GOP ticket recalls past of Mormons, Catholics

Mitt Romney's choice of Paul Ryan as his vice presidential candidate makes 2012 the first time in American history that a major party has run a ticket without a Protestant on it. Romney is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Ryan is a Roman Catholic.

Have Mormons and Catholics always gotten along as well as the Republican running mates appear to?

No. The root of the conflict is doctrinal. The premise of the Book of Mormon is that the Bible is a corrupt and incomplete account of God's revelation — an implicit criticism of Catholic doctrine. The Book of Mormon also makes reference to an evil "church which is most abominable above all other churches," described more colorfully as "the mother of harlots." Although the Book of Mormon does not identify this evil institution as the Catholic Church, many Mormons have believed the two to be one and the same since the publication of the Book of Mormon in 1830.

Despite their doctrinal differences, Mormons and Catholics cohabited peacefully in Utah in the 19th century — but leaders of the two churches began passive-aggressively sniping at one another in the 20th century. In the late 1910s, Salt Lake City Catholic Bishop Joseph Sarsfield Glass commissioned murals in the Cathedral of the Madeleine that incorporated Bible passages that could easily be read as criticisms of Mormonism, including a line from St. Paul's letter to the Galatians that describes any alternate gospel as "anathema."

And in the 1930s and 1940s, a Catholic radio program and a Catholic pamphlet titled "A 'Foreign Mission' Close to Home!" convinced Mormon leaders — mistakenly — that Catholics were trying to convert Mormons to Catholicism.

Mormon mistrust of the Roman Catholic Church came to a head with the 1958 publication of Bruce McConkie's encyclopedia-like "Mormon Doctrine," which was not an official LDS publication, though McConkie was a low-ranking church leader. McConkie's entry for Catholicism simply referred readers to another entry called "Church of the Devil," which explicitly identified the Roman Catholic Church as being "most abominable above all other churches."

McConkie's book so upset the Catholic bishop of Salt Lake City that he visited the LDS church president in tears, which convinced the LDS leader to rein in anti-Catholic sentiment. Derogatory references to the Catholic Church were removed from later editions of "Mormon Doctrine," which is now out of print, and Mormon-Catholic relations in Utah became much friendlier in the 1960s and thereafter.

The most notable recent Mormon-Catholic clash came in 2001, when the Vatican began requiring Mormons who converted to Catholicism to be rebaptized — a move that implicitly called into question the Christian bona fides of the Mormon church. But the past decade has been a time of alliance between the churches, with Mormon and Catholic leaders coming together to fight gay marriage in Hawaii and California and to stand against perceived government encroachments on religious freedoms — stances that align with the Romney-Ryan platform.

SZ, I didn’t mean to insinuate anything. I was actually just referring to myself as regards to “posse” (not having one), not you in any way. If someone does stumble in that happens, particularly if they follow either of our postings. The rest, again wasn’t and isn’t directed at you. I just don’t want to cause rancor which I feel helps no one. That can be hard when discussing beliefs dearly held.

Otherwise you sound like a wonderful FReeper, neighbor and friend. I do appreciate and agree with your love of the Scouts, family and Jesus Christ.

As for your question, here’s how I see Acts 1. What’s the context? http://niv.scripturetext.com/acts/1.htm

1. Jesus is not speaking to the general public. He’s speaking to a very narrow and specific group - the Apostles.

2. All the Apostles were Galileans, except Judas, but Judas is out of the picture at this time.

3. Just prior to his ascension Christ says, “It is not for you to know the times or dates the Father has set by his own authority. 8But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.”

A. He states that he has a Father distinct from himself, that is he could have simply said “I” as in the “dates I have set by mine own authority”. What isn’t said is telling.

B. Heavenly Father has his own authority.

C. The Holy Spirit is also separate and brings additional power/authority.

D. Apostles are special witnesses of Jesus Christ.

At verse 9 we see the ascension:
9After he said this, he was taken up before their very eyes, and a cloud hid him from their sight.

From this we learn:

1. Christ was taken up bodily into heaven.

2. Heaven is a place.

A. It is away from earth, up as opposed to down toward its center.

B. Having a body in heaven isn’t unusual, but normal and consistent with both the concept of resurrection and The Resurrection itself.

