Trying to use FACTs to prove your point.
Why don't you ANTIs get a TESTIMONY!!!
Now THAT is something MORMONs know about!
Don't mess with TEXAS!
Posted on 04/20/2010 7:56:29 PM PDT by delacoert
VATICAN CITY, JULY 17, 2001 (Zenit.org).- Prompted by questions about Mormon practices, the Vatican recently confirmed that the sect´s baptism is invalid.
Last month the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted the invalidity of the Mormons´ baptism given their misconception of the Trinity and, consequently, the identity of Christ.
Father Luis Ladaria, a theologian at the Pontifical Gregorian University, explained today in L´Osservatore Romano the Church´s view about Mormon baptism.
"The baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," the theologian said, "differ essentially as regards faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name baptism is conferred and, at the same time, in regard to Christ, who instituted it."
Father Ladaria pointed out that even non-Catholics can administer baptism validly, as the minister of the sacrament is, in fact, Christ himself. But the baptizer must do so in the name of the Trinity and "with the intention of doing what the Church does," he added.
Joseph Smith founded the Mormons in New York state in 1830. He was inspired to find the place were golden tablets were placed, which expressed the revelations of the prophet Mormon, written by him and his son Moroni. Mormonism is a "sacred history" rewritten in America, in which God revealed the "latter-day saints."
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith´s response is based on research requested by the U.S. bishops.
Father Ladaria said the formula used by the Mormons for baptism states that, "having received Christ´s mandate, I baptize you in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
But there is no real invocation of the Trinity, the theologian said, because, for the Mormons, the "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit" are not the three persons in which the one divinity subsists, but three gods who form a divinity.
The term divinity itself has no "substantial" content, because, according to this Mormon concept, divinity has come into existence given that the three gods have decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about the salvation of man. This divinity and man share the same nature and are "substantially the same," according to Mormon belief.
Such divergence in doctrine implies, Father Landaria said, that the Mormon minister does not have the intention, when baptizing, of doing what the Catholic Church does when it confers baptism.
Sometime you should go to an Online source of Joe Smith’s ‘translation’ of the King James Bible. He added so much it is frightening! But just to illustrate the deceitfulness of Joey, look at the JST version of the end of the Book of Genesis, where Smith added hundreds of words in order to fabricate a prophecy about his advent! Joseph Smith was a charlatan, a liar, and a sexual degenerate. He founded a cult look-alike of Christianity, but his religion is a flase religion based upon fabricated scriptures and lies he told repeatedly ... his first vision has several versions, told by him!
I quoted the NIV because that is what I had up. There is no ‘flavor’ added and it is accurate according to all the MSS.
http://bible.cc/ezekiel/37-22.htm
The KJV, FYI, is NOT THE MOST ACCEPTED, and since the discovery of the DSS, one of the LEAST accurate. But it doesn’t matter, check any translation, even the KJV, the CONTEXT still shows that Ezekiel is talking about the divided kingdoms, NOT BOOKS. It is a no brainer to everyone except the LDS.
Now, since I am leaving town again in a few minutes, and thus will be offline, I will most likely not be able to respond to any more posts.
What I was saying was that both (Mormon and Christian) rites use the SINGULAR, but the LDS believe in 3 separate ‘gods’ so they should use NAMES (plural) rather than NAME (singular).
It is the NAME of God, the Son and the Holy Spirit. One God, not three.
See you all on Monday.
NIV No flavor added? So are you stating it is a direct translation w/o variance? Interesting
I am stating that the NIV is as accurate, if not MORE accurate than the KJV according to the MSS.
The archaic language of the KJV also adds to the problems in modern exegesis.
For my own use I stick to the Greek and Hebrew whenever possible, but that is unfair to most others.
All the translations say the same thing, even if they use different words.
BTW, I noticed you are avoiding the actual issue and trying to get me sidetracked on various translations. Not gonna work.
See you Monday.
Have a nice weekend.
yet if an atheist or Jewish physician baptises a dying baby, it is a sacrament?
A physician would be doing best to save lives. When a baby is sick he needs a doctor not a baptizer.
when we took OB/gyn in medical school, we were taught to baptize, including non christian students.
