The Next Prophet or Spokeman of God


#431

Your explanation of the development on the baptism of desire is accurate, to the best of my knowledge.
Catholic doctrines have and do go thru a developmental stage. An informed Catholic would not dispute this.


#432

Prophet Spencer W Kimball did declare “all” in 1971. Don’t know when the LDS leaders started to back away from the idea of “all”

""And Lehi and his family became the ancestors of all of the Indian and Mestizo tribes in North and South and Central America and in the islands of the sea, for in the middle of their history there were those who left America in ships of their making and went to the islands of the sea.

Not until the revelations of Joseph Smith, bringing forth the Book of Mormon, did any one know of these migrants. It was not known before, but now the question is fully answered. Now the Lamanites number about sixty million; they are in all of the states of America from Tierra del Fuego all the way up to Point Barrows, and they are in nearly all the islands of the sea from Hawaii south to southern New Zealand. The Church is deeply interested in all Lamanites because of these revelations and because of this great Book of Mormon, their history that was written on plates of gold and deposited in the hill. The translation by the Prophet Joseph Smith revealed a running history for one thousand years—six hundred years before Christ until four hundred after Christ—a history of these great people who occupied this land for that thousand years. Then for the next fourteen hundred years, they lost much of their high culture. The descendants of this mighty people were called Indians by Columbus in 1492 when he found them here.

The term Lamanite includes all Indians and Indian mixtures, such as the Polynesians, the Guatemalans, the Peruvians, as well as the Sioux, the Apache, the Mohawk, the Navajo, and others. It is a large group of great people.""


#433

Opp, my bad, TOm, I see you have acknowledged this from Kimball.
I’m very late to the thread. My apologies


#434

Horton,
In this post you quoted me and claimed what I called the position on “Baptism of Desire” that slowly developed was in your words, “imperfect understanding.” You then countered with the original more ancient (after St. Ignatius, but still from a long time ago) position on “Baptism of Desire.”
I responded that your position was the less developed position which is still PART of “Baptism of Desire,” but explain how this position has continued to develop.
If we stick to your view:

What happens to millions who live and die without being baptized or desiring to be baptized.
Here are broad strokes developed Catholic teachings as I see it:
1.Very early, there is very little for or against “Baptism of Desire,” but St. Ignatius of Antioch is very clear that there is no baptism without water. At the very least we can know that he had no concept of “Baptism of Desire.”
2. St. Augustine taught “original sin” (a doctrine that Catholic and non-Catholic scholars acknowledge he developed in part because he couldn’t read Greek well and used a mistranslation of the Bible). St. Augustine and St. Ambrose taught that there was a “Baptism of Desire” that took effect for those who wanted to be baptized, but had not completed their catechesis before they died. St. Gregory Nazianzen and maybe the later writings of St. Augustine speak against this “Baptism of Desire.”
3.I now think the extension of Baptism of Desire to those who have never heard of Christ and in no way pursued baptism is a very late addition (20th Century). But, at Vatican II the doctrine of “No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church” was explained to mean “No Salvation without the Catholic Church” even for those who are not visibly connected to the Catholic Church. This has been connected to a “Baptism of Desire” for those who have “act of perfect contrition” or “pure love of God.”

Horton, if you stop the development of “Baptism of Desire” at #2, you are in the company of a small number of intelligent “Rad-Trad Catholics” who reject the later development that I explained. There are other “Rad-Trad Catholics” like Father Feeney and those who agree with him today who reject all “Baptism of Desire.”
All that being said, what do you think the Catholic Church has to say about those who lived and died and never heard of Christ?
LDS thought has an answer for this which is why I responded to Apache75. All those who do not receive water Baptism as St. Ignatius of Antioch claimed was necessary will receive vicarious WATER Baptism as mentioned in 1 Cor 15:29. And I am of course aware of the large discussion of this verse in and outside the Catholic Church so you can repeat it or not repeat it (but if you do not include the most pro-Mormon Catholic views I will provide them).
Charity, TOm


#435

Stephen,
In response to your 4 posts which I mostly liked:

