Posted on 04/26/2007 6:03:35 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
Ask Mark Briscoe, leader of the Howell ward of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the greatest misconception about the church, and he doesn't have to think very long or hard.
"Sometimes people would say that we're not Christians," he said. "We definitely are. We believe in Jesus Christ."
An Idaho native, Briscoe has been a Mormon his whole life, and said it is painful to have others think that his church is somehow outside the boundaries of Christianity. He said he was a high school student when he first heard the accusation.
"It was a little bit unsettling," he said. "From my earliest memories, we talked about Jesus Christ." In fact, members of the church believe that Jesus' teachings were changed and weakened soon after the apostles died, and that this "apostasy," or falling away from the truth, led to the withdrawal of the true church from the earth.
Mormons believe that was reversed when Joseph Smith, regarded as a prophet, was visited by God and Jesus in a vision in 1820. That's when Smith was chosen to restore the true church to the world, according to LDS doctrine. Smith translated the Book of Mormon, the sacred text of the Latter Day Saints, which is based on the Bible.
The Mormons' refer to this process as the "restoration."
The religion has received increased attention as Mitt Romney's prominence as a presidential candidate has risen. As happened with John F. Kennedy, the first Catholic president, some political observers have questioned whether Romney's Mormonism will hurt his electability, or his conduct as president if he's eventually elected.
Jan Shipps, an expert in the LDS church, a professor emeritus of history and religious studies at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, and a Methodist, said that concern is overhyped.
She said that, unlike Catholicism, in which a politician can be denied communion for votes in support of abortion rights, for example, the Mormon church does not directly influence its members who happen to be politicians.
A local bishop can exclude a church member from the temple, but that's about it, Shipps said.
"They don't have any official way to control their members, except to say that they can go into or cannot go into the temple," Shipps said.
"I just don't think it's a big deal, but a lot of people think it is because the president of the church is also understood to be a prophet," she said. "But the likelihood that the president of the church would have a revelation that the president has to do this or has to do that is less than zero."
Briscoe agreed with Shipps' assessment that any influence the church would have over members would be at the local level. But even that would not include anything political.
"We never say we're for one candidate or the other," he said. "Our view is that's not proper."
There is some evidence, however, that Romney is getting a lot of support from Mormons — 13 percent of the money he's raised so far, or $2.37 million, has come from the state of Utah, home of the church's headquarters.
Local ties, global reach Briscoe's title is "Bishop," analogous to a pastor, but he doesn't receive a salary from the church. That goes for all other leaders as well. Briscoe works as a powertrain engineer for Ford Motor Co. in Livonia.
"It makes for a very busy life, that's for sure," he said.
The LDS church on West Grand River Avenue in Howell has 400 members; holds services every Sunday; and has youth activities during the week.
One of the hallmarks of the church is the cooperation and support between members.
"A main focus is to provide service to one another," Briscoe said.
Members go in groups of two to visit each other on the weekends for "Home Teaching" sessions, in which they talk about spirituality and life in general, he said.
"Part of it is to see if people need help with anything," he said. "The goal is that nobody feels they don't have someone to call."
The visiting is separated by gender, with males visiting males and females visiting females.
Mormon services are not the raucous or musical affairs that other denominations celebrate.
"'Reverent' is the word we like to use," Briscoe said.
A typical service starts with the sacrament, a hymn and a prayer. Then, church members who Briscoe has spoken with beforehand give talks of about 10 minutes long on a given subject.
Non-Mormons, however, don't often get the chance to witness these services. The church has a reputation for secrecy, but Shipps said it's not just for the sake of exclusion.
"A better way to say it is what goes on in the temple is sacred and therefore private, rather than secret," she said. "All temples are closed to anyone except those who the bishop recommends."
Outreach also is an important part of the Mormon philosophy. Most men do two years of missionary work when they're around 19 years old, and unmarried women do 18 months. One of Briscoe's own sons is in Brazil right now as a missionary.
College age is an ideal time to go abroad as a missionary because it exposes one to the world, yet still gives a person time to start a family. And family, Briscoe said, is a foundational piece of the Mormon church.