Often if a baby was born dying, there would be several docs and nurses there trying to keep it alive, and usually one could baptize while the other doc was intubating etc.
My favorite story was in Africa, where we were doing CPR on a 3 day old premie who was not responding. Finally, I told the nurse to baptise her, and she started responding...ended up going home.
The only 3 pound kid I delivered there that made it...
(I didn't know any conflicts in Kirtland over Smith's failed bank fraud scheming resulted in any coffins...who died?)
I guess the real Q is why -- in the face of Brigham Young calling every non-Mormon "of Antichrist" (because we don't acknowledge Joseph Smith as a "prophet") -- you want to keep propping up your original distortion that Young was somehow prompted by some phantom mob when he said this.
Is it because you realized that having driven out on quicksand, why bother hitting the reverse gear?
It's time for you to look in the mirror, Reno, and for lurkers to learn a valuable lesson. Reno makes a wild accusation of "misrepresentation" in post #115:
Thank you Colofornian for making my point about misrepresentaion. You quote: "Brigham Young: “...every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Antichrist...” (Brigham Young, Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 435)” Why didn’t you give the full context Colo? Was B.Y. talking about you as Christians, or was he referring to the leaders of the churches AT THE TIME that were part of the mobs that were murdering the members of the church for no other reason than for what they believed? If you were to read the entire book, as well as other contemporaneous references you would have context, something conspicuously missing from your quote.
Godzilla calls out Reno on it in post #126: Note the actual wording - ". . every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, . ." Those words do not limit the statement to a specific time or group of churches. Fact is if you read the teaching found in Journal of Discourses 8:176, September 9, 1860 you find it was a speech to missionaries - no references to mobs or churches of that time. You accuse us of misrepresenting mormon teachings - yet here you misrepresent it. Have you ever bothered to read jod 8 where this talk is given? Young repeats himself just a few sentences later stating essentially that who ever does not believe that mormonism is the representation of the kingdom of god is of the spirit of anti-Christ. Bruce R. McConkie does not share your narrow interpetation either
And post #127: That is because he can't colofornian - the statement also found in JoD 8 is clearly placed within the context of a pep talk to missionaries. I could not find any references to the mobs or churches of that era being the 'subject' of the polemic.
Yet Reno keeps gabbing on and on about "mobs"...I guess he must realize they were "mobs of missionaries" but thinks if he doesn't cite the context, he can steer the discussion so he doesn't have to face the same Q I've asked him three times now: Whether or not he sustains "Brother Brigham" as a "prophet" in calling the rest of us "of Anti-Christ."
What can inquiring lurkers who want to know learn from this exchange?
(1) This is a microcosmic example of what goes on week in, week out by Mormon apologists worldwide. They go on the offensive and make wild accusations about "distortions," yet who repeatedly gets caught with the record of distortion? It's shameless, especially among people who claim they can be perfect one day.
(2) Since Reno refuses to answer the Q I've repeatedly asked him, it's obvious he's trying to duck the reality that he regards Brigham Young as a "prophet" -- and that he holds what Young told Mormon missionaries in high regard.
For those of you who belong to a Christian church, ask your Mormon friends: "So, you think I'm 'of Anti-Christ,' eh? And that my pastor/priest 'blasphemes' baptizes, gives communion or marries a couple in holy matrimony?" And then see if they either
(a) change the subject;
or (b) try to invent some contextual justification for uttering those words. It's a better option apparently than either
(c) have to concede their "prophet" was a false one;
or (d) That the same thing grassroots Mormons often accuse Christians of -- that they are verbal attackers -- was done minus provocation by their very "prophets."
Having made the bubble-up accusation in post #104, like bubblegum-blowing that got out of hand, Reno doesn't like it that it wound up being plastered on the face of his own "prophets!" [That's why we see him carefully trying to extract the gum from Young & Kimball's faces, all the while he points at a straw man, "Look @ those mobs over there!" so that he can keep removing the gum unnoticed]
What's worse is that Reno won't apologize for the false accusation in post #115. (And by such a failure, he shows he is intellectually dishonest and relationally challenged when moral accountability over moral culpability is brought to bear).
I'll say it very clearly: Reno, repent, for the kingdom of God is at hand!