  1. As I have told you, I have met Richard Bushman, taught a class which he attended, attended a lecture (and listed to many online) he gave, exchanges emails with him AND read his books. Richard Bushman is a Stake Patriarch. He exercises the Melchizedek multiple times per month as he pronounces a blessing upon LDS which they once in their life. We keep this blessing and share it with wives and kids, periodically revisiting it as a guide to our lives. Richard Bushman is correct that there is a 5 year period during which the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” is applied to the authority Joseph Claim to receive at the hands of Peter, and that critics have made a big deal about this. But, Richard Bushman is a believer who holds and exercises the Melchizedek Priesthood.
  2. The 1832 date when, “Joseph include ‘reception of the holy Priesthood by the ministering of angels to administer the letter of the Gospel,’ was not mentioned by me before. It is another mention to the “holy Priesthood” reception made before your 1834 date. Again the only thing missing is the two word phrase “Melchizedek Priesthood.”
  3. You claimed that Oliver Cowdery was the one who “invented” the idea of Melchizedek Priesthood. I would not subscribe to the term “invented,” but you have not correctly remembered your anti-Mormon talking points. McLellin came from a very anti-Catholic protestant view point and was opposed to “priesthood.” His views were not uncommon in 1830’s America. McLellin believed angel visits and apostolic authority, but the term “priesthood” (Melchizedek or otherwise) was a bridge to far for him. The claim from McLellin and the critics you have read is that Sidney Rigdon “invented” Melchizedek Priesthood. Cowdery was not the source of this according to all Anti-Mormons I read other than you.
  4. I will acknowledge that there is evidence of claims of visits from angels including Peter and John. Evidence of claims of unique authority transferred to Joseph Smith. Evidence of claims of apostolic blessings and healings. And a handful of other things, BUT no recorded use of the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” until 1834. That being said, the priesthood is properly called the , “Holy Priesthood, after the Order of the Son of God.” Alma 13 “translated” in 1829 says “Lord God ordained priests, after his holy order, which was after the order of his Son” and goes on to explain that there is special mention of Melchizedek (alluding to the “order of Melchizedek” in the Bible). I actually think it most likely in light of the Book of Hebrews AND Alma 13 that the term “Melchizedek Priesthood” was used before your 1834 date, but at the very least it was quite clear to those who didn’t hate the idea of Priesthood like McLellin.
    If there is something really important in your 4 posts that you think I missed, please point me to it.

And I still maintain that the “but the surviving records to not include the term ‘Melchizedek Priesthood’” apologetic has a miniscule impact upon LDS truth claims, but similar thinking DECIMATES Catholic truth claims.
Charity, TOm


#436

Maybe if TOm were to point out the problems with his own church and what they are doing to remedy those problems and erroneous teachings and beliefs? That would be more honest, imo.


#437

We do what the LDS has never been able to do, Entrust them to the mercy of God. You are wrong on all your points here. All it does is show a lack of understanding of Catholic teaching.

Again baptism of desire does NOT replace true baptism. All who desire baptism must be baptized at the appropriate time, with the correct matter & form.

You may have a few writings supporting your thought of Catholics being “pro-mormon” but as the LDS thought is so far from sound Catholic theology, those writings are either taken out of context or completely misinterpreted, which is very common with the LDS.

And you still haven’t answered my question, why do the LDS not trust God?


#438

Yes, and he does not try to cover up the facts as you do. John Whitmer records Joseph Smith being made a high priest by Lyman Wight in 1831. Joseph Smith wrote about receiving a holy priesthood FROM ANGELS, in 1832, was, according Richard Bushman, “a glancing reference at best.” In 1834, Cowdery was the first to talk about the appearance of John. The receiving of the Melchizedek Priesthood from Peter, James, and John, through John the Baptist, was not a fully formed story until 1838.

The receiving of priesthood authority that Mormons claim was required to start the Mormon Church in 1830 was received from Lyman Wight in 1831, Angels in 1832, and John the Baptist in the name of Peter, James and John sometime before 1838 and published in 1842.

Strike Two on proving Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery ACTED like they received the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1829.


#439

John Whitmer’s book on Mormon history was interesting. I was most surprised to learn that Joseph Smith hired an assassin to try to kill the Governor of Missouri. The plot failed.


#440

Lily,

How do you get dishonesty out of my answers? If I responded to every criticism of my church by demonstrating that the same criticism DECIMATED Catholic truth claims and asking if the goal was to tear down the CoJCoLDS from an atheist perspective using tools that an atheist would use effectively (more effectively) against the Catholic Church, that would still be honest. That is a response. As a simple non-controversial response, “There is no empirical evidence for LDS or Catholic authority. Such is impossible.” As a more controversial response, “It took 4-5 years for records that both claim LDS authority AND use the term ‘Melchizedek Priesthood” to appear. But it took >150 years for anyone to link the primacy of the Bishop of Rome to Peterine authority and when they did it was rejected by those outside of Rome.”

Now, in addition to claiming that Stephen’s attacks on my church DECIMATE Catholic truth claims, I have responded to Stephens attacks and corrected them at a few places. He thinks he is an umpire and a participant, but typically when honest Catholics chime in they say things like “In fairness, I have not seen ‘ALL’ either.” Or they say, “Your explanation of the development on the baptism of desire is accurate, to the best of my knowledge.”

Two questions:

1.Where do you see dishonesty on my part?

2.Do you see how criticizing the CoJCoLDS because it took about 5 years to produce documents that survive to today that both claim authority AND claim this authority is the “Melchizedek Priesthood” totally DECIMATES Catholic truth claims as it took 150 years before any evidence appears that suggests that the Bishop or Rome has Peterine authority and 300 years later they were still producing fraudulent documents to describe an event that no scholar believes actually happened (Peter passing his authority to Clement of Rome)?

It would seem to me that if you do not answer and defend these to my satisfaction, then by your own standards you are being dishonest!

Charity, TOm


#441

Do you deny there are problems in your church/religion, TOm? Why do you focus so much on the problems in the Catholic Church rather than on the problems in your own church? What can you as a Mormon do to remedy your own church’s issues?