3. The Apostles, all Galileans, witnessed it (a supernatural event). We don’t know anything else as to additional witnesses of this supernatural event. The scriptures are silent as to this.

4. At some point above the ground a cloud obscured the Apostles vision and they couldn’t see Jesus anymore.

A. We don’t know if the cloud was natural or supernatural.

B. We don’t know at what exact height the cloud obscured Jesus from the sight of the Apostles.

Now we get to your verse:

10They were looking intently up into the sky as he was going, when suddenly two men dressed in white stood beside them. 11“Men of Galilee,” they said, “why do you stand here looking into the sky? This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

This makes it sound as if just as the cloud obscured Jesus from their sight within moments two angels (messengers - this is the NIV version and they use “men”) addressed to the Apostles.

The “Men of Galilee” are the Apostles, themselves. Not the entire public body or any public body of Galileans. From Easton’s Bible Dictionary: This was also one of the names of reproach given to the early Christians. Julian the Apostate, as he is called, not only used the epithet himself when referring to Christ and his apostles, but he made it a law that no one should ever call the Christians by any other name.

http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0001400.html#T0001416

Acts 1:11 ...“why do you stand here looking into the sky?

This to me is like saying “get to work”, “be busy building the Kingdom”, “start witnessing and sharing the Gospel”.

It continues and concludes: “This same Jesus, who has been taken from you into heaven, will come back in the same way you have seen him go into heaven.”

“This same Jesus” - the Jesus you knew will return. He is currently in heaven (as distinct from anywhere else - earth, paradise, Hades, etc.). He will come back privately to special witnesses chosen by him.

That’s how I see that verse. It doesn’t contradict at all, but clarifies. For me, this kind of Biblical “wrongness” is one of interpretation.

I can give additional examples as we continue our discussion.

Sincerely,
TenTen

Otherwise you sound like a wonderful FReeper, neighbor and friend. I do appreciate and agree with your love of the Scouts, family and Jesus Christ.

Thanks and you as well.

But I still see a couple of problems in believing that God secretly introduced Christ to JS.

1st of all, it is stated numerous times in the Bible that no man hath seen the Father [Not to be confused with the LORD Jesus or anthropromorphisms].

[1 Tim. 6:15-16, "Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen."]

[John 6:46 Jesus says, "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father."]

Thus, in order to believe the transition from "personages" to God and Jesus in the numerous iterations/versions of the 1st Vision, one has to suspend belief that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

2nd, how did Joseph Smith see God and Jesus, without the Priesthood, [JS supposedly receives the priesthood much later] when he says:

"And without the ordinances thereof, and the authority of the priesthood, the power of godliness is not manifest unto men in the flesh;

"For without this no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live." -D&C 84:21-22

3rd, “This same Jesus” - the Jesus you knew will return. He is currently in heaven (as distinct from anywhere else - earth, paradise, Hades, etc.). He will come back privately to special witnesses chosen by him."

I don't see anywhere in the Bible where your last sentence is supported. The Holy Spirit/Ghost maybe, but not Jesus.

The Bible clearly states that Christ would return the same way He left, in full view. It gives no indication whatsoever that He or the Father would meet in private with anyone, especially in "the flesh" as JS came to relate this.

We also are left with the subsequent inconsistencies by other prophets when they state numerous times that "angels" visited JS, not Christ and God. JS himself described his visitors as “personages”, not Christ and God the Father.

Given all this, what we're being asked to do is suspend belief in the Bible as inerrant in order to lend credibility to JS's word. Difficult, if not impossible under the circumstances.

Regards,

Just to clarify, so far we’ve established that the Apostles were the men of Galilee and that there is no reason to believe that Christ’s ascension was more public than the eleven Apostles. Furthermore that the Apostles were specially chosen witnesses of Jesus Christ throughout the world. It says as much in the passage itself. http://niv.scripturetext.com/acts/1-1.htm Acts 1:1-11. So the Bible doesn’t refute an appearance by Jesus Christ to a specially chosen witness. Joseph Smith’s First Vision fits within the realm of possibility of Biblical truth.

When you say, “LORD Jesus or anthropromorphisms” which manifestations of the LORD Jesus occur in the Bible and which are anthropomorphic? Can you show me examples of what you mean from the OT and the NT? I’m just working to understand your definitions of things. It’s my main contention that the Bible is subject to exegesis and this leads to misinterpretations and false doctrines.

