Catholic and Mormon

The Paragould Daily Press in Paragould, Arkansas recently published a short Guest Column written by a Mormon/Catholic man from Texas. Interestingly, James Marples wrote:

“I was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant. However, I didn’t ‘convert’ to Mormonism as such. However, I did receive an LDS church baptism as an adult. I made it clear to LDS elders that my second baptism would not negate or nullify my original Catholic baptism. The elders agreed. They even said it would merely ‘add to it.’ …I still attend both churches.”

Mormon leaders, up until the mid-twentieth century, did not mince words when it came to Catholicism (see Mormon-Catholic Tolerance for examples of LDS comments). Proclaiming that the devil was the foundation of the Catholic Church, that it was a satanic organization, that it was filled with errors and evil, etc., LDS leaders have demonstrated a profound lack of respect for the Catholic faith. So I find it odd that Mormon missionaries would agree to a Mormon convert holding on to his Catholic Church membership and Catholic baptism.

Technically speaking, the missionaries were being truthful when they said Mr. Marples’ LDS baptism would not negate or nullify his Catholic baptism. According to Mormonism, a Catholic baptism is wholly invalid anyway because someone holding the proper priesthood authority did not perform it. Therefore, there really was nothing to negate or nullify regarding Mr. Marples’ first baptism. But putting Mr. Marples’ Catholic baptism in the context of Mormon teachings, it seems that the Mormon elders have done a great disservice to the man.

LDS Apostle (later President) Spencer W. Kimball wrote,

“Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking the specific authorization” (The Miracle of Forgiveness, pg.55).

LDS Apostle Orson Pratt taught,

“…all other [non-LDS] churches are entirely destitute of all authority from God; and any person who receives Baptism or the Lord’s supper from their hands highly offend God, for he looks upon them as the most corrupt of all people …The only persons among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who have authority from Jesus Christ to administer any gospel ordinance are those called and authorized among the Latter-day Saints” (The Seer, 255).

Would Mr. Marples have consented to Mormon baptism if he had been informed that his Catholic baptism was “presumptuous and blasphemous”? Would he be comfortable attending both churches if he understood that his Catholic baptism “highly offend[s] God” and causes God to look at him as “the most corrupt of all people”?

Why do you suppose the LDS missionaries didn’t tell Mr. Marples that if he desires to be accepted by and pleasing to God (according to Mr. Marples’ new Mormon faith), he must leave the Catholic Church or risk being “hurled down to hell” on Judgment Day? Isn’t this something he should know?

About Sharon Lindbloom

Sharon surrendered her life to the Lord Jesus Christ in 1979. Deeply passionate about Truth, Sharon loves serving as a full-time volunteer research associate with Mormonism Research Ministry. Sharon and her husband live in Minnesota.
This entry was posted in Baptism, Mormon Missionaries. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to Catholic and Mormon

  1. Olsen Jim says:

    If the gentlemans account is accurate, I agree that the Elders could have been more forthright in explaining that there is only one true church, and that we expect a person to adhere to the church and none other.

    I can understand not wanting to offend a person over a religious ceremony from their infancy.

    By the way, who said a person will be “hurled down to hell” if they do not leave the Catholic church? That is certainly twisting things.

  2. falcon says:

    I think grindael has pretty much nailed the “why” about it when it comes to Mormons baptizing people. It’s anything to get them into the water and onto the rolls of the LDS Utah branch church. It’s a numbers game. Why do I keep bringing up the fact that two-thirds of those on the rolls of the Mormon church are inactive? Now why is it that all of these baptized people don’t darken the door of a Mormon church? Somebody help me here. I’m guessing that a lot of these people just don’t take to Mormonism after being baptized. The whole idea, however, is to keep information away from people, ease them into the culture and hopefully when and if they learn the truth about the doctrine, practices and history of Mormonism they are inculturated and will accept all of this stuff.
    No, it’s not surprising to me that a guy is holding dual citizenship in the Catholic and Mormon church simultaneously. My guess is that the guy has no clue about the Mormon teaching on the nature of god. It would not be all that unusual for him to think that Mormonism is just another branch of Christianity. Ignorance!

  3. Olsen Jim says:

    falcon,

    We also keep boogie-men in the closets of our chapels. Beware- you have been warned!

