order doesn't matter because case endings dictate parts of speech. It was like being freed from the shackles of English grammar. I could put whatever word I damn well wanted in whatever place (well, minus a few words that had to be second in the sentence, but still).  

[MiserereNobis]

7 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Swimming in an Olympic pool is great for meditation. Just you and watching the dots on the lane markers going by...

I was on the swim team in high school and I've often looked back on that and realized that one reason I loved it so is because swim practice was a 2 hour (sometimes twice a day) meditative practice. Rhythmic body movements linked to rhythmic breathing without the possibility of speech. Monasteries should install pools  

Edited September 3, 2018 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

Never got to the point of thinking of anything but how to get enough breath....with a little touch of panic next time it would be a mounthful of water.  I am a sinker by nature and disposition apparently as I love to drop to the bottom of the pool and stay there as long as I can.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Never got to the point of thinking of anything but how to get enough breath....with a little touch of panic next time it would be a mounthful of water.  I am a sinker by nature and disposition apparently as I love to drop to the bottom of the pool and stay there as long as I can.

Catholic mysticism has a place for you, as well, down on the bottom of the pool  

But in seriousness, it probably is a subject of another thread, but in Catholicism there are myriads of ways (spiritualities) to approach the divine, from the most cloistered monks to the most involved friars to the most married laity. I think it is a strength, one that Mormonism could also use without contradicting Mormon doctrines: there are many true ways to God, and God loves and supports each one because every individual is precious to God.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 

Calm got it. For a baptism (or any of the seven sacraments) to be valid in Catholic eyes, it has to have the correct matter, form, and intention. In the case of baptism, the matter is water, the form is "In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost," and the intention is to initiate into Christianity and the mystical Body of Christ and to wash away original sin.

LDS baptism was declared invalid because of form and intention. While the words of LDS baptism are the same, the Vatican determined that the meaning behind those terms (in other words, non-Trinitarian and the Lorenzo Snow couplet) was enough of a variation from Catholicism to make the form invalid. The intention is also invalid because of the lack of belief in original sin.

The Vatican released a document explaining the reasoning behind this decision, which can be found here.

Some interesting points.

First, they refer to the LDS church by its formal name and then common name for clarification. And this prior to President Nelson's announcement. And they even got the hyphen/capitalization right  

They point out that doctrinal errors do not invalidate baptism. This is why protestant baptisms are considered valid:

The document goes on to reaffirm that as long as the intention is accurate, it doesn't matter who performs the baptism. This is just a reaffirmation that priesthood authority is not necessary for baptism (which is a divergence from Mormonism, I know):

Then the issue of form is discussed and specifically concerns the Trinity:

This seems to me an accurate representation of the LDS view. I appreciate that the document quotes from an LDS source and even uses the formal name for the LDS church. I think this document is trying to be as respectful to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as it can while it denies the validity of LDS baptism.

Next, the intention is discussed, particularly about original sin:

I think it is fair that the idea of apostasy is brought up here as concerns infant baptism.

The document ends with this diplomatic conclusion:

We do work together on a range of problems and I, too, hope that through further good will, we can increase understanding and mutual respect.

The decision to consider LDS baptisms invalid doesn't originate from a discriminatory attitude towards Latter-day Saints, but from a reasoned view based on what Catholics believe make baptism valid.

 

Thanks for this explanation. 

I too appreciate the use of the formal name, although that has long been the expressed preference of leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

[Meerkat]

7 hours ago, Navidad said:

Thanks Meerkat - Couple of things - I thought Moroni 10 was written to Lamanites, no? How does that relate to me? I am confused that the suggestion is to read the Book of Mormon.

If it applied to them, why not us? Do you set aside the Bible because it was written in the Old World?  I try to apply all scriptural lessons to myself.  I tried the experiment of reading and praying.  It worked for me also and many others I know.  But I can see you have reasons to be skeptical.  Glad you enjoy worshipping with us. I can see the Lord is blessing your life.  Like I said, we enjoyed the Mennonite curriculum materials, and have a high opinion of Mennonites.