In the Bible Jesus says, “Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.”John 6:46 What does it mean to be “of God”? We get a clue in Matthew where Jesus also says, “Blessed are those who are pure in their hearts, for they shall see God.” [Aramaic in plain English]

http://biblos.com/matthew/5-8.htm

Note that the Greek word opsontai occurs nine times in the NT. Take a look at the Strong’s http://concordances.org/greek/3708.htm namely: I see, look upon, experience, perceive, discern, beware.

Clearly, Joseph Smith had this kind of experience, but who is “of God” or “pure in heart”? Why those who have their sins washed away. See this article on the First Vision:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Vision

NB: his sins were forgiven him and therefore he was “of God” and “pure in heart”.

What is most intriguing to me is that given the dominance of the Trinity Joseph Smith instead saw two distinct persons - the Father and the Son. That is in keeping with both the Bible and the early Church Fathers.

I find the preoccupation with Joseph Smith curious. It boils down to what one wants to believe. Can you imagine what was written about or said about Peter or Paul by the Jews, Romans, and pagans? The real debate and challenge of the LDS is their doctrine, not Joseph Smith. Disprove the doctrine and you disprove Joseph Smith, not the other way around.

My Dear Gojira,

It isn’t. http://aramaic-plain-english.scripturetext.com/matthew/5.htm It is Aramaic the language of the common Jew at that time and the language Jesus spoke.

Your reply is ideal, though, because it points out a real truth: we complain oft about indoctrination of the school system through college, but neglect to complain about the same in the seminary system. Your “was probably in Hebrew” is nonsense as they spoke Aramaic. NB: you specifically sate “was probably”. A phrase without certitude. Your translaion of even the Hebrew is pure exegesis. One cannot want something true, it has to actually be true.

Furthermore, let’s accept what you say as true. The only conclusion to be then drawn is that the Bible is not the inerrant book readable by any layman, but one subject to interpretation by those intitiates who have been trained up in its proper interpretation. The average Christian cannot hope to understand it without esoteric knowledge. Again if the pastorate were a union we’d be laughing, but the seminary guild doesn’t have a lock on knowledge or interpretation. Gutenberg started it, but sites like Biblos guarantee it. Anyone can go there and read all the translations/interpretations they want including the original Hebrew, Greek and now Aramaic in context.

Next, parsing a verse here and there in a patchwork attempt to build an argument is to ignore the whole. Do I really need to revisit the many errors Christians have made in mistinterpreting the Bible by removing a passage from the context? Every translation is an interpretation subject to individual bias. We recognize it when Catholics do it, but why not when the Reformers do it, unless you are a Catholic defending your church? In either case it is self serving.

You see there is one circumstance where Joseph Smith and accurately any human being can be “pure in heart” or “of God”: when their sins are forgiven. Smith claims just this as part of his First Vision experience.

We know this is possible because the Bible tells us as much:

Woman caught in adultery - http://bible.cc/john/8-11.htm

Paralytic man - http://bible.cc/matthew/9-2.htm

The problem with the Anti-Mormon movement is that their arguments are so easily refuted. Yet, they persist not because of good scholarship, logic or facts, but because of a fervent belief that Mormons cannot be Chrisitian. If you so badly want to believe in something you’ll ignore all the counter arguments, facts and logic to simply believe what you want to believe. This has been true since the dawn of history as the story of Cain and Able prove and modern misinterpretation of the Bible confirms.

All arguments against the LDS as Christians fail except one - the Trinity. If the Trinity is the true nature of God and Jesus is a part of the Trinity, then Mormonism is not true. That’s it and it is the only argument that holds water. LDS apologists have repeatedly and effectively refuted the most serious issues in Mormon theology.

But, the Trinity is also the weakest argument by far. The Bible itself undermines it as a basic doctrine. The Biblical evidence by a vast preponderance is against a Trinitarian God and toward a more complex relationship between God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Particularly, that they are different, distinct and for two out of three exist in a glorified, but recognizably human body. Finally, we know from the Bible that even if the Trinity were the true nature of God it is not a necessary precondition to salvation. Without salvation then Christianity is simply a decent philosophy.

