So Called Christian Board

[serapha]

The Catholics don't accept the Protestants baptism, and vice versa.

How untrue.

Roman Catholicism accepts any baptism that was done with the trinitarian Godhead... whether sprinkling, pouring, or immersion. They do no accept baptisms performed by those denomination that do not believe in the Doctrine of the Trinity.

Protestant denominations that believe in baptismal regeneration accept a catholic baptism.; howver, those Protestant denominations that adhere to a strict "immersion only" baptism do not accept the baptism of infants.

If they did, they (the Catholics) would not have closed communion. 

How untrue again

Communion in the Roman Church is closed because of the confirmation that is required for the acceptance of the Eucharist. BTW... communion in the RCC is not closed to anyone who adheres to transubstantiation.... or to those of the Lutheran faith.

And if the protestants believed in one universal church, they would not have had to step away from the Catholic church.

strike three

All mainstream Protestant churches believe that the universal church is the body of believers, that would include those in Catholicism who profess a personal relationship with Christ.

And the Catholic church doesn't believe in it, either, or the Jesuit order would not be in existence.

I think you need to study Catholicism and Protestantism before making more postings that are easily disproven by published church dogma or disciplines.

~serapha~

[Behunin]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 22 2004, 02:36 PM

Still, I am willing to be open-minded

You don't actually believe that do you?

I believe he will be open minded. Snow starts from a foundation of truth.

[Guest Starsky]

WooHoo! what a ride this thread has been.

[serapha]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 21 2004, 10:38 PM

okay, let me bck up.  

someone asked for my comments... and when I posted what I have seen over the past year.

I get blasted.

thanks... I don't answer questions any more if I get blasted for providing what someone wants to hear.  

Hi there!

Just for the record. The above comments were not directed to any particular person.

If I were were directing the comment to a particular person, I would open the note with

Hello (name)

:)

..... but I didn't. For people who claimed to have read so many of my postings... I certainly am misunderstood.

95% of my postings begin...

Hi there!

and 5 percent go directly to a person... like such:

Hello Ammon

:)

Thanks for welcoming me to the forum.

~serapha~

I am more of an <span style='color:blue'>"address issues, not people" poster. Therefore, I do ignore a lot of "people comments'. The just aren't constructive to bostering communications.

Oh, yes, one more thing.... my apologies to the person who felt I was addressing them personally. I was not.

~serapha~

[Guest Ammon]

Serapha... if you really want to learn about the Church, spend a few hours at www.lds.org and its companion www.mormon.org . . . then request the missionaries to come visit you via the website. They will come, no matter how far out you are. I promise.

[serapha]

Now... this is a personal, public posting to AFDaw so there is no misunderstanding.

Hello AFD

:)

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 21 2004, 09:10 PM

1.  The "attitude" is a smugness... the inference that being a member of the CoJCoLDS is a "step above" mainstream Christianity.    At times, there is a condescendence.

2.  On the internet, I have yet to meet a member of the CoJCoLDS who didn't express hatred itowards anyone who questions the church.    There's always a lot of mud slinging.  It is rare to see a discussion.  (think venom).  In a Gospel Principles class, the teacher said something to the effect (concerning reading religious materials outside the church)... "If you know a cake has arsenic in it, are you going to eat it?"  I never forgot that comment..... there's a lot of arsenic being swallowed in various forms in mormonism, aka goddess worship, teaching exaltation to Godship  in the GP book when it isn't a doctrine of the church.  etc. etc. 

3.  Sure....  I read the book of Ether one night, and then next day, I posted questions on the internet about what I had read..... no member of the CoJCoLDS's answered the questions... they were just slinging mud.  When I asked why no one answered, I was told that I had gotten the questions off an "anti-" site.    You see,  I find that the members of the CoJCoLDS's don't beleive that those outside the church are capable of intelligent deduction.    always "screaming"  that information has been taken from an "anti-" site rather than addressing the issue.  This is a ~red herring~

~serapha~

1. Could perhaps you be mistaking "pride" for "arrogance"? Yes, I know pride is one of the 7 deadly sins, but there's a difference between "I'm LDS and I'm happy!" and "I'm LDS and I am better than everyone who isn't."

2. You are questioning the church aren't you? Am I expressing hatred towards you?

3. What site? the CF site? Did you post it on any pro-LDS sites? If you are truly investigating the church, even if it's only for the sake of information, you need to get in touch with the missionaries. That's what they're there for.

This... is an example of "smugness".... or maybe that is "pride"... or "arrogance" as you implied. I view it as "smugness".

So you aren't progressive enough to get the updated information about God....what can we do about it?

After all we have a living prophet and records from ancient prophets you don't have....

