Former LDS starting RCIA in the fall. I was really hoping that my baptism was valid lol. (Figured it wasn't).

@birgittabirgersdatter8082

11 ай бұрын

My daughter and I went through the RCIA in 2021-22 I converted and she was baptised. When the church said they were started RCIA again I asked my hubby if he was interested and he was, he was baptised in New Years Eve 2022. I wish you the best RCIA is a wonderful experience.

@skippysmom

11 ай бұрын

honestly, this means that you don’t need to do a general confession, which is kind of a blessing 😂😂❤ wishing you so much happiness. i started RCIA last autumn too.

@Sunshinelaura1

11 ай бұрын

@@birgittabirgersdatter8082 Thank you so much! 💗

@Sunshinelaura1

11 ай бұрын

@@skippysmom Thank you so much! 💗

@NateBeard

11 ай бұрын

I'd be over the moon to get my first real baptism into Christianity. I'm thankful I received mine as a baby, but there is definitely a special grace for adults receiving it. God bless to you and your family!

This gentleman is very fascinating! I love his story, and I hope he comes back soon

I was raised in a devout multi-generation Mormon family and left as an adult after learning about Freemasonry. I heard a Muslim leader (sorry I forget what they are titled) say that Catholicism is the number one enemy of Freemasonry so I naturally felt led to find out what that was all about and now I am a convert to Catholicism. Thank you for having this guy on.

If baptism against someone’s will is wrong, can you legitimately explain baptism for an infant? Coming from a Protestant raised from Catholic genealogy

@seal1021

11 ай бұрын

Yes. You as a parent have authority over your children until they reach the age of reason.

@IJustWatchYouTubeAllDay

11 ай бұрын

Great question. I don't remember any babies getting baptized in the bible, or there being a pope, or anyone every praying to Mary, or having cardinals, or any proof of the Trinity....

@lucialare7590

7 ай бұрын

Baby baptism isn't valid a baby doesn't give consent nor do they have sin and it's about repentance. Catholic baptism is traditional but not biblical It has to be a choice no one can make for anyone else. Baptism means to dip, plunge, bury or immerse and sprinkling water isn't the same.

@drewthelionn

2 ай бұрын

Infant baptism is invalid because there are no examples of it in the Bible.

Thank you. That was very informative.

As a Protestant, I give a hearty Amen!!

@cabarete2003

11 ай бұрын

Catholics think they same about you....BTW.

@masterchief8179

11 ай бұрын

@@cabarete2003 Incorrect. Protestant baptisms are usually valid according to Catholic sacramentology, if done under the proper form (the Trinitarian baptismal formula), matter (water by aspersion, pouring or immersion) and intent (to do what the Church does), even if their theology concerning baptisms and sacraments are wrong.

Thank you for sharing this. ❤ Learn something new every day.

Very informative indeed

Holdem up. Did you just say, you have to have intent, and cannot forcibly baptize. Don't Catholics baptize infants? How is that not a forced baptism?

@andya30

9 ай бұрын

Great point!!!! They believe that baby’s are born sinners lmao A baby? That’s crazy

@drewthelionn

2 ай бұрын

Infant baptism is invalid

At the time Christ walked the earth, was there any one else offering baptism other than the one known as John the Baptist, to whom Christ went? Considering that John the Baptist was the one having authority to baptize The Christ, then there must be some significance in the appearance of the resurrection of the same John to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and the words he spoke to them with hands laid upon their heads- “Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken from the earth, until the sons of Levi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in righteousness.”

As a member of the LDS faith, I am not surprised other churches would feel this way about the validity of our baptisms. We feel the same way about their baptisms. We absolutely need to own the fact that we have different doctrine and interpretations of the holy scripture. We feel that when someone desires to join the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints they need to be rebaptized if they were previously baptized into a different church. I am not offended or surprised by this, even though I don’t agree. We all have our agency to believe what we want to believe.

For an article explaining the CDF's decision on this question see "The Question of The Validity of Baptism Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" by Fr. Luis Ladaria

@briddle1978

10 ай бұрын

I read your article entitled, The Question of The Validity of Baptism Conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints" by Fr. Luis Ladaria. To be honest, no member of the LDS faith cares what the Catholic church thinks about baptism. It is utterly irrelevant what an apostate religion thinks of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ. Catholics believe in infant baptism, an abomination in the sight of the Lord since all children are saved by the Mercy and Grace of Christ if they die before the age of accountability (8 years old). Also, immersion is the only method by which one may be baptized for that is literally the method Christ (and John the Baptist) taught in the Bible. Many plain and precious doctrines were lost thanks to the Nicene creeds and the Catholic Church's false doctrine throughout the many centuries of its existence.