Therefore the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is Christian, Q.E.D.

Your “was probably in Hebrew” is nonsense as they spoke Aramaic.

Were you standing there at the time 10? Now while you are able to cite an aramaic version, the oldest MS we have are all greek. So consider that before you try to 'educate' me about school indoctrination. BTW, the lds church does not accept this 'translation' as its official version - when the GA in lds central make it so, then we can evalate it further.

Yes, the text spoke out - thats exegesis - not eisegesis of mormonism. But that is not surprising considering the fact that you wasted a whole post and did not address the facts brought forth by the whole bible.

The only conclusion to be then drawn is that the Bible is not the inerrant book readable by any layman, but one subject to interpretation by those intitiates who have been trained up in its proper interpretation. The average Christian cannot hope to understand it without esoteric knowledge.

LOL, nothing is further from the truth 10. As you state - we have at our fingertips the Greek and Hebrew to which we can go back to, as well as other works by biblical scholars. Nothing esoteric about it.

Do I really need to revisit the many errors Christians have made in mistinterpreting the Bible by removing a passage from the context?

That would be more of a mormon problem 10.

We recognize it when Catholics do it, but why not when the Reformers do it, unless you are a Catholic defending your church? In either case it is self serving.

In either case you are staggering around in the dark.

Which version of the 'first vision' 10? there are multiple conflicting version out there. But since we are dealing with mormon mythology - the official version states nothing about his sins being forgiven. Smith has problems with even his own revelation found in D&C 84:22 which states, "For without this [authority of the priesthood] no man can see the face of God, even the Father, and live."

In your citations of the woman caught in adultery (we won't go into whether or not if it belongs there) and teh paralytic - nothing is said about their hearts being made pure - only that Jesus wouldn't condemn on the issue of adultery and his establishment of his authority to forgive sin.

The Bible itself undermines it as a basic doctrine. The Biblical evidence by a vast preponderance is against a Trinitarian God and toward a more complex relationship between God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost.

I just love the overconfidence of some of these mormon scholars. The biblical record is very clear - there is only one TRUE God - period. The bible is also very clear, the Father is God, Jesus is God and the Holy Spirit is God. What these profound mormon apologists have to do is either misdefine the Trinity and build a strawman that does not reflect true Christian theology on the matter - or they contort the definition of the word "God" to force it to mean a committee or a council. Again, these astounding mormon apologists ignore the strict monotheism presented in the bible and cherry pick their way around in an attempt to show otherwise. And you charge Christians of 'esoteric' knowledge 10 LOL.

. . . two out of three exist in a glorified, but recognizably human body.

LOL, even this goes against mormon teaching for to be a 'god' one must go through human testing first. Precarnate Jesus and the Holy Spirit have no bodies - thus violating the laws of eternal progression to attain that which heavenly father couldn't. And you insist the Trinity is weak?

Finally, we know from the Bible that even if the Trinity were the true nature of God it is not a necessary precondition to salvation.

Incorrect assumption again. The understanding of the Doctrine of the Trinity has everything to do with salvation. It reflects upon the total nature of God - and not some segment of greek mythology smith cobbled together.

Without salvation then Christianity is simply a decent philosophy.

Except that salvation as defined by mormonism is not salvation defined by Christianity. As much as lds want to put lipstick on it, it doesn't change the fact that they are not christian.

Christian and Mormon are a formal names as are Greek and Aramaic and in English these are capitalized always. If you choose to speak derisively there's no need to continue this conversation. I'm interested in a mature discussion and not the silly jibes. It undermines your authority.

First, imagine that all you had of the life and words of the people of Tsingtao were written in German. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsingtao#German_colonial_period_and_Japanese_occupation

Never would you surmise that the original words were spoken in anything, but the Chinese dialect. You're wrong to presuppose that Jesus spoke these words in Hebrew. But, again you make my point: the translation is from some language, most likely Aramaic, into Kione Greek. The Aramaic Bible is a good translation.

Szonian asked how could Jesus return privately to Joseph Smith. I've answered that accurately and conclusively. We have no reason to believe that Jesus departed publicly. The “Men of Galilee” are the eleven remaining Apostles. We have no idea whether the Apostles saw the Ascension with their natural eyes or supernaturally and we also know nothing of the altitude or the height above the ground when Jesus entered the cloud.