  4. falcon says:

    OJ
    Thanks for the confirmation. I’m very aware of the Mormon connection with the occult and the desire of the faithful Mormons to see the spirits of dead people who are having the dunking (for the dead) ritual performed for them. I’ve written at length about these accounts from Mormons themselves. See the book “Temple Manifestations” for further information. My all time favorite is the one where Willford Woodruff reported that he was visited by the signers of the Declaration of Independence demanding that they have the rituals done for them.
    I don’t know if the spirits of any other dead famous historical figures are showing up these days but I am aware that Adolf Hitler has been given the courtesy of becoming a Mormon in the afterlife after having had the sacred rituals performed for him. Andy Watson has posted on this in the past. Just think of it, Adolf Hitler a god. He will finally get a planet to rule after blowing his chance here on earth to do the same.
    So OJ, keep up the good work(s) you may be rewarded with a peek at a demon someday.

  5. jackg says:

    I think we need to understand a few things before we accuse the missionaries of not being totally forthright. First: a lot of them are very young and immature, and don’t really know that much about their religion and its history. Second: when we understand that for Mormons baptism is the first step in receiving life-saving ordinances, and that Mormons practice vicarious baptism for the dead, we can see how some of the thinking and reasoning goes like this: “Let’s just baptize him. He’ll get the rest of it later.” With the vicarious baptisms, the thinking goes like this: “Let’s baptize for this person in case he/she has received the gospel in spirit world.” This is all established in the Mormon mantra of “line upon line, precept upon precept.” The guy might not understand everything now, but since it’s important to baptize him, and he’s not averse to baptism, let’s just baptize him and let the rest come to him line upon line and precept upon precept. It’s the members’ job to teach the rest. I think that it can basically be said that the job of the missionaries is to baptize, and the job of the congregation is to teach them the rest. Generally, Mormon missionaries aren’t thinking in terms of a previous baptism being “presumptuous and blasphemous.” Their motives are not evil; however, they are often very naive. Obviously, my post is not to support the fallacious teachings of the Mormon Church, but to help us understand what goes on in the minds of young missionaries who truly believe in their hearts that they are saving the world with the truth of the restoration.

    Peace…

  6. Olsen Jim says:

    Jackg-

    You seem to have an uncanny ability to judge the thoughts and motives of others.

    Sorry- but couldn’t help it.

    (Actually, I could but didn’t- shame on me).

  7. falcon says:

    OJ,
    I have to step in here. What jackg is doing is called making an observation. A person takes their knowledge, experience, insight, and intuition and formulates an opinion. jackg has been a Mormon and has first hand knowledge of how the organization works. He also has a degree in Biblical Studies or some such related area from a Christian college. He is eminently qualified to write what he has written.
    I think your strategy is to try and bring jackg down because he is very effective in his posts. He’s also a very knowledgeable exMormon and as such is a threat to your personal testimony and belief system and that of the Mormon organization. Mormons really can’t handle the fact that there are exMormons out there that just don’t drink the Kool-Aid any more and have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
    I know the miracle God has done in jackg’s life. I rejoice in this and it is very much an encouragement to those of us who labor in this ministry to Mormons.

  8. Ralph says:

    Falcon,

    I have to step in here as well. In the past there were 2 LDS members posting on here from Evangelical backgrounds. One was Poocachamp, I can’t remember the other. Both gave comments about what they were taught and believed in while in the Evangelical society and both were told that they were incorrect in their portrayal of things. So why is what Olsen Jim doing any different to what you and the others on this site did to these 2 people? The fact is jackg is giving a biased opinion regardless of his background. The same was for Poocachamp and the other LDS person. The same is for all ex-whatevers, they have decided something and have biased themselves against what they left.

    As far as his degree in Biblical Studies goes (in a Trinitarian setting don’t forget) – well we had an LDS contributer a while ago who had a degree in Biblical languages and was studying his PhD in Oxford, England (note NOT an LDS college/university but a world wide prestigious university) and he wrote what the current consensus is about the Bible, but all non-LDS on here (with less credentials) told him he was wrong. So it looks like degrees and credentials are out the window here as well. So why are you going to back jackg – because he is in agreeance with your opinions of course. That too is showing a bias from your side. But I too am biased – which is why I am backing Olsen Jim.