Could you please then explain then why the Arian baptism (Arians believed Christ was a creature) was considered valid by the Church if the valid matter and form were used?

@Forester-

11 ай бұрын

From the article I read explaining the CDF's decision the short answer would be because Mormons don't consider baptism to have been instituted by Christ and their Trinitarian theology and Christology diverges from Catholic doctrine to a far greater degree than the Arians or Nestorians. The article also indicates that this is somewhat of a special case due to the reasons I mentioned as most non-Catholic group's baptisms are presumed to be valid with the correct formula.

@domo3699

11 ай бұрын

Maybe because the dogmas concerning Trinity and Christ were not settled by councils yet?

I dearly love my best friend's family, Mormons all. I have read and listened to a LOT of doctrinal books, sermons, the histories, etc. It is good to hear Mr. Johnson's testimony here, I hear witness to Catholic Truth in love and charity to then and am sometimes baffled at how a person could accept some of the theology or metaphysics.

This makes sense!

Why are there always join our Israel church on a catholic podcast? Just a little sus

Can someone baptize if they don't believe in baptismal regeneration, but in believer's baptism?

@Centurion556

11 ай бұрын

Yes! Evangelical protestant baptisms (often believers baptisms) are considered valid by the church as long as they follow the same form and matter as the sacrament.

Why does the Bible say Jesus was the "only begotten" son of God? What does "begotten" mean? Mormons know.

Be sweet. Pray and obey.

Maybe it depends on those doing the baptizing?

Most Evangelicals don't believe that Baptism does anything. It's just an outward sign to them. They don't believe in Baptismal Regeneration. Wouldn't that mean that their intent is at odds with the Catholic Church?

Matt 12:24-28 Acts 5:34, 38-39

With the same reason however as in the one of the jewish woman. Perhaps some LDS ppl do not know enough to have an intent other than "want to baptise", wouldn't then the intent be right also.. Hmm.

Question: Why then are Protestant baptisms valid if through the baptism they do not believe in the remission of original sin, making them sons/daughters of God, etc? Asking about the intent part

@ntmn8444

11 ай бұрын

It’s all in the form and matter of the baptism. Some Protestant baptisms are absolutely recognized, like Episcopalian, Lutheran, etc. if they dunk you in water and say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” exactly this way, then yes, it’s a valid baptism. The Church will recognize it.

@SamScott99

11 ай бұрын

@@ntmn8444 amen, thanks for the comment. I should have been more clear, I will edit the comment. I was questioning the “intention” of prot baptisms

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

​@@SamScott99Even the most weird, fringe Protestants believe God is all-mighty and Creator of the Cosmos. All would call Jesus our Lord and Savior. LDS teaches neither. In the name of the Father (formerly an alien), the Son (also an alien, likely blood relative of Mr. Father) and the Holy Spirit (as in "good vibes" not as in "literally God") I can't help but feel offended even though I shouldn't. God give me charity...

@SamScott99

11 ай бұрын

@@alonsoACR that’s what I figured. Thanks brotha

Hey Matt i am a Mormon (A member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) and I wanted to say that I really enjoy your channel and many times your videos strengthen my testimony in Jesus Christ and in our Heavenly Father. I know your channel is for Catholics and I completely respect and support that. But I noticed that the times when someone on our show talks about mormon beliefs they tend to be missing information, be unclear, or have been cherry picked without context of which those beliefs come from. I just think it would be interesting if you invited an actual member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on to the podcast so that they could explain the beliefs and to make them clear for your audience. Now, I totally understand why you might not want that, because well, your a Catholic podcast, but I think it’s important to learn about the beliefs of a group by actually learning from that group. As a Latter-day Saint (Mormon) I find Catholicism interesting and some parts beautiful. But I don’t go to those who aren’t Catholics and ask them what Catholics or what the Roman Catholic Church believes, I ask a practicing Catholic. Anyways thanks Matt enjoy the podcast.

@kyrosmike

11 ай бұрын

The guy he is speaking to was a practicing LDS member. I guess you want someone who didn't leave the faith?