We do know that he took his now glorified body with him to Heaven. The Bible is clear on this and emphasizes the fact.

I'll address your additional relevant comments in a moment. But, understand that if you want to believe that the Bible precludes Christ's return to earth to a “special witness” in private then you won't. Despite the fact that the Bible demonstratively states that he left in the very same way.

As regarding the Bible's clear teachings that Christ both can and did forgive sins you deny his ability to do so for Joseph Smith. Is it possible? Yes. Is it probable? Yes, if we believe Joseph Smith and the Bible.

Smith's recitations of his First Vision are consistent and accurate. They are not in conflict. You make a choice to not believe them. The same is oft argued by both atheists and Muslims as regards inconsistencies in the Bible. It isn't a valuable argument, nor is it worth the time. It's been covered by LDS apologists quite ably.

That you and others have a limited understanding of the nature of God, godliness and eternity is understandable. You have no mortal experience with such. As a mental experiment imagine your personal immortality. What is that like? Is it a ray going off into eternity starting at your death?

That's not eternal is it? It has a starting point. LDS theology is outstanding on this point. You, SZ, me, everyone are eternal intelligences. We have no beginning and no end. Perhaps I'm wrong. If so, please tell me all you know about eternity. I'd like to better understand it.

Please also, explain the Trinity to me. It is possible that I do not understand it at all. If Jesus is God then God has a body. How can Jesus = Heavenly Father = Holy Ghost if the Holy Ghost is just a spirit. Is Heavenly Father just a spirit, too?

As you discuss the Trinity in your original post you devolve into blather. I'd like to understand your position better.

The acceptance of the Trinity is wholly unnecessary to salvation. You're just making it up or perhaps a professor or pastor taught you this. It isn't Biblical.

LDS doctrine is Christian. Trinitarians have no authority to define who or what is Christian, sorry. I'm interested in thoughtful discussions. Don't let this devolve into a series of opinions. We'll get nowhere.

I type as I type, occasionally failing to hold up the the standards of grammar folks. If that sticks in your craw that much - grow thicker skin.

The Aramaic Bible is a good translation.

The aramaic bible has no support 10. No manuscript support and btw, it was translated FROM Greek. Jews of the era were more than capable of Greek- the creation of the LXX proves that point. The Pershitta doesn't even show up until the 4th century. You want to reject lds doctrine regarding which version is acceptable - knock your self out. But the Aramaic TRANSLATION, is not considered to be an accurate version.

We have no reason to believe that Jesus departed publicly.

Based upon what 10? It is plain from Acts that there was a group there to physically observe the action. Luke states that they were in the vicinity of Bethany - a physical place.

We have no idea whether the Apostles saw the Ascension with their natural eyes or supernaturally and we also know nothing of the altitude or the height above the ground when Jesus entered the cloud.

Answered - “Why do you stand looking into the sky?” The greek for 'looking' is emblepō which is an intense, close, penetrating look - nothing spiritual here.

Second, the words used indicate the physical realm - The Greek word for “received up” is hupelaben. As A. T. Robertson points out, it is found in the “second aorist active indicative of hupelabano, literally here ‘took under him.’ He seemed to be supported by the cloud.” The sentence structure indicates that once Christ was in the atmospheric heaven He was received by clouds. Real physical, not spiritual.

Yes, if we believe Joseph Smith and the Bible.

The bible I believe, smith I don't believe.

Smith's recitations of his First Vision are consistent and accurate. They are not in conflict. You make a choice to not believe them.

Well, you haven't spent any time examining them have you. In the official version the personage told him that all other sects were wrong. Yet in his own handwriting in his journal of 1832 Smith states "by searching the scriptures I found that mankind did not come unto the Lord but that they had apostatized from the true and living faith and there was no society or denomination that built upon the gospel of Jesus Christ." Contradiction #1

As this illustrated, Smith couldn't keep his story straight. Other key elements changed - such as his age (he gives 14, 15 and 16), where (woods, bedroom, unknown), who appears to him — a spirit, an angel, two angels, Jesus, many angels, the Father and the Son. This is just a short list 10.

That is neither consistent or accurate

LDS theology is outstanding on this point. You, SZ, me, everyone are eternal intelligences. We have no beginning and no end.