  9. Olsen Jim asked: “By the way, who said a person will be “hurled down to hell” if they do not leave the Catholic church?”

    Sorry I didn’t include the quote and reference — this is found in the Mormon-Catholic Tolerance blog post linked to above.

    “The gates of hell have prevailed and will continue to prevail over the Catholic mother of harlots, and over all her Protestant daughters; but as for the apostolical Church of Christ, she rests secure in the mansion of eternal happiness, where she will remain until the apostate Catholic church, with all her popes and bishops, together with all her harlot daughters shall be hurled down to hell; then it shall be said,… he hath judged the great whore, which did corrupt the earth with her fornication…” (Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, No. 3, 44).

  10. Ralph commented

    he wrote what the current consensus is about the Bible, but all non-LDS on here (with less credentials) told him he was wrong

    If you’re referring to Daniel McLellan, we had a sustained discussion with him here. At first he equivocated on his personal position, but it transpired that he was promoting henotheism in the name of Mormonism.

    If you look back through his posts, you’ll find that he claimed that the Bible “had no center” (no coherent message about God), and what he claimed about the evolution of scripture was tantamount to saying that the monotheistic Jews of the first century (Jesus included) had apostized from the polytheistic and henotheistic traditions of the more ancient scriptures.

    Think on that; Jesus was the first Great Apostate. I hope to doubt that you would not tolerate that doctrine in your church.

    I don’t understand why McLellan would say such things. It seemed to me (and it still does) that his agenda was driven by dogma, despite his strenuous claims to the contrary.

    I understand what you’re saying about academic qualifications and that they are no guarantee of truthfulness. Consider that Richard Dawkins is a leading professor (at Oxford or Cambridge?), and he gets the God thing about as wrong as you can get it.

    I know, also, you’re taking a pop at Falcon. Fair enough. But I caution you not to turn to Daniel McLellan for support.

    For what its worth, jackg appears to have a good balance of life experience and theological training, without the presumptuous dogma that drives McLellan. The end result is that I’m prepared to listen to jackg, whilst McLellan can take a running jump, along with Professor Dawkins and all the other “fashionable enemies” of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Oh, in case you missed it, there’s a robust, compelling intellectual argument against the counter-orthodox guys, which I’d advise you to engage before casting your lot in with them.

  11. falcon says:

    Very good Martin.
    Conclusions can be drawn regarding a person’s credentials, insight, knowledge, understanding, application, and ability to analyze, synthesize and finally evaluate information. Ralph tries continually to do one of these “everyone is the same” type of arguments. He also uses it when trying to argue for the BoM by trying to find problems with the Bible.
    I’ve spent my life in and around academic types and know who has the horse power and credibility and who is a loose wire. Just look at what comes out of BYU when it comes to defending Mormonism. By-and-large the defense of the BoM and Mormonism by Mormon intellectual types is ah, let’s just say, lacks rigor.
    To paraphrase Dr. Walter Martin, “Mormons are able to think rationally in every area of their lives except when it comes to their religion.” That’s why we get all of these goofy off-the-wall explanations in defense of Mormonism.
    Emotions, including a deep desire to believe Mormonism, cloud reason and mask whatever native intelligence a Mormon might posses.

  12. falcon says:

    A lot of organizations chase numbers. It’s how they measure “success”. That is, the higher the numbers, the more successful the organization is. Mormons like to make the claim that they’re the fastest growing religion in, I don’t know, the U.S., North America, the western hemisphere, the world, possibly all the worlds where Mormon gods rule.
    So the pressure is on the missionary honchos to report big numbers. There’s also that philosophy in Mormonism to just get folks in the water and deal with the details later. So I’m thinking that this quantity over quality approach gets the numbers up but probably doesn’t do much for getting folks to be full blown temple Mormons plugging away on the god to be program.
    But it’s a very acceptable approach in Mormonism in that the philosophy of “progression” gives Mormons some cover for their conscience in dealing with people in a less than forthright manner regarding some significant and controversial Mormon doctrine.
    But to the numbers game, many religions look to numbers to measure success. There are denominations that like to get the report of how many came forward to confess faith in Christ or possibly “rededicate” their lives after backsliding (“Yup we had three people come forward to receive Jesus as their Savior and five who signed rededication cards.”)
    I’m always somewhat dubious regarding these numbers because it really doesn’t give much indication of how people come to Christ (did they repent or just “feel” something and come forward). Groups pick a lot of green fruit as the saying goes, often with the best of intentions but with a rather shallow view of what it means to repent, believe, be born again. I did a major change in my thinking as a result of my involvement in an evangelism program. I have all sorts of thoughts on the parable of the sower and the seed and Jesus’ words about the Father drawing people and Paul talking about the Holy Spirit causing the growth.