@Croaven

11 ай бұрын

@@kyrosmike Would it be best to talk to a knowledgeable active Catholic to learn about Catholicism, or a disgruntled ex Catholic?

@kyrosmike

11 ай бұрын

@@Croaven Don't know their heart, I think you assume to much

@Croaven

11 ай бұрын

I can forgive dialogue like the bit in this clip, but I start having an issue with them encouraging people to burn LDS books..... Really? That just goes to show how weak of an argument the Catholics actually have if their best defense is to burn Gods revealed word. I guess it was the Catholic church that went along with the fascists in the 1930 s who are also the main people associated with book burning. Makes sense.

@ToqTheWise

11 ай бұрын

Could you specifically explain where he’s being misleading? Because I’ve grown up in Salt Lake and studied the LDS church for most of my adult life and everything he said in this video is doctrinal. Or is your problem because Matt is critical of a cult started by a 19th century sexual predator that leads people into the fires of hell?

It does not matter whether "the church" declares a baptism valid or not. It is wholly interpretation from abominable creeds and interpretations of man. That is all this is, interpretation of man.

I am LDS. It’s true that we do not accept the trinitarian belief but we do believe in a Godhead. Your guest’s description of our concept of the members of the Godhead was inaccurate and misleading. We would say that baptism must be performed with proper authority.

@nullarcstudios8910

11 ай бұрын

How was it inaccurate? I have read Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's own words saying that the father was an exalted man who is not eternal, and because he's a man, a composite creature, he is by definition not simple. I have LDS friends who I've talked with this about and they straight up deny classical theism, because it's incompatible with the LDS faith. So how was what he said inaccurate?

@alysonjenkins4392

11 ай бұрын

..

@canwenot2706

11 ай бұрын

@@nullarcstudios8910 We do not claim that God must live in the cosmos. We do believe God has existed eternally. We do believe he is almighty. We do believe Christ is the Word. We do believe he is the savior of all existence. We do believe the Holy Ghost is the spirit of the Father and the Son and also a separate entity. That list almost accounts for everything he said... None of this changes how ridiculous it is to imply that God would damn someone because their theology is a little off.

@nullarcstudios8910

11 ай бұрын

@@canwenot2706 The problem is that even those things that are true, you mean entirely different things by them than classical theists, which was his entire point. He didn't say the Father must exist in the cosmos, but rather that what LDS church teaches that he does. Must and does are two different things. Granted, the LDS could have changed their teaching, but that is what he was taught. I would need to double check, as it's been a while since I went over the relevant documents, but this was definitely something that was taught. They certainly teach that he did exist in the cosmos. I cannot find a single reference in any official LDS documents I have read, which granted is not all encompassing, that says that the Father existed eternally. Everything I've read says that he is eternal. You might think that's the same thing, but there's multiple concepts of eternality. One being never ending, and another being completely timeless, or outside of time. The LDS church does not teach the latter, but rather the former. The latter is what classical theists believe. Joseph Smith himself outright rejected the classical theistic concept of God. "Going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. These are incompr[e]hensible to some but are the first principle of the gospel- to know that we may converse with him as one man with another & that he was once as one of us and was on a planet as Jesus was in the flesh," - Joseph Smith www.josephsmithpapers.org/paper-summary/discourse-7-april-1844-as-reported-by-william-clayton/3 "In the sermon, Joseph taught about divine nature and eternal progression. He countered the long-standing theological tradition that treated God as wholly different than humanity. He explained that “if men do not comprehend the character of God they do not comprehend themselves.”3 He taught that God “was once as one of us” and that “all the spirits that God ever sent into the world” were “susceptible of enlargement,” having the capacity to become like God in the eternities." - www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/history/topics/king-follett-discourse?lang=eng Those are Joseph Smith's words and the official LDS explanation of the, The idea that God "came to be" anything is utterly contrary to the classical theistic concept of eternality and immutability. Things can only change within time, so for anything to change means that it is within time. If God is within time then he is not timeless, and thus, not eternal. Our definition of God's eternality is tied to his immutability. However, Joseph Smith and the LDS church explicitly teach that the Heavenly Father changed. So to say that you believe the Heavenly Father is eternal and thus the guy in the video is incorrect is to commit the fallacy of equivocation, because you demonstrably mean something different by the word "eternal" than we do. Which was his entire point the guy in the video was making. Phonetic identicality does not equal identicality in meaning. Again with the whole Christ being the Word thing. Classical theists(barring maybe adoptionists) say that to mean the person of Jesus is ontologically identical with that of the Father. However, the LDS church teaches that he is ontologically unique from the Father. Same with the Holy Spirit. The point he was making is that the Holy Spirit is ontologically unique, and thus not the spirit of the Father and the Son in even remotely the same was as what we mean. You are demonstrating his point perfectly. It's all about the meaning, not the words themselves. Words can have multiple definitions, and his point was that the LDS church uses different definitions. I speak english. If I say "el" and a person who speaks spanish says "el", they are phonetically identical, but I am referring to the character L in my alphabet, and he is saying "the". Two entirely different things that are identical in sound. You also didn't actually address any of my points, or explain how it was inaccurate. You just denied the claims.