Platonic concept foreign to the bible. One that can only be derived from smith - not scripture.

Is it a ray going off into eternity starting at your death?

That is the biblical understanding 10.

Your definition and understanding of 'body' is flawed, limited to a three dimensional physical object locked in time and space. Jesus' body clearly wasn't limited to time and space. Jesus had the capability to enter a locked room and materialize before his disciples. A mormon defined body of flesh and bones cannot do that.

Jesus himself state that Heavenly Father was spirit, the Spirit is spirit and Jesus now has a supernatural body that can materialize as he desires.

Simply stated: “The Trinity is three persons (personae) in one substance (substantia).”

The elements of the doctrine are taught in Scripture. One God
- The Father is God.
- The Son is God.
- The Holy Spirit is God.
- The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three persons (i.e., they are not each other, nor are they impersonal; they relate to one another personally).
What mormons commonly construe as separate beings is wrapped up in the last statement and understood in part within Christian theology as the economy of the Trinity.

You've just laid out a BIG opinion 10, but you seem not to recognize your opinions. Beginning with the Trinity, salvation, origin of sin, etc, central to Christianity mormons have tried to splice in polytheism, gnostic understandings, and reliance upon a false prophet. Mormonism is not Christian - it may try to use Christian expressions and words - but their underlying definitions are not Christian.

“First of all Mormons are Christians. Their religion satisfies the foundation of Christianity like any other.”

~ ~ ~

Mormons are not Christian. It’s a crazy sect. They deny
a required basic that can’t be denied. They reject the
Holy Trinity. Mormons deny Jesus is God, Our Lord always was and always will be. Mormon baptism is not valid, you must baptize in the name of the Trinity. And for Heaven’s
sake...think...Mormonism was begun in the 1820s, a big hint.

~ ~ ~

Father Doucette has a parish on Prince Edward Island, a place in the world where abortion is not allowed. Alleluia~!

(Below you will find the message of Our Lord and Redeemer Savior given to Father Melvin. Jesus spoke to him these words.)

July 18, 2012

“I call you all to be loyal to Me especially you My brother Melvin and all My brothers and sisters living in every part of the world. When I was on earth I was loyal to My Heavenly Father every day of My life on earth. I came to do His will. You too should have the same reason wanting to follow My will every day.

There are some people these days that are teaching falsehood but saying that it comes from Me. Only My church can teach the true Gospel, which I brought into the world. There will only be the one Gospel and this is what you are to follow with all your heart. St. Paul in his earlier days was a persecutor of My Church. He wanted to destroy the Church I had founded on the Apostles. At the end I woke him up and he was converted. He came to believe in Me and he followed the true Gospel all the years after that until his death as a martyr in Rome. Do not listen to such people as those who belong to New Age or THE CHURCH OF THE LATTER DAY SAINTS. THERE IS NO TRUTH IN WHAT THEY TEACH. I am your Brother who is calling you and who is ready to help you in this life and bring you home to heaven one day.”

http://www.ourladyofP.E.I.com/

“Now you are just LYING! Why resort to lying to make a point?

Mormons DO baptize in the name of the Trinity:
They say “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen”
http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=7ac30f9856c20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD";

~ ~ ~

from http://catholic.com/ search Mormon Baptism

Q: Why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?

A: The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons believe that God is only one of MANY gods who were ONCE MEN and that each of us in turn CAN BECOME what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

They also believe that Jesus came into existence AFTER the Father, and that the Father and the Son ARE NOT one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually POLYTHEISTIC and PAGAN rather than trinitarian.

For an in-depth look at this, see the books Inside Mormonism and When Mormons Call by Isaiah Bennett, available from Catholic Answers. For a shorter but equally incisive take, see Fr. Brian Harrison’s two-part series on Mormonism in the April and May-June 2003 issues of This Rock.

“So what that Mormonism was started in the 1820’s? Lutheranism was started in the late 1500’s. You could have made the same comment against them or the Baptists in the early 1700’s?

Heck, I think the Jews made a similar comment IN ROME in the 100-200’s when first confronting Christians.”

~ ~ ~

The 1820s vs 100 A.D., actually earlier, there you go.

“in Rome”....