Reno, I'll address in my next post the four specific groups Young said he was speaking to in his "instructions." [BTW, as Godzilla already pointed out, the quote I gave was one where Brigham actually prefaced it by announcing: "I will now give MY SCRIPTURE..." -- leaving no doubt about the level of divine stamp Young tried to place on it...]
But we can be sure we know one group Young was not addressing, and that was Young's "neighbours": “It matters NOT what YOUR NEIGHBOURS DO, look to your God with all your heart, INSTEAD OF WATCHING YOUR NEIGHBOURS…” (JOD, vol. 8, p. 177)
Therefore, Young was saying the opposite of what you've tried to portray it. Young wasn't looking at Mormons' neighbors with consternation and concern, and he didn't say he was provoked by them. In fact, just the opposite. A few pages later he said:
“Brother Cannon remarked that people wondered how many wives and children I had. He may inform them that I shall have wives and children by the million, and glory, and riches, and power, and dominion, and kingdom after kingdom, and reign triumphantly." (JOD, p. 179)
Now does that sound like a "victim" woe-is-me card you've been playing??? Hardly.
BTW, Reno, do you believe Young's boast: That he will have "wives and children by the million"??? (And how does Mormonism pretend to just "tuck away" millions of Young's wives...so that the people the Lds.org PR people are trying to squirrel away this tidbit "prophecy" from...don't actually get wind of Mormonism's belief that Young's "bridal kingdom" apparently suffers a bit from "largesse"???)
Listen, here it is: JOD8
Contextually who is Young addressing on this day, Sept. 9, 1860, in the Bowery & Historian's Office?
Young specifically mentions four groups:
(1) We say to the citizens of the valleys who have lived here…(p. 176)
(2) We say to the new comers… (p. 176)
(3) But before even those two groups, Young specifically says: "I refer to the Elders who are about to start their missions…" (p. 176) [In fact, the context is under the heading “Light of the Spirit – Course of Missionaries” Instructions made...]
(4) To "unbelievers" -- but 'tis curious the way Young then proceeds to define "unbelievers".
What follows then is my original quote in its most immediate context:
“For unbelievers we will quote the Scriptures –“Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God.” Again – “Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.” I will now give MY SCRIPTURE “Whosoever confesseth that Joseph Smith was sent of God to reveal the holy gospel to the children of men, and lay the foundation for gathering Israel, and building up the kingdom of God on earth, that spirit of God; and every spirit that does not confess that God has sent Joseph Smith, and revealed the everlasting Gospel to and through him, is of Anti-christ no matter whether it is found in the pulpit or on a throne, nor how much divinity it may profess, nor what it professes with regard to revealed religion and the account that is given of the Saviour and his Father in the Bible. They may say that they acknowledge Him until doomsday, and he will never own them, nor bestow the Holy Spirit upon them, unless they acknowledge that Joseph Smith is sent of God. Such people I call unbelievers. They tell about believing in Jesus Christ, but they might as well talk about birds understanding the Hebrew language. This statement is no more positive than true. (Brigham Young, JoD Vol. 8 pp 176-177)
And notice the strange juxtaposition -- the twisting of scriptures that Brigham Young was guilty of on this day, Sept. 9, 1860: Young cites 1 John 4:3, discussing Jesus Christ, and then proceeds to substitute Joseph Smith for Jesus Christ as the object of men's confession!!! (This is the sin Mormons are guilty of so often...idolatry...replacing Jesus Christ with Joseph Smith!)
So, Reno, if we don't "believe" in Joseph Smith, we're both "unbelievers" and "of anti-Christ"? Really?
Young then goes on to briefly further comment on this: “The Spirit that confesses that this is the kingdom of God and his Church has the kingdom of God and his Church has the Spirit that fills the heavenly worlds, and every other spirit is of Anti-christ. All whom I call unbelievers… (p. 177)
AND: “Those Elders about to start on their missions will declare before this congregation and before the whole world that they do know, by the power of God, that Joseph Smith is a true Prophet of God, and that this is the work of God…” (p. 177)
And exactly which translation are you using here, the King James version, the most widely accepted, or some other version that MAY have ADDED it’s own flavor? Hmmm
Did SOMEone say FLAVOR?
|
Added stuff... Changed stuff... Rearranged stuff... Removed stuff...
|
Don't mess with TEXAS!