@canwenot2706

11 ай бұрын

​@@nullarcstudios8910 I merely answered your question. You're right that we have fundamental differences in our beliefs but if he is going to explain how they are different then he shouldn't misrepresent them the way that you just did. We believe God created the cosmos. Time is a product of the cosmos. Therefore, we believe God is outside of the cosmos and time. He is also omnipotent so if he wants to reside within the cosmos, he can do that too. There are many ways Latter-day Saints reconcile God as having always existed and also once being human. I guarantee they make more sense than creatio ex nihilo. Regardless, we don't even teach that He was once human. This is a direct quote from a recent president of the church "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it... I don't understand a lot about it and I don't know that others know a lot about it." In short, we don't try to address the origin of God in our doctrine and while Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, we don't view everything he said as the word of God. If you want someone to explain how LDS beliefs differ from Catholics, he should interview a Latter-day Saint rather than a critic.

Mormon here. Either this guy has been misinformed or he's making it up as he goes

It's OK we done accept Catholic baptism

@janiceworthen5718

11 ай бұрын

@bobzacal We don’t accept Catholic baptism as Baptism. We call it Christening.

What do you mean by god is not absolute? I practice mormonism. God is the most powerful being in the cosmos. It was through his power that everything was made. He does have physical form which is perfect. He controls every aspect. He knows the partical in atoms and what they were formed from. My second issue is that my church is literally named the church of Jesus Chist of latterday saints. We acknowledge christ in your name. God is the first, christ is the second, and the holy ghost is the third. God presides over the other two and they are one in purpose. Under that criteria then our baptisms count as valid.

Everything he said members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints believe about Jesus is incorrect. We do believe Jesus was the Word. We do believe He is the Savior of all creation. We may have a difference of interpretation on what that means but none the less not a single soul can be saved without Jesus. So if you're going to attack us please do it on a premise that's accurate.

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

The biggest issue is the belief in a Pantheon of gods, with the idea of these having human bodies being an actual debate there. There are other issues, but we can't recognize polytheism (whether within a Pantheon "sharing purpose" or otherwise) as baptized Christians.

@Dandeeman26

11 ай бұрын

@@alonsoACR so 1st off I think we agree Jesus resurrected His body. Why? If it was disadvantageous for Him would He take His body back? Also if it was advantageous why would the Father not have a body? Next I know the scripture that there is but One God and there were no gods before Him or after Him. But why would God pray to Himself? Why would He ask not to drink the bitter cup but not as He would but His Father's will be done if He was His Father? If They are different how can you claim One God?

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

@@Dandeeman26 Alright let's avoid saying advantageous or disadvantageous. God doesn't need to do anything, He does as He wills. If Jesus needed -or even just -_-wanted-_ his body back then he would be no God, as a True God has no needs, unfulfilled desires, or ways to improve. Why did Jesus find it _fitting_ or _proper_ to resurrect? We could ask that for His whole human life. He could've willed himself from clay into a whole adult body and go in glory, but He didn't. Born in awful conditions, grew in the sticks of Israel, worked as a peasant, ate, slept, drank, got unjustly charged, suffered, and died the death of a slave. Then he rose again on the third day. But he didn't _have_ to save us this way. He didn't need that body just as he doesn't need food. That's the beauty of it all, we have a God that instead of exalting Himself and demanding submission, he asks to follow Him and promise that those who love Him will stay with Him. That even if we suffer, even if we die, we won't stay dead. That we be good as Christ was good. I urge you, right now, to open 1 Corinthians 15:12 to at least verse 34. That's why He rose. But what most certainly _wasn't_ the reason, is that he found it _advantageous._

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

@@Dandeeman26 Also about prayer and bitter cup, it's crucial in Christianity to remember that Jesus was God _but he was also human._ That's the essence of it all. "And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." He incarnated into flesh, a human body, while not needing one. Lived a full human life, prayer and despair included, but what He didn't have was sin, faults, or have a will that wasn't perfectly aligned to the Father. As He said, "Me and the Father are One" An example to follow. A God worth worshipping That's the reason and that's the message of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Word incarnate.