  13. jackg says:

    Wow, I am totally amazed by the Mormon response. You see, my post is in favor of the Mormon posters. I have given reasons why these boys shouldn’t be judged so harshly. Falcon, I thank you for stepping in for me. I really appreciate it, friend. Thanks to you as well, Martin. The reason I wrote what I wrote is because of my experience with and as a Mormon missionary. We were nothing but a bunch of dumb and naive creatures running around the Swedish countryside trying to baptize people. That is the program: baptize. I also understand that we are a broken humanity operating out of our brokenness, which the Mormon posters so readily reveal by what they write. In this instance, they have revealed that they have a bias against what I write because I know how they think. Again, this post was in favor of the Mormon camp with the charge not to judge such young and naive missionaries with intentionally being dishonest or sneaky. They aren’t evil.

    OJ,
    I do have discernment, and I know that what I write pricks at your heart. I listen very closely to the Holy Spirit when I post here. That’s why I spend occasional time away. I am human and will also operate out of my brokenness. When I sense that about myself, I stop what I’m doing for some self-examination. I look at my heart and ask if what I’m writing is congruent with my heart for the Mormon people. By nature, I become very passionate which results in not listening well to others, because I’m framing my argument. I have been duped by Mormonism. I see it as a false religion leading many good people as yourself to an eternity of hell. I don’t want you or any other Mormon to be duped by the lies of JS any longer. I have visited Mormon blog sites and have found that being nice and taking the postmodern attitude of “anything goes as long as it works for you” is not the biblical perspective regarding contending for the faith.

  14. jackg says:

    Once again, it comes down to whether one accepts the Bible as authoritative for their lives or not. When I was a Mormon, I had a low view of the Bible and, therefore, it was not as authoritative for my life as the other standard works of the LDS Church or the words of the “prophet.” This is how it is for all Mormons whether or not they ‘fess up to it. The 8th AOF is responsible for this faulty thinking and reasoning.

    So, once again, just remember that my initial response was favorable for the missionaries in this post. :-)

    Peace and Blessings…

  15. grindael says:

    I was also surprised at Jim’s comment. Having served a Mission, I saw many, many instances of ‘numbers’ baptisms, where the converts were taught little of Mormonism – or lied to DIRECTLY. I saw it. I was partnered with one, and we DID NOT GET ALONG. It was hell for me for the four months I was a companion with this guy and I was the junior… so my hands were tied for a long time. I finally appealed to the Mission President and was transferred to an ex-AP, (Assistant to the President) who was a wonderful, laid back, intelligent guy. I was very sad when his time was up and he went home. I thought Jack G’s comments were very sympathetic to the missionaries. The fault lies with those who were in authority over those missionaries… and their numbers games.

    But there were lots of Good, honest missionaries in the field, doing the best they could with what they had – the missionary lessons and a lot of patience in the face of being pressed for ‘numbers’.

  16. grindael says:

    Ralph wrote:

    “The fact is jackg is giving a biased opinion regardless of his background. The same was for Poocachamp and the other LDS person. The same is for all ex-whatevers, they have decided something and have biased themselves against what they left.”

    The same can be said for EVERYONE, Ralph – whether for or against. The question that should be pondered is this:

    What EXACTLY biased us ex-whatever’s against the Church? How did we put our Church bias aside and look at the EVIDENCE against the Church without the ‘blinders’ on? I think you know, so I’ll leave it at that.