Just quit trying to tell folks what we believe!)But WHY?
Aren't babies considered to be UNDER the age of accountability?
Trying to use FACTs to prove your point.
Why don't you ANTIs get a TESTIMONY!!!
Now THAT is something MORMONs know about!
What? Somehow Kimball was only a "prophet" to you in some of the things he said, but not others? Or is it that you who pretend to lecture other FREEPERS on the "niceties" of describing people of other faiths, yet have somehow failed to convey these same lectures to LDS HQ in SLC?
Let's look at the context for Lds "prophet" Spencer W. Kimball's remarks that ALL Christian ministers and pastors and RC priests are "blasphemers."
The original quotation came from Kimball's book, The Miracle of Forgiveness, a horrendous book for those suffering from any guilt. Kimball published the book in 1969 under Bookcraft, SLC.
The chapter this quote came from is the fourth one: “These Things Doth the Lord Hate
The sub-context (sub-heading) on p. 54: “Vulgarity”
(So "thank you," Reno for insisting on "context," 'cause we not only realize that Lds "prophets" go around labeling Christian & RC leaders as "blasphemous" but "vulgar" as well!)
In that sub-section, Kimball defines "vulgarity" as:
1. foolish talking
2. profanity
3. taking the name of the Lord in vain
4. lewd talking
5. porn
Then Kimball launches his attack upon Christian leaders: “In the category of taking the name of the Lord in vain, we might include the use by unauthorized persons of the name of Deity in performing ordinances. In modern scripture the Lord warned: Wherefore, let all men beware how they take my name in their lips—For behold, verily I say, that many there be who are under the condemnation, who use the name of the Lord, and use it in vain, having not authority. (D&C 63:61-62) Presumptuous and BLASPHEMOUS are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking his specific authorization.” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 54-55 Bookcraft, SLC, 1969)
So, for the umpteenth time, Reno, stop hiding...your Mormon god will see whether you are willing to confess his "prophets" when called out in public.
Do you believe this above comment to be a true statement? Yes or no?
Do you sustain that Kimball was a true "prophet" of God? Yes or no?
Again, Reno, "thanks" for your insistence upon "context." We now know Lds "prophets" place Christian leaders in the same categorization as the porn industry, swearers, lewd talkers, etc.! And we're so "happy" that Lds "prophets" are chock full of your supposed "civility" movement!!!
(Listen, if you can't rein in your own leaders, why do you bother preaching a message 100% at odds with the tone & content of what they accuse Christians of being? It comes across as smacking of the beam-mote-sliver comments that other FREEPERS like Urroner constantly reference)
You don't get it, do you?
Let's say you're 19.
Let's say your fiance was a member of another church in another town.
And say, once a month she would arrive at your home and you'd both proceed to head off to a pre-marital counseling program started by your local bishop.
And let's say that every time your fiance would talk to your family members, she would accumulatively find out what this bishop really thought of her...in fact, she pieced together various comments that your bishop thought she was...
...a "blasphemer..."
...an "apostate..."
..."corrupt..."
..."of Anti-Christ..."
...and her most cherished beliefs were an "abomination"...
...Oh sure, these "comments" weren't usually directed to her one-on-one in her face...
...but accumulatively, from talking with your family members, they would document that these were the exact terms he used...
...and these were just the most common...there were other terms, a few worse...
...and then when she directly confronted the bishop if these things were true, he didn't deny any of them.
Now do you honestly think for a moment, Reno, that your argument to your "bride"...
...when you persistently failed to defend her before the bishop or before your family members...
...an argument that for every one of these critiques the bishop said of her...
...he happened to say 1,000 things positive about other subjects that nothing that have to do with her...
...is going to give you "brownie points" in her eyes?
Wouldn't that actually make things worse? I mean, if you were right in this instance -- that your bishop doesn't spend the rest of his time downgrading anybody else -- well, doesn't that mean your bride-to-be has been singled out for the harshest treatment that your bishop would dish out upon others?
The "bride to be" in this account is the "Bride of Christ," His church.
The accusations of your leaders are hurled at the bride of Christ.
And you defend the bishop in this account, and NOT the honor of the Bride.
Tell us, Reno, what kind of a bridegroom does that make you? (Especially in her eyes?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.