@Dandeeman26

11 ай бұрын

@@alonsoACR that I actually agree with but didn't answer any of the questions. I didn't ask why Jesus came to Earth I asked why He resurrected His body.

why does the intent not matter in the case of baptists who don't intend for any change to occur outside a public showing of faith.

@Forester-

11 ай бұрын

From what I've read the issue is not so much that the intent isn't exactly like ours as is the case with Baptists but that the intent of Mormons diverges so much more to the point that they don't belive it to have been instituted by Christ, as in the Baptism of John and the Baptism of Jesus are the same. Not to mention the Trinitarian problems.

Hmmm- it is hard to believe this young man ever had an understanding of LDS theology. His description of especially our views on Jesus Christ is completely incorrect. Everything in our religion is based on our faith and reliance in the Savior of the world, Jesus Christ. Also, I would love for you to show me where in the Bible baptism is a sprinkling on the head, performed by Jewish women and so on. Also what you said about Apostasy is skewed as well. The great apostasy is not about whether believers pr communities of believers existed but it was about whether the church existed as Christ established it. It is common knowledge the church was quickly corrupted by adopting paganism, asceticism, and political usurpation- leaving it unrecognizable and necessitating worldy political councils to again decide basic doctrine such as the trinity that denies personhood and fatherhood to God and relegates most of scripture unintelligible. Did Christ pray to hImself in Gethsemane? Who exactly are we made in the image of? Etc. The Restoration was so needed, God the Father and His Son appeared to set the record straight.

3:00 that is not what lds believe. Christ is the Redeemer, he is the Saviour, he is the Word of God, he created the world, He is Jehovah - this is what lds believe. I appreciate your efforts to bring people to Christ, but there are other better ways to do that apart from misinformations. Otherwise you are just sowing seeds that will fall beside the road, and the seed is trampled under foot and the birds of the air eat it up.

The verbiage utilized by this ex-member runs counter to many LDS beliefs, or rather, he has snuck in terms into his purported LDS definitions of the members of the Godhead that are contrary to the terms we would use to describe them. The most egregious is when he states we do not believe Jesus Christ to be the "Saviour" by virtue of the "passion", when we take a very extreme and expansive view regarding His salvific role, not only saving us from death, hell, sin and alienation from God, but also from suffering, and the traumas of mortality. Even those terms fall short of the expansive nature of the atoning sacrifice of Christ, which ran from the Garden of Gethsemane to Calvary and to His resurrection and ascent to the Father. We believe he did not just save our world, our people, but all of creation and all inhabitants throughout the universe, for He was the creator of it all and it belongs to Him. Just because we may use different terms and vocabulary , or may use the same terms and vocabulary differently does not mean we have embraced such a limited view of that central and all encompassing doctrine. We certainly disagree with our Roman Catholic fellows about many things, but please, at least get the details of disagreement correct.

@IJustWatchYouTubeAllDay

11 ай бұрын

Yeah, if they are going to talk about the church at least don't misrepresent it.

He seems nice just misunderstands what Christ taught.

Jesus isn’t the savior in Mormon belief? You may want to inform every one of them of that.

@balduran2003

11 ай бұрын

Yes he is. You can't read more than 3 or 4 verses in the Book of Mormon without running into a reference to Jesus Christ as the Redeemer. A great example is Helaman 5:9

@ntmn8444

11 ай бұрын

They think of the Trinity as different people, separate from each other. They’re not one God in Mormon belief, they’re praying to 3 different gods. And they believe God the Father was a man before becoming a god and both Jesus and Saran are brothers. It’s idolatry. Catholics believe in ONE God with three distinct persons. It may sound the same but it is not.