"We do believe in families," he said. "We believe a man and a woman should get married and raise a family, so we encourage that."
Briscoe himself was a missionary in Spain: "I learned probably as much from that experience as I did from college."
Mormons also are aware of opportunities to tell friends and other social acquaintances about Mormonism, Briscoe said, and how to approach people is a subject of conversation in the church.
"As life goes on, you get into discussions about your beliefs," he said. "We feel like what we have is so important ... we really feel deeply that what we believe is the truth."
The church has been fairly successful in bringing more people in. There are about 6 million members of the LDS church in United States, and more than that abroad, Shipps said.
Not universally embraced Many of the church's practices have prompted criticism from other religions. Polygamy, the practice of husbands having more than one wife, may be the most enduring stereotype of Mormons. But it hasn't been practiced since 1890 by the church, and is strictly prohibited.
The LDS past practice of baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims after their death drew fierce opposition from Jewish leaders as well.
Shipps said it was done to give non-Mormons the choice in the afterlife of becoming Mormon. That's also why there's such an emphasis in the church on genealogy — so that all one's relatives can be identified and baptized, she said.
Also, black people were denied membership until 1978, when the president of the church at the time had a revelation that they should be included.
Now, Shipps said, the LDS church has made strong inroads into nonwhite areas such as Japan, South Korea and Africa.
"There may be as many people worshipping on Sunday in Spanish-speaking areas than English-speaking," she said.
Theologically, Mormonism is viewed suspiciously by some as well. The Southern Baptist Convention, for example, puts the LDS church in the category of "Cults, Sects and New Religious Movements."
Shipps said the thing that sets Mormonism apart — and ironically draws the ire of both Christians and Jews — is the belief that the church is re-gathering the twelve tribes of Israel.
"It's a very complex and interesting and powerful theology, but for those looking at it from the outside, it seems somewhat strange because it has, in addition to Christian claims, claims to be the restoration of Israel," Shipps said.
Another notable Mormon belief is that the church president is a prophet, and receives the word of God.
"We believe God does talk to man," Briscoe said. "He chooses one prophet at a time."
Regardless of the negativity and criticism they may run into, he said, most Mormons aren't swayed.
"When people say things, we're still confident and confident in what we know to be right," he said.
Define what is salvation please.
Good for you. I too believe that the words of Jesus in the Gospels are the most important words in the Bible.
I trust you are not on of the people who defend polygamy as an OK practice after Jesus so clearly taught against it.
...you realized needlenose_neely, you would be the only Danites the rest of us are LDS!:)
I'll be the only Christian, but there is one thing I agree with Richard Nixon on.
Show me the scripture where Jesus taught agaist it?
In the OT he was Jehovah when that practice took place and because you don't understand does not mean others have to conform to you, you are not the Lord!
The Lord can employ or rescind the needs of his ordinance.
I struggle to understand that topic, because I find no guidance in the Gospels.
Black men, while allowed to be "members" were denied being ordained in the two priesthoods claimed by the mormons, thus were "second-class members" until a "revelation" in 1978, after the civil rights movement was successful. Left that out.
But all that time the black men's money was as green as anyones.(wink)
When are the American Indians, er, ah, the so called, Lamanites going to turn white like Smith said they would?
Get used to it, that is the most common witness of the LDS, especially on boards like this where they can be anonymous.
"I am not a crook"??? You have been called everything else on this thread.
Have you seen post 124 especially the last line.
Jesus taught that one must leave one’s mother and father and cleave only unto their spouse.
If you get a chance, check out what freeper viscomte13 has written about polygamy. He just shreds any arguement that polygamy is or was ordained by God.
"I am not a crook"??? You have been called everything else on this thread.
It's expected. It's the common practice of the vast majority of the LDS on boards like this to immediately form a lynch mob, and begin the ad hominem personal insults, then call "Mom", I mean, Mod and act as if they are the victim. See it all the time, everywhere, for years, so it's expected.