  17. grindael says:

    Kimball wrote:

    “Presumptuous and blasphemous are they who purport to baptize, bless, marry, or perform other sacraments in the name of the Lord while in fact lacking the specific authorization”

    Wow. This guy never read his Church History, because Smith himself organized the Church without his ‘Melchizedek Priesthood’ which was first given to the Church in 1831. The angelic restorations are a lie, retrofitted into the D&C after the fact. Here is a record of Smith’s ordination to the High Priesthood in 1831:

    Date:October 25–26, 1831
    Location: Orange, Cuyahoga Co., Ohio, home of Sirenes Burnett
    Description:… a general Conference …
    [Moderator]:[Joseph Smith]
    Clerk Oliver Cowdery

    Present: Names of those ordained to the High Priesthood:

    Joseph Smith Jr.
    Oliver Cowdery

    John Whitmer
    Hyrum Smith
    Sidney Rigdon
    Samuel H. Smith
    Simeon Carter
    Reynolds Cahoon
    Martin Harris
    Joseph Smith Sr.
    Wheeler Baldwin
    John Smith (license taken) (not of the Prophet’s lineage)

    Lyman Wight, baptized by Cowdery in 1830 states in his Letterbook:

    “On the 4th of June 1831, a conference was held at Kirtland, represented by all the above named [named] branches; Joseph Smith our modern Prophet presided; and here I again saw the visible manifestations of the power of God as plain as could have been on the day of pentecost and here for the first time I saw the Melchisedec priesthood introduced into the church of Jesus Christ as anciently; whereunto I was ordained under the hands of Joseph Smith, and I then ordainded Joseph and Sidney and sixteen others such as he chose unto the same priesthood. The spirit of God was made manifest to the heeling of the sick, cast out devils, speaking in unknown tongues, discerning of spirits, and prophesying with mighty power, After the two days the conference broke up receiving the revelation which appointed 28 elders their Mission to Missouri”

  18. grindael says:

    That is why David Whitmer wrote:

    “You have changed the revelations from the way they were first given and as they are to-day in the Book of Commandments, to support the error of Brother Joseph in taking upon himself the office of Seer to the church. You have changed the revelations to support the error of high priests. You have changed the revelations to support the error of a President of the high priesthood, high counselors, etc. You have altered the revelations to support you in going beyond the plain teachings of Christ in the new covenant part of the Book of Mormon.”—An Address to All Believers in Christ, David Whitmer, 1887, p. 49

    Here is P. P. Pratt’s confirmation of the 1831 date:

    “On the sixth of June, 1831, a general conference was convened at Kirtland, consisting of all the Elders, far and near, who could be got together…Several were then selected by revelation, through President Smith, and ordained to the High Priesthood after the order of the Son of God, which is after the order of Melchizedek. This was the first occasion in which this priesthood HAD BEEN REVEALED and conferred upon the Elders in this dispensation, although the office of an Elder is the same in a certain degree, but not in the fullness. On this occasion I was ordained to this holy ordinance and calling by President Smith.”

    Another historian, Grant Palmer points out that:

    “by degrees, the accounts [of LDS priesthood restoration] became more detailed and more miraculous.… Details usually become blurred over time; in this case, they multiplied and sharpened.… The most plausible explanation is that they were retrofitted to an 1829-30 time period to give the impression that an impressive and unique authority had existed in the church from the beginning” (An Insider’s View,pp.228-230).

  19. grindael says:

    I post these FACTS for the benefit of our Mormon Lurkers, and pray that you will look at them without the ‘blinders’ on. Please read your Church History and look at all the FACTS. The First Vision – retrofitted, The Priesthood ordinations – retrofitted – all the claims that Smith makes have no basis in FACT.

    The BOM has no verifiable EVIDENCE to back it up. The Book of Abraham is an outright fabrication. Check out this quote by ‘Mother Smith’ and see if it makes any sense. This is by Charlotte Haven who was visiting Mormon relatives in Nauvoo in 1843:

    “ Madame Smith’s residence is a log house very near her son’s. She opened the door and received us cordially. She is a motherly kind of woman of about sixty years. She receives a little pittance by exhibiting The Mummies to strangers. When we asked to see them, she lit a candle and conducted us up a short, narrow stairway to a low, dark room under the roof. On one side were standing half a dozen mummies, to whom she introduced us, King Onitus and his royal household, — one she did not know.