@balduran2003

11 ай бұрын

@@ntmn8444 Your comment is very close to accurate, but there are a few things that need to be clarified. It is true that in LDS teaching, Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are 3 separate beings; however, although they are distinct beings, with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united. We call them the Godhead. (Gospel Topics: Godhead) In LDS teachings, the word "god" can have different meanings depending on context. For examples, the Book of Mormon states, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are "one God, without end." (2 Nephi 31:21). But, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints often use the phrase "a god" to describe each member of the Godhead individually, such as saying, "the Holy Ghost is a god." On the other hand, when a Latter-day Saint says just "God" they may be referring to either our Heavenly Father or to the entire Godhead acting unitedly. For example, in LDS teaching, when Genesis says, "In the beginning God...", Moses is referring to all of the members of the Godhead acting unitedly. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son (Gospel Topics: Godhead). We are not "praying to 3 different gods." Idolatry specifically refers to worshiping idols, which are physical objects usually constructed by a person. Having a different belief about the nature of God is not idolatry. You probably meant to say "heresy", which is a belief contrary to orthodoxy.

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

​@@balduran2003So you believe in a Pantheon. Alright then, that makes it much better now.

@balduran2003

11 ай бұрын

@alonso19989 If that helps you understand the Doctrine to think of the Godhead as a pantheon, then that's fine. Most Latter-day Saints would describe themselves as monotheists because 2 Nephi 31:21 describes the Unity of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as "one God", but others would be completely fine thinking of the Godhead as a pantheon, but with the caveat that the "gods" are always perfectly united. It's all very context specific.

Great point. I'm from Latin America and, let me tell you, Mormons are always pursuing Catholics and now are here commenting trying to defend themselves. Now I'm realizing they teach different things to different people. And yes, their baptism is not valid.

I did not know the 325 A.D. Nicene Creed has supreme authority over the Holy Bible. Thanks for letting me know.

@carolinpurayidom4570

11 ай бұрын

Bruh the church literally created the Bible and the people who made the Nicene creed helped form the Biblical Canon and scripture also backs up what the Nicene Creed says

@valeshmathias

11 ай бұрын

It doesn't have authority "over" scripture. It has authority WITH scripture.

@Forester-

11 ай бұрын

The Nicene Creed is the correct understanding of the Bible and you should be thankful for the Council because without it you may very well be an Arian.

@NateBeard

11 ай бұрын

There wasn't a Bible (new testament) until they ratified it at that council... God bless our church father's 🙏🏼

@IJustWatchYouTubeAllDay

11 ай бұрын

@carolinpurayidom4570 Most religions didn't believe in the Trinity until after the Nicene creed took place. It's perverted the truth. The Trinity doctrine makes no sense at all.

why are you bringing on apostates to talk about the mormon church? would you bring a some one who made a conscious decision to reject the catholic church doctrines to explain catholic church doctrines? Is it really that hard to find an active mormon? This kind of format just leads to the inevitable conclusion that your more interested in propagating stereo types and tropes about a faith your clerly hostile towards rather than actually finding about other christian denominations.

LDS viewer here. A number of things your guest is saying are completely wrong 😳 some of them shockingly so. Which is VERY confusing because my understanding is that he is supposed to be a former member? The Father is: - an exalted man who lives on a planet/somewhere in the cosmos. Correct interpretation of LDS beliefs ✅ see next point. - has a physical body? ✅ Correct interpretation. We are made in his image. Back to former point, physical beings live in a physical place. - has not existed eternally?? ❌ WRONG Spirit and element are eternal and cannot be created or destroyed, only organised and reorganised. - he is not almighty???? ❌ WRONG. No explanation needed! The Son is: - not the second member of the “Trinity”? ❌ wrong-ish. He is the second member of the “Godhead.” Our terminology and technicalities are different but He is the second member. - not the word of God incarnate? ❌ WRONG. Gospel of John is pretty clear on that. - not the Saviour of all creation? ❌❌❌ WRONG WRONG WRONG?!?!? I don’t know even know where to begin on that one. That is the most shocking comment on the whole video. The Holy Spirit is: - a separate being. ✅ Correct interpretation of LDS beliefs. - only member of Godhead who is not physical. ✅ Correct interpretation.

YOu make some fair points but to say something like 2:99 is completely false. We absolutely believe the Jesus is the savior of all mankind through his redemptive passion. You need to be more careful making claims like that about what others believe.