That was a reply to a serious question. Now... I view that responder as unable to address the issues, therefore they address the person.

Not good apologetics.

But you seemed to want an example... there's one for you.

~serapha~

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 22 2004, 05:29 PM

The Catholics don't accept the Protestants baptism, and vice versa.

How untrue.

How untrue again

strike three

I think you need to study Catholicism and Protestantism before making more postings that are easily disproven by published church dogma or disciplines.

~serapha~

... she said indignantly.

Sure it is true that the Catholic Church accepts many Protestant baptisms... NOW.

It wasn’t always that way. Back before the Synod of Bishops (1985) and the Second Vatican Council (62-65) Serapha was just a heretic doomed to rot in hell forever. Now, according to the favor of the month theology, Serapha has been promoted to simply one of the a “seperated brethren.”

Needless to say Protestants used to think that the Catholic Church was utterly corrupt (hence their Protest and reformation) and the Catholics used to kill people for not being Catholic but Serapha is too busy being indignant to talk about that right now.

[Snow]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 22 2004, 06:45 PM

I am more of an "address issues, not people" poster. ~serapha~

Unless, of course, the person is a Mormon and then they are going to hell and not a Christian and are a cultist and believe in a fraud but don't believe what is in the Bible and what is in the Book of Mormon.

Right Serapha. (yes that's right)

[AFDaw]

Originally posted by serapha+Mar 22 2004, 07:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (serapha @ Mar 22 2004, 07:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

<!--QuoteBegin--serapha@Mar 21 2004, 09:10 PM

1.  The "attitude" is a smugness... the inference that being a member of the CoJCoLDS is a "step above" mainstream Christianity.    At times, there is a condescendence.

2.   On the internet, I have yet to meet a member of the CoJCoLDS who didn't express hatred itowards anyone who questions the church.    There's always a lot of mud slinging.   It is rare to see a discussion.   (think venom).   In a Gospel Principles class, the teacher said something to the effect (concerning reading religious materials outside the church)... "If you know a cake has arsenic in it, are you going to eat it?"   I never forgot that comment..... there's a lot of arsenic being swallowed in various forms in mormonism, aka goddess worship, teaching exaltation to Godship  in the GP book when it isn't a doctrine of the church.  etc. etc.  

3.  Sure....   I read the book of Ether one night, and then next day, I posted questions on the internet about what I had read..... no member of the CoJCoLDS's answered the questions... they were just slinging mud.  When I asked why no one answered, I was told that I had gotten the questions off an "anti-" site.     You see,  I find that the members of the CoJCoLDS's don't beleive that those outside the church are capable of intelligent deduction.    always "screaming"  that information has been taken from an "anti-" site rather than addressing the issue.  This is a ~red herring~

~serapha~

1. Could perhaps you be mistaking "pride" for "arrogance"? Yes, I know pride is one of the 7 deadly sins, but there's a difference between "I'm LDS and I'm happy!" and "I'm LDS and I am better than everyone who isn't."

2. You are questioning the church aren't you? Am I expressing hatred towards you?

3. What site? the CF site? Did you post it on any pro-LDS sites? If you are truly investigating the church, even if it's only for the sake of information, you need to get in touch with the missionaries. That's what they're there for.

This... is an example of "smugness".... or maybe that is "pride"... or "arrogance" as you implied. I view it as "smugness".

How as that smug? This goes for anyone who wants to read this and explain to me how it can be seen as smug. I'm seriously asking because I seriously don't see it.

[porterrockwell]

Snow, this fool isn't worth it. I'm finally starting to grasp the "elect of God" thing. Maybe this just isn't one of em. And if you are offended or feel that I think I am better than you. Then I pity you. I remember in the Bible it clearly stating that the Gospel will offend those who have hardened their hearts to the truth. Well start getting offended.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Tr2@Mar 22 2004, 01:36 PM

Still, I am willing to be open-minded

You don't actually believe that do you?

Well yes I do believe it Trident. Just cuz I'm open-minded doesn't mean I'll change my mind but I am willing to if faced with a compelling reason. For example, I like and respect Cal or say Jason whereas I used to not like them. Why? Because when I got to know the complete package, I was compelled to by virtue of their decency and intelligence. Others, I am still wait for a reason to see them differently.

...but thanks for checking in hon.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by AFDaw+Mar 22 2004, 07:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (AFDaw @ Mar 22 2004, 07:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -serapha@Mar 22 2004, 07:19 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--serapha@Mar 21 2004, 09:10 PM

1.  The "attitude" is a smugness... the inference that being a member of the CoJCoLDS is a "step above" mainstream Christianity.    At times, there is a condescendence.