After all, even though Joseph Smith said that polygamy was commanded by God as an eternal ordainance and those who did not practice it could not ascend to exaltation as a god(meaning those who have not since Utah outlawed it by demand of the US government or not become a state cannot become a god), the Mormon god told them to "suspend" it.
Now the gay debate has opened the door to redefine what marriage is, including polygamy.
There are already cases challenging the law by polymorous folk.
If Gordon Hinkley is the only man who you believe receives revelation for the mormon church, then why do you keep trying to align yourselves with evangelical christians? Could it be that the mormon church as a guilty conscience because they cannot explain their doctrine or the CHANGES it has had over the years?
Evangelicals believe that ANYONE who has true salvation also has capiblities to understand the scriptures. By mormon’s trying to align themselves with us, gives total discredit to the proclamation that HE, Mr. Hinkley, is the only one to receive revelation for the church. If he is the only one, then how could it be possible that evangelicals are saying the same thing as mormon’s? Do you see, your argument doesn’t even pass the “common sense” test.
Your on!:)
I know you will continue to call Jesus Christ Chruch, Mormon but that only show your lack of respect!
On earth you can say what you like someday you will come face to face with the Lord than what will you tell him how you keep insisting in calling his Church by another name!
Jesus was adamant that those who will be saved will worship in spirit AND TRUTH.
Romans 1;
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
The Mormon god is a created creature who is worshiped not in truth but in vain.
The 2nd commandment is, "You will have no other gods before Me." Mormonism continuously breaks the first and second commandments.
Sincere in those questions? I don’t need those answers for my beliefs. My faith is secure. I just question those who resort to attacks and cannot back up their assertions with evidence. Generally this is a common type of conversation among the more civilized.
My post has nothing to do with that PYW, it is about understanding one another on this planet.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:
Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
| THE QUESTION OF THE VALIDITY OF BAPTISM CONFERRED IN THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS |
| Fr Luis Ladaria, S.J. |
| The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given a negative response to a "Dubium" regarding the validity of Baptism conferred in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, more commonly known as the Mormons. Given that this decision changes the past practice of not questioning the validity of such Baptism, it seems appropriate to explain the reasons that have led to this decision and to the resulting change of practice. Doctrinal errors usually do not invalidate baptism This explanation becomes even more necessary if one considers that errors of a doctrinal nature have never been considered sufficient to question the validity of the sacrament of Baptism. In fact, already in the middle of the third century Pope Stephen I, opposing the decisions of an African synod in 256 A.D., reaffirmed that the ancient practice of the imposition of hands as a sign of repentance should be maintained, but not the rebaptism of a heretic who enters the Catholic Church. In this way, the name of Christ attains great honour for faith and sanctification because whoever is baptized in the name of Christ, wherever that has taken place, has received the grace of Christ (cf. Denzinger-Hüngermann [DH] 110-111). The same principle was upheld by the Synod of Arles in 314 (cf. DH 123). Well known also is the struggle of St Augustine against the Donatists. The Bishop of Hippo affirms that the validity of the sacrament depends neither on the personal sanctity of the minister nor on his belonging to the Church. Right intention is the intention to do what the Church wants, what Christ wants Even non-Catholics can validly administer Baptism. In every case, however, it is the Baptism of the Catholic Church, which does not belong to those who separate themselves from her but to the Church from which they have separated themselves (cf. Augustine, On Baptism 1, 12,9). This validity is possible because Christ is the true minister of the sacrament: Christ is the one who truly baptizes, whether it is Peter or Paul or Judas who baptizes (cf. Augustine, Treatise on the Gospel of John VI, 1,7; cf. CCC n. 1127). The Council of Trent, confirming this tradition, defined that Baptism administered by heretics in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does is true Baptism (cf. DH 1617). The validity of doubtful baptism is presumed especially in the case of marriage, as in the case of the Christians of Nagasaki The most recent documents of the Catholic Church maintain the same teaching. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that those who have been baptized in non-Catholic ecclesial communities (as long as there is no doubt regarding the matter or the form or the intention of the minister or of the person being baptized) should not be baptized again (cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 869 §2), Intrinsically connected to this problem is that of who can be the minister of Baptism in the Catholic Church. According to the Code, in cases of necessity anyone can baptize, provided the intention is correct (cf. can. 861 §2). The Code of Canon Law confirms the fundamental elements of Tridentine teaching and makes more explicit what is the required correct intention: "The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation" (CCC, n. 1256. Evidently, the necessity of Baptism spoken of here is not to be understood in an absolute sense; cf. ibid., nn. 1257-1261). Precisely because of the necessity of Baptism for salvation the Catholic Church has had the tendency of broadly recognizing this right intention in the conferring of this sacrament, even in the case of a false understanding of Trinitarian faith, as for example in the case of the Arians. Taking into account this deeply-rooted practice of the Church, applied without any doubt as to the multiplicity of non-Catholic Christian communities emerging from the so-called Reform of the 16th century, it is easily understood that when there appeared in the United States the religious movement of Joseph Smith around 1830, in which the matter and the words of the form of Baptism were correctly utilized, this Baptism was considered valid, analogously to the Baptism of so many other non-Catholic ecclesial communities. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, according to their teaching, received the priesthood of Aaron in 1829. Given the circumstances of the Church in the United States in the 19th century and the means of social communication at that time, even though the new religious movement gained a considerable number of followers, the knowledge that ecclesiastical authorities could have had of the doctrinal errors that were professed in this new group was necessarily very limited throughout the entire century. For the practical cases that emerged there was applied the response of the Holy Office of 9 September 1868 given for the Christian communities of Japan which had remained isolated and without priests from the time of the persecution at the beginning of the 17th century. According to this response: 1) those persons about whom there was doubt whether they were validly baptized should be considered Christians; 2) this Baptism should be considered valid with regard to the validity of marriage (Gasparri, Fontes, IV, n. 1007). Current doubts about the validity of Mormon baptism In the 20th century, the Catholic Church became more aware of the Trinitarian errors which the teaching proposed by Smith contained, though he used the traditional terms, and therefore more and more doubts spread about the validity of the Baptism conferred by the Mormons, in spite of the fact that the form, as far as the substance of the terminology goes, coincided with that used by the Church. As a result, almost imperceptibly there developed difference of practice, insofar as those who had a certain personal knowledge of the teaching of the Mormons considered their Baptism invalid, while the common practice continued of applying the traditional principle of the presumption in favour of the validity of such Baptism, since there was no official norm in this regard. In recent years, as a result of a request from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Bishops' Conference of the United States undertook a detailed study of this delicate issue with the hope of coming to a definitive conclusion. On its part the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith undertook a new examination of the material that came from the United States and thus was able to resolve the proposed question. What are the reasons which now led to this negative position regarding the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which seems different from the position of the Catholic Church throughout the centuries? Huge divergence on Trinity and baptism invalidates the intention of the Mormon minister of baptism and of the one to be baptized According to the traditional doctrine of the Catholic Church there are four requirements for the valid administration of the sacrament of Baptism: the matter, the form, the intention of the minister, and the right disposition of the recipient. Let us examine briefly each of these four elements in the teaching and practice of the Mormons. I. The Matter. On this point there is no problem. Water is used. The Mormons practice Baptism by immersion (cf. Doctrine and Covenants [D&C] 20:74), which is one of the ways of celebrating Baptism (application of the matter) which is accepted by the Catholic Church. II. The Form. We have seen that in the texts of the Magisterium on Baptism there is a reference to the invocation of the Trinity (to the sources already mentioned, the Fourth Lateran Council could be added here [DH 8021). The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: "Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI, Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). This divinity and man share the same nature and they are substantially equal. God the Father is an exalted man, native of another planet, who has acquired his divine status through a death similar to that of human beings, the necessary way to divinization (cf. TPJS, pp. 345-346). God the Father has relatives and this is explained by the doctrine of infinite regression of the gods who initially were mortal (cf. TPJS, p. 373). God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). Four gods are directly responsible for the universe, three of whom have established a covenant and thus form the divinity. As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix. We do not find ourselves, therefore, before the case of the validity of Baptism administered