Remember your words RC. The Orthodox didn’t come out of Rome. Non-Catholic Christianity didn’t either. Watch, very soon, God is going to show every person on the earth Roman Catholicism is the true faith. Read Revelation 6:15-17. The true faith is Roman Catholicism, the Remnant is Roman Catholic.

God doesn’t take away free will, it is whether we say “yes” to His revealing and there will be no doubt about it being divine, only God knows every moment of our lives.

God bless you,

Brigham Young said, “Now, remember from this time forth, and for ever, that Jesus Christ was not begotten by the Holy Ghost,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 51).

“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 115).

Joseph Fielding Smith said, “The birth of the Savior was a natural occurrence unattended with any degree of mysticism, and the Father God was the literal parent of Jesus in the flesh as well as in the spirit,” (Religious Truths Defined, p. 44)

Joseph Fielding Smith said, “They tell us the Book of Mormon states that Jesus was begotten of the Holy Ghost. I challenge that statement. The Book of Mormon teaches no such thing! (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 19).

Bruce McConkie, who was a member of the First Council of the Seventy stated, “Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers,” (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 547).

“And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events,...Christ is the Son of Man, meaning that his Father (the Eternal God!) is a Holy Man.” (Mormon Doctrine, by Bruce McConkie, p. 742).

Heber C. Kimball who was a member of the first presidency said, “In relation to the way in which I look upon the works of God and his creatures, I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my saviour Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing supernatural about it.” (Journal of Discourses, v. 8, p. 211).

Do you need more evidence?

Joseph Smith Orders the Destruction of the Nauvoo Expositor’s Presses

At 6:30 pm on June 10, 1844, the mayor and city council of Nauvoo ended their deliberations and decided that the the paper’s printing presses were a public nuisance and should be destroyed without delay. After the town council meeting dismissed, the results were taken to the Mormon prophet who gave the orders for the destruction of the Expositor’s property. Nearly an hour and a half later, the order would be carried out by the city marshal and all known copies of the Nauvoo Expositor would be destroyed.

In 1826 at Bainbridge, New York, Joseph Smith was
arrested, tried and convicted of the crime of “glass
looking,” an occult practice similar to crystal ball
gazing. This trial was the direct result of Smith’s
attempt to find buried treasure for Josiah Stowell, for a
fee, with the use of a seer stone.

Then there is taking of girls as “brides”, bigamy, adultery,
abortionist.....
Mrs. [Sarah Pratt].: “You hear often that Joseph had no polygamous offspring. The reason of this is very simple. Abortion was practiced on a large scale in Nauvoo. Dr. John C. Bennett, the evil genius of Joseph, brought this abomination into a scientific system. He showed to my husband and me the instruments with which he used to operate for Joseph. ‘ There was a house in Nauvoo, ‘right across the flat,’ about a mile and a-half from the town, a kind of hospital. They sent the women there, when they showed signs of celestial consequences. Abortion was practiced regularly in this house.”

LDS Prophet Joseph Smith taught that God was once a mortal man:

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. ...I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil.

It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, ...and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did; ...you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another,... from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings. and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power” (History of the Church, Vol. 6, Ch. 14, p. 305-6).

That’s not an eternal God.

LDS President Joseph F. Smith taught that God was born as a mortal on some other earth:

“I know that God is a being with body, parts and passions...Man was born of woman; Christ, the Savior, was born of woman; and God, the Father was born of woman” (Deseret News, Church News, Sept. 19, 1936, p. 2).

That’s not an eternal God.

LDS Apostle Melvin Ballard explained that God has a wife:

“For as we have a Father in heaven, so also we have a Mother there, a glorified, exalted, ennobled Mother” (As quoted in Achieving a Celestial Marriage, LDS Church manual, 1976, p. 129).

That’s not an eternal God.

If a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity,... they shall [have]...a continuation of the seeds [children] forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting,... Then shall they be gods, because they have all power,... and continuation of the lives,... [endless procreation of spirit children]” (Doctrine and Covenants Section 132:18-22)

Really?

God is eternal.

“Art thou not from ever-lasting, O Lord my God, mine Holy One?” Hab. 1:12

“For I am the Lord, I change not.” Mal. 3:6

“...from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” Psa. 90:2

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.” Num. 23:19

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man,...who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.” Rom. 1:22-25

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.