2.   On the internet, I have yet to meet a member of the CoJCoLDS who didn't express hatred itowards anyone who questions the church.    There's always a lot of mud slinging.   It is rare to see a discussion.   (think venom).   In a Gospel Principles class, the teacher said something to the effect (concerning reading religious materials outside the church)... "If you know a cake has arsenic in it, are you going to eat it?"   I never forgot that comment..... there's a lot of arsenic being swallowed in various forms in mormonism, aka goddess worship, teaching exaltation to Godship  in the GP book when it isn't a doctrine of the church.  etc. etc.  

3.  Sure....   I read the book of Ether one night, and then next day, I posted questions on the internet about what I had read..... no member of the CoJCoLDS's answered the questions... they were just slinging mud.  When I asked why no one answered, I was told that I had gotten the questions off an "anti-" site.     You see,  I find that the members of the CoJCoLDS's don't beleive that those outside the church are capable of intelligent deduction.    always "screaming"  that information has been taken from an "anti-" site rather than addressing the issue.  This is a ~red herring~

~serapha~

1. Could perhaps you be mistaking "pride" for "arrogance"? Yes, I know pride is one of the 7 deadly sins, but there's a difference between "I'm LDS and I'm happy!" and "I'm LDS and I am better than everyone who isn't."

2. You are questioning the church aren't you? Am I expressing hatred towards you?

3. What site? the CF site? Did you post it on any pro-LDS sites? If you are truly investigating the church, even if it's only for the sake of information, you need to get in touch with the missionaries. That's what they're there for.

This... is an example of "smugness".... or maybe that is "pride"... or "arrogance" as you implied. I view it as "smugness".

How as that smug? This goes for anyone who wants to read this and explain to me how it can be seen as smug. I'm seriously asking because I seriously don't see it.

Your post AFDaw, wasn't smug...but serapha's posting it was definitely smug!

[Snow]

Regarding Smugness:

Being clear: Both Mormons and non-Mormons like Serapha are smug. Both are sure they possess the truth and that those that don't agree with them are wrong.

The difference is, Serapha types believe that those who fail to interpret the Bible the way that they say you have to are cultist and are going to hell and they create message boards and websites to ensure that everyone hears it --- Mormon types believe that those who fail to accept 'the restoration' are saved, just saved to a lessor degree that we are.

Both are smug. I mean last weeks Priesthood lesson - Comfort in an hour of death - had a quote from President Grant that Mormons view death completely different than non-Mormons because we have such a better understanding of it's place in the Plan of Salvation. Everyone in the class nodded. My wife a convert attests how much different she understands death now in light of the restored gospel. Mormon are smug in their knowledge, we just don't denounce and marginalize others if they don't believe the way we want them to believe.

[Jenda]

Originally posted by Snow+Mar 22 2004, 07:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Mar 22 2004, 07:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--serapha@Mar 22 2004, 05:29 PM

The Catholics don't accept the Protestants baptism, and vice versa.

How untrue.

How untrue again

strike three

I think you need to study Catholicism and Protestantism before making more postings that are easily disproven by published church dogma or disciplines.

~serapha~

... she said indignantly.

Sure it is true that the Catholic Church accepts many Protestant baptisms... NOW.

It wasn’t always that way. Back before the Synod of Bishops (1985) and the Second Vatican Council (62-65) Serapha was just a heretic doomed to rot in hell forever. Now, according to the favor of the month theology, Serapha has been promoted to simply one of the a “seperated brethren.”

Needless to say Protestants used to think that the Catholic Church was utterly corrupt (hence their Protest and reformation) and the Catholics used to kill people for not being Catholic but Serapha is too busy being indignant to talk about that right now.

Thank you, Snow. I knew I wasn't imagining it.

Snow, I have a question. Have your feet always danced? They just started dancing on my computer 2 days ago.

Curious.

[Jenda]

 

And the Catholic church doesn't believe in it, either, or the Jesuit order would not be in existence.

I think you need to study Catholicism and Protestantism before making more postings that are easily disproven by published church dogma or disciplines.

I sure hope that last comment wasn't made regarding the comment you quoted, because I have read quite a bit about the Jesuits. Stuff that would scare your pants off. Maybe you should read up on them. Then tell me I am mistaken.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Snow@Mar 22 2004, 02:42 PM

Point of clarification Kevin: Do you think that Serapha view of the Church - that we are not Christian and do not believe what is in the Book of Mormon or the Bible is the "high road" or that she is pretending to take a higher road by pretending to ignore me?

I think Ser is either so unable or unwilling to respond to your comments that she uses the "high road" as her excuse for not doing so. "You're being rude" or "you're not engaging in level-headed reasonable discussion" so "I just won't respond."