That is what I want to see you be honest about in this thread. Your own church’s problems and how they can be fixed. Since you are a member of a church you believe to be His true church, surely, you have thoughts, ideas and opinions on how to better the church you are in.


#442

Horton,

I have now accurately presented the development of Catholic thought concerning “Baptism of Desire.” The last step in “Baptism of Desire” came in the 20th century. Before this last step, all or virtually all Catholic thinkers claimed that those who died without Baptism (meaning Baptism of Desire for Catechumens, Baptism of Blood for martyrs, or Water Baptism) would be in hell.

So, it is the Catholic who did not trust God (per your criticism) for 1900 years. It is the Catholics who have CHANGED (or developed if you like, but Newman’s theory is being stretched mightily) so that they now express some trust in God.

The LDS position has been from very early (I know of no earlier contradiction of this position) that all necessary ordinances will be performed vicariously and can be accepted or rejected. The problem of the un-evangelized was solved by vicarious ordinances and salvation was left in the hands of God and the individuals who choose or reject God.

My issue is not that I do not trust God (LDS do and always have), my issue is that I can read and study and it is clear that the Catholic position has always, everywhere, and by all been to (as you describe it) not trust God (with possible radical changes in the 20th century that may or may not be valid developments). I do not trust the MODERN Catholic who says, “it has always been like this and we trust God” when I know it has not always been like this.

Charity, TOm


#443

Dogmatic teachings never change, but our understanding of them can develop.


#444

Dorothea,

TOm has demonstrated that yes, the understanding of "Catholic thought concerning ‘Baptism of Desire’ " has developed over time. Of that, there can be no mistake.

That is his point, while demonstrating that in LDS teachings, the proxy work done in their temples has eliminated that question or concern of “what if someone dies w/o being baptized”

I don’t believe in Mormon teaching, but his explanation of the two concerning this point is clear, and accurate.


#445

Let’s see?

These are only on this one thread. I have been posting about LDS problems for >10 years here.
Charity, TOm


#446

True, whether we know there names or not. I do enjoy the great work Mormonism has done in the field of genealogy.


#447

Lily,
Short of driving 3-4 hours up north and looking for some shred of paper that might date to before 1834 and might claim both “authority” and include the phrase “Melchizedek Priesthood,” I am stuck with the historical record as it is.
I can correct Stephen168 when he suggest Oliver Cowdery invented the “Melchizedek Priesthood,” but no critic other than Stephen has ever thought that. If it was invented it was by Sidney Rigdon.
I can show that claims of visits from apostles and angels, claims of reception of authority, even claims of priesthood happened before 1834.
I can point out that William McLellin was anti-priesthood. He believed in the BOM until he died even though he left the church. He was fine with authority and even unique authority and visits from angels / apostles, but “priesthood authority” was a bridge too far. McLellin was probably an anti-Catholic long before he was a LDS critic.
I can show that “Melchizedek Priesthood” is clear in the BOM in 1829 and VERY DESCERNABLE in the Bible so much so that Catholic priests and apologists claim it is there.
But, if all that does not mute the argument Stephen makes that LDS claim they received the Melchizedek Priesthood in 1830 or so and yet we do not see the phrase “Melchizedek Priesthood” surviving in any record until 1834, such that Stephen no longer insists (seems to insist) that he has PROVEN my church false; then all I can do is show how a very similar situation exists for the Catholic Church that I think is a MUCH BIGGER problem.
Now, I am busy fixing my church’s problems by teaching a class every week. This week one of our topics was on sacrifice. I offered myself as an example of a bad sacrifice and as a good sacrifice during the CATHOLIC season of Lent. I specifically said there was value in this opportunity to give up something for God and the value was especially great if you gave up something you would miss AND when you miss it you remember God and why you are giving it up. I gave up smoking (which was stupid as I never smoked), years later I gave up Caffeine which was tough and I frequently got to think of God and why I was sacrificing.
I point out strengths and weaknesses as I see them and try to offer a little correction here and there when someone strays too far into the LDS only wear white hats and non-LDS only wear black hats.
I review Catholic books and recommend them to LDS and non-LDS.
I am doing the best I can to correct the problems with my church. That being said, the problems with TOm are quite extensive and I think I hide from them by posting here. I need to work on the TOm problems a whole lot! This is actually something that is mentioned frequently in my lessons each week.
This week I got to say, "LDS are sinners who keep on trying."
Charity, TOm


#448

But you can’t


#449

What is the “false nonsense currently spreading about the church on the internet and otherwise”. Can you be more specific.


#450

TOm, the Catholic Church and its problems are not the subject of this thread. This is a MORMON thread. So let’s leave the problems you find with the Catholic Church out of it. They are not up for discussion or for comparison.

What problems do you find with your church? What can you and your fellow Mormons do to solve these problems? Stick to those, please.

You said you find the sourcing of The Book of Abraham the only large problem to LDS truth claims. How so? And what are Mormons going to do about it?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.