by heretics, affirmed already from the first Christian centuries, nor of Baptism conferred in non-Catholic ecclesial communities, as noted in Canon 869 §2. III. The Intention of the Celebrating Minister. Such doctrinal diversity, regarding the very notion of God, prevents the minister of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from having the intention of doing what the Catholic Church does when she confers Baptism, that is, doing what Christ willed her to do when he instituted and mandated the sacrament of Baptism. This becomes even more evident when we consider that in their understanding Baptism was not instituted by Christ but by God and began with Adam (cf. Book of Moses 6:64). Christ simply commanded the practice of this rite; but this was not an innovation. It is clear that the intention of the Church in conferring Baptism is certainly to follow the mandate of Christ (cf. Mt 28,19) but at the same time to confer the sacrament that Christ had instituted. According to the New Testament, there is an essential difference between the Baptism of John and Christian Baptism. The Baptism of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which originated not in Christ but already at the beginning of creation (James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith [AF], Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1990, cf. pp. 110-111), is not Christian Baptism; indeed, it denies its newness. The Mormon minister, who must necessarily be the "priest" (cf. D&C 20:38-58.107:13.14.20), therefore radically formed in their own doctrine, cannot have any other intention than that of doing what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does, which is quite different in respect to what the Catholic Church intends to do when it baptizes, that is, the conferral of the sacrament of Baptism instituted by Christ, which means participation in his death and resurrection (cf. Rom 6,3-11; Col 2,12-13). We can note two other differences, not as fundamental as the preceding one, but which also have their importance: A) According to the Catholic Church, Baptism cancels not only personal sins but also original sin, and therefore even infants are baptized for the remission of sins (cf. the essential texts of the Council of Trent, DH 1513-1515). This remission of original sin is not accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which denies the existence of this sin and therefore baptizes only persons who have the use of reason and are at least eight years old, excluding the mentally handicapped (cf. AF, pp. 113-116). In fact, the practice of the Catholic Church in conferring Baptism on infants is one of the main reasons for which the Mormons say that the Catholic Church apostatized in the first centuries, so that the sacraments celebrated by it are all invalid. B) If a believer baptized in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, after renouncing his or her faith or having been excommunicated, wants to return, he or she must be rebaptized (cf. AF, pp. 129-131). Even in regard to these last elements it is clear that the Baptism of Mormons cannot be considered valid; since it is not Christian Baptism, the minister cannot have the intention of doing what the Catholic does. IV. The Disposition of the Recipient. The person to be baptized, who already has the use of reason, has been instructed according to the very strict norms of the teaching and faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It must be maintained therefore that one cannot think that the Baptism received by that person is anything different from what he was taught. It does not seem possible that the person would have the same disposition that the Catholic Church requires for the Baptism of adults. Difference of views: Mormons hold that there is no real Trinity, no original sin, that Christ did not institute baptism Summing up, we can say: The Baptism of the Catholic Church and that of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints differ essentially, both for what concerns faith in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose name Baptism is conferred, and for what concerns the relationship to Christ who instituted it. As a result of all this, it is understood that the Catholic Church has to consider invalid, that is to say, cannot consider true Baptism, the rite given that name by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints. It is equally necessary to underline that the decision of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is a response to a particular question regarding the Baptism of Mormons and obviously does not indicate a judgment on those who are members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Furthermore, Catholics and Mormons often find themselves working together on a range of problems regarding the common good of the entire human race. It can be hoped therefore that through further studies, dialogue and good will, there can be progress in reciprocal understanding and mutual respect. |
| Taken from: L'Osservatore Romano Weekly Edition in English 1 August 2001, page 4 L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See. The Cathedral Foundation Provided Courtesy of:
|
Every friend I have who is a member of the LDS Church has shared with me the joy their faith brings them. They have been respectful when I have shared with them the teachings of my Church.
Would I have a problem voting for a candidate who was a member of the LDS Church? No, not even a small one.
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.