Tomato tomahto

First, I want to say that I really enjoyed watching this. I have several Catholic friends and they often have very interesting ways of describing their beliefs. That said, there are a few things that were said that don't accuratly reflect LDS teachings. @2:45 LDS teaching *is* that God has existed eternally and is eternal (D&C 20:17). Jesus Christ has also existed eternally and is eternal (Heb. 13:8). Also, both are resurrected humans. This is one of those mysteries of godliness. Jesus Christ was born, lived, died, and was resurrected, and He is also the "same yesterday, today, and forever." LDSs believe the same about the Father. LDS teaching *is* that God is almighty. @3:04 LDS teaching is that Jesus is the Savior of all creation. (Helaman 5:9) @3:30 LDS teaching is that the all members of the Godhead are one. While they are separate beings, they are one. One way to think of this is to think of marriage, while a man and a woman are separate beings, they are commanded to be "one flesh", which seems to be contradictory since they are separate beings. The Godhead functions similarly; all members of the Godhead are God (Elohim). So, the Holy Spirit *is* the spirit of God. Saying that He is not the spirit of God is like saying that, in a marriage, the husband is not man of the marriage.

@carolinpurayidom4570

11 ай бұрын

But the first part is heresy the Father is not a resurrected human being

@balduran2003

11 ай бұрын

@carolinpurayidom4570 If you are Catholic, then you believe that the Father and the Son are the same being, and you also believe that the son was resurrected, so Jesus Christ, who is also the Father, is a resurrected being. Regardless, the purpose of my comment was to correct inaccuracies in what was said in relation to LDS teachings. It has nothing to do with what Catholics consider to be heresy.

@Forester-

11 ай бұрын

​@@balduran2003We don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Father. We believe in one God with three distinct persons. CCC 254: The divine persons are really distinct from one another. “God is one but not solitary.” “Father,” “Son,” “Holy Spirit” are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: “He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son.”(Council of Toledo)

@balduran2003

11 ай бұрын

@Forester- ok. Also from the Council of Toledo: "We acknowledge Trinity in the distinction of persons; we profess Unity because of the nature or substance. The three are one, as a nature, that is, not as person. Nevertheless, these three persons are not to be considered separable, since we believe that no one of them existed or at any time effected anything before the other, after the other, or without the other." So, they are not "separable" and none of them have ever "effected anything... without the other." Again, regardless, my comment was made to correct inaccuracies in things that were said about LDS teachings. What Catholics believe is not the point of my comment.

@Forester-

11 ай бұрын

​@@balduran2003 I know that wasn't the point of your original comment but if Mormons and Catholics are going to dialogue about misconceptions of belief it has to be mutual.

🦦🪵🦦🪵🦦🪵🦦🪵🦦🪵🦦THIS IS THE BIBLICAL WAY TO BE SAVED: There Is only one God, in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. ONE God. Humans are ONE person ( in three parts) The body, soul and spirit. Three parts, ONE person. The Bible says that we are all sinners. As it is written: There is none righteous , no not one. Romans 3:10 For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.Romans 3:23 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy rags. Isaiah 64:6 For the wages of sin is death. Romans 6:23 (The word death in this verse means eternal separation from God in hell). Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow. Isaiah 1:18 Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures and that He was buried and that He rose again the third day according to the scriptures. 1Corinthians 15:3-8 In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the forgiveness of sins. Colossians 1:14 For by grace ye are saved, through faith; and not of yourselves. It is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. Ephesians 2:8-9 I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain. Galatians 2 :21 Realize that you are a hopeless sinner and trust in Jesus shed blood on the cross to pay for your sins. The moment you trust in Jesus and only Jesus, you are saved.

Wait, wait, wait. Your saying that baptism must not be coerced after the age of accountability due to being a willing participant, yet infant baptism are totally fine? I see a logical flaw in that…

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

We believe baptism is transformative. It has a positive impact on the development of the soul throughout life. Thus, a child (of Christian parents) would benefit a lot from a baptism. The Catholic "proper" entrance to the religion with full knowledge and reason is called Confirmation. I got baptized when I was 2, but Confirmation when I turned 16, after 8 months of attending classes/study on Catholicism. However, if you consider baptism an initiation rite or even a formality, then yes it may not make sense. It's just that's not how we interpret Jesus' words nor the events in Acts.

@mellieg.7543

11 ай бұрын

Same way a five year old can't sign their own consent to treat form at the doctor's office but their parents can.

@chrishumphries7489

11 ай бұрын

Baptism is a covenant: a two way promise between God and man. It is symbolic of an individual choosing God in their life and laying down the former person in death. An infant can’t do any of these things. Covenants require accountability. Accountability requires capacity. Capacity requires a certain age of reasoning, development and experience.