[Snow]

Originally posted by Jenda@Mar 22 2004, 07:48 PM

Thank you, Snow. I knew I wasn't imagining it.

Snow, I have a question. Have your feet always danced? They just started dancing on my computer 2 days ago.

Curious.

It was an honest mistake.

Catholics hated Protestant and Protestants hated each other and it was a source of untold (and told) violence, and murder for a long, long time and still is in some parts. It almost makes sense that some Protestants would accept Catholic baptism because they don't have any clear mechanism to impart authority anyway. It was quite a bit on the Catholic's part to move away from their "We be the only true Church" position, and that was just recently.

I remember last year when the Lutherans stated that you would not accept Mormon baptisms and the Catholics restated that neither would they. In a sense that is kinda odd because they accept most anybody else's with no thought for proper transmission of authority but on the other hand, it would never ever dawn on the Church of Jesus Christ to accept the baptism of another Church so fair play is fair play.

My shoes have been a'dancing for nigh on 2 weeks or so I s'ppose. Ever since I got em.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by serapha@Mar 22 2004, 05:29 PM

I think you need to study Catholicism and Protestantism before making more postings that are easily disproven by published church dogma or disciplines.

Do you consider your comments to be "published church dogma?" I ask because as one who claims to be interested in "good apologetics" you have apparently overlooked the need to support your assertions. Absent support they become baseless or "bald assertions."

[Faerie]

wtfetch is "apologetics"??

I was reading in 2nd Timothy last night and a verse I had highlited a long time ago made me laugh because I was thinking of this very discussion:

2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Sorry, just struck me funny...

[Spencer]

Got to hand it to serapha for sticking around as long as she has, tho if she continues to ignore "people addressing her issues" i doubt many will continue to acknowledge her.

Spencer

[Lindy]

Serapha~

I have not said a lot, just kicking back and reading..... if you really are interested in learning what the "mormons" think about their faith...why not ask for a testimony thread? Heaven knows there has been plenty of them started.

It strikes me kindof funny that the people on the internet who say they are Baptist and the ones I have known in my personal life are so totally different. There has been an exception ...but for the whole, the Baptists I know have never condemned me for what I think, or what I believe. And we have always gotten along great...One of my best friends is Baptist, and she and I share thoughts and ideals and have been great friends for over a decade. I think it really depends on the church that you go to, the level of tolerance you are taught. Maybe her church is more tolerant towards others, or maybe she sleeps during the service and misses out on the sermon.

Same thing in the LDS faith.....there are some really good wards where you feel like a part of the family, and there are some really crummy wards where you feel like you don't exist. It is alway a shame if good people go to crummy wards and lose their faith, or their interest in exploring the church.

Don't give up with your quest,......just keep asking...and have you ever thought that maybe there is "something or someone" that doesn't want you to find anything that could be a truth in the church?

Just a thought :)

[Guest Ammon]

Originally posted by Faerie@Mar 22 2004, 09:49 PM

wtfetch is "apologetics"??

I was reading in 2nd Timothy last night and a verse I had highlited a long time ago made me laugh because I was thinking of this very discussion:

2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Sorry, just struck me funny...

Apologetics is the defense of one's faith in a manner whereby you teach those who question or attack the faith the correct principles thereof with the goal of encouraging the attacker to actually become a part of the faith, or at least understand and accept it. It is a commonly used term among Catholics and orthodox Christians. Hugh Nibley was considered a reknown Mormon Apologist, as is President Hinckley.

[Guest Starsky]

Originally posted by Faerie@Mar 22 2004, 08:49 PM

wtfetch is "apologetics"??

I was reading in 2nd Timothy last night and a verse I had highlited a long time ago made me laugh because I was thinking of this very discussion:

2 Tim 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Sorry, just struck me funny...

Interestingly enough, I have used that exact scripture many times in discussions with 'christians' who were attacking our church.

I guess it will all be cleared up as to who that scripture really applies to .... when we die.

[inactivetx]

Wow, based on this thread I checked out 'christianforums.com' and wow - what a bunch of flamers

I read a bunch of stuff on the 'unorthodox' page and is it mormonville or what? I felt scared to jump in - they are pretty vicious over there! Not like the friendly folks here

[Jenda]

Originally posted by inactivetx@Mar 23 2004, 03:21 PM

Wow, based on this thread I checked out 'christianforums.com' and wow - what a bunch of flamers

I read a bunch of stuff on the 'unorthodox' page and is it mormonville or what? I felt scared to jump in - they are pretty vicious over there! Not like the friendly folks here

Better not say that too loudly. Half of them are over here now.