@alonsoACR

11 ай бұрын

@@chrishumphries7489 we believe humans take no part in it covenant is in the Eucharist baptism is all the Lord's work, not ours. His grace and His gift ofc, we don't baptize random people. Either the person consents, or their guardian consents. But it works all the same. Because the infant (or the adult for that matter) take no part in it. Also it's not symbolic. Wait, you think they're symbolic? So that's why you find it weird. What's your denomination? On what basis do you consider something Jesus said was essential to salvation to be merely symbolic?

@chrishumphries7489

11 ай бұрын

@@alonsoACRRoman’s 6:3-4 “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death? Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.” Symbolic, as well as essential. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

I'd have to disagree with this. The most important things about baptism are how it's done and also who does it. If you don't have authority from God to baptize then that is what makes it invalid. There's a reason Christ sought out John the Baptist. If what this guy is saying is true then Christ could have had anyone baptize Him, yet He didn't. John the Baptist had the authority from God to baptize so Christ went to him. This is called the Priesthood and only the true Church of Jesus Christ has that authority.

FIRST 🎉

Intention? That's Donatism. Mormons are not more evil than God is good. I've heard this same "Intention" argument used against Anglican Apostolic Succession. It's Heresy!

@dwightschrute900

11 ай бұрын

Anglicans dont have Apostolic succession

@realDonaldMcElvy

11 ай бұрын

@@dwightschrute900 Thomas Cranmer would like to Know Your Location.

@dwightschrute900

11 ай бұрын

@@realDonaldMcElvy The Pope Would like to have a word with you sir...

@realDonaldMcElvy

11 ай бұрын

@@dwightschrute900 Which one? Pope Honorius I who defended Monothelitism? Pope Martin V who granted Plenary Indulgences for the slaughter of other Christians? Pope Francis who the Sedevacantists say isn't even a Pope?

@realDonaldMcElvy

11 ай бұрын

@@dwightschrute900 I bet you want me to talk to Pope Clement VII. Martin Luther did that for me.

Catholic baptisms aren't valid either.

@GuitarBloodlines

11 ай бұрын

except they literally are

@Forester-

11 ай бұрын

So saith Pope johnfal1849

@limoncellosmith7594

11 ай бұрын

@@Forester- hahahaha. Every one thinks he's both the pope and god these days.

THIRD!

SECOND

The LDS church has more answers, and makes more sense than any religion I’ve listen to. These guys can say what they may.. Don’t take their word for it, do your own research!

@ntmn8444

11 ай бұрын

No it doesn’t. At all. Mormonism was founded by a con artist of his day. He received a special book that only he could translate? 😂 you think this makes sense at all?

@limoncellosmith7594

11 ай бұрын

Makes more sense? Are you kidding? Have you actually read the book of Mormon? It is a plagiarized hodgepodge of the Bible and other texts. Have you investigated the claims of Joseph Smith? Total fraud. Have you looked at the science of evolution and archeology and compared findings with Mormon claims? Ludicrous. Sorry my friend. You actually sound like you don't know much about Mormonism.

@CIA.US.Offical

10 ай бұрын

LDS are the biggest hypocrites on earth. They say something but do something else. I have never felt the Holy Spirit once in all my years attending LDS.

I wrote my Master’s thesis challenging the decision by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF.) There ruling was completely out of line with the deposit of faith and was transparently reactionary. I’m happy to share my paper if y’all give me an email or an account where I can drop a DM.

@ferreus

11 ай бұрын

physiognomy check

@markford202

11 ай бұрын

@@ferreus :)

The real baptism was when disciples of Jesus IN PERSON heard divine heavenly sound (Shabd) when they were accepted as disciples of him. One of such divine sounds is similar to “water currents”. Other divine sounds are trumpets, harp, flute and other similar to music instruments, sound of thunder and others. These divine sounds have been registered many times across the Bible. However such divine sound can only be heard by those who met Jesus in person, and that’s why no one can hear it now. To hear the divine sound of “many waters” or the other celestial sounds, one must find an enlightened living Master, who embodies the same divine power as Jesus did in human form. Currently the Quan Yin method of meditation, or the Radha Soami or Sant Mat traditions in India have living Masters that can give any person that experience of hearing the sound of “many waters” “ocean waves” and many more to sincere seekers of the direct contact with God. No actual water is used or required.

@DanyTV79

11 ай бұрын

😂