    Then she took up what seemed to be a club wrapped in a dark cloth, and said “This is the leg of Pharaoh’s daughter, the one that saved Moses.” Repressing a smile, I looked from the mummies to the old lady. but could detect nothing but earnestness and sincerity on her countenance. Then she turned to a long table, set her candle-stick down, and opened a long roll of manuscript, saying it was “the writing of Abraham and Isaac, written in Hebrew and Sanscrit,” and she read seven minutes from it as if it were English. It sounded very much like passages from the Old Testament — and it might have been for anything we knew — but she said she read it through the inspiration of her son Joseph, in whom she seemed to have perfect confidence.”

    Wonder where Mother Smith got all those ideas from? The fantastic fantasies of her son Joseph.

  20. grindael says:

    Concerning the Priesthood & The Catholic Church, let’s read D&C 86, written by Smith in 1832:

    1 VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants, concerning the parable of the wheat and of the tares:
    2 Behold, verily I say, the field was the world, and the apostles were the sowers of the seed;
    3 And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the dchurch into the wilderness.
    4 But behold, in the last days, even now while the Lord is beginning to bring forth the word, and the blade is springing up and is yet tender—
    5 Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields;
    6 But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also.
    7 Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.
    8 Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers—
    9 For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God—
    10 Therefore your life and the priesthood have remained, and must needs remain through you and your lineage until the restoration of all things spoken by the mouths of all the holy prophets since the world began.
    11 Therefore, blessed are ye if ye continue in my goodness, a blight unto the Gentiles, and through this priesthood, a savior unto my people Israel. The Lord hath said it. Amen.

  21. grindael says:

    Smith believed he already HAD the Priesthood by direct lineage. This is why he ordained Lyman Wight, AND THEN HAD WIGHT ORDAIN himself & the others, to make it OFFICIAL in the Church. Here are some quotes by William Smith:

    … you know the understanding and the conversation we had on this subject when we met at Brother Taylors that I was Patriarch over the whole church. This is what I claim and must have…

    My proposition is my share of the kingdom and if you publish in the Neighbor and Times & Seasons the true state of the case in regard to my office as patriarch over the whole church, this will give me a right to visit all branches of the church and intrude on no mans rights … I want all men to understand that my fathers family are of the royal blood and promised seed and no man or set of men can take their crown or place in time or in eternity. (William Smith to Brigham Young, June 30, 1845, William Clayton journals (Smith), 171.

    “Everyone who has read the book of Doctrine and Covenants must be aware that priesthood authority is hereditary and descends from father to son, and therefore Joseph’s oldest son will take his place when he arrives at the age of maturity. The Twelve are, however, the president for the time being but when Joseph’s successor comes they take their former place.” (William Smith to Brother Little, Aug. 20, 1845, Journal History.)
    What happens next? All of a sudden, we have the APOSTLES claiming the same thing:

    “Brother Joseph actually saw [Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Oliver Cowdery, Newel K. Whitney, and others] in vision; he saw us in a day when we were all together. We have been separated by marriage and thrown apart; but he saw the day when we all came out of one stock, that was out of the aristocracy. Yes, we came directly down through the Prophets, and not only us, but lots of others—the whole Smith race.

  22. grindael says:

    I could remember probably twenty or thirty that Joseph mentioned came down through that channel. My father’s father and his brothers intermixed by marriage with the Smiths, and uncle John Smith was baptised in Nauvoo for upwards of twenty of my kindred. They mixed up in marriage, and in that way the names became changed; for they were the old veterans.

    “There is another thing that brother Joseph Smith said—viz., that we were positively heirs of the Priesthood; for he had seen us as such in his vision … Our fathers were heirs to that Priesthood, which was handed down from father to son, and we came through that lineage. (Heber C. Kimball, Salt Lake Bowery address, Sept. 6, 1857, JD 5:215–216.)

    And here is Brigham Young making his ‘claim’ to the Priesthood THROUGH LINEAGE:

    [February 16, 1847] “I am ENTITLED to the Keys of the Priesthood according to linage & Blood. So is Brother H. C. Kimball & many others [blank] Have taken Kingly power & grades of the Priesthood. This we would have taught in the Temple if time had permitted. Joseph Smith was ENTITLED to the Keys of the Priesthood according to Blood. Still He was the [132] fourth son. But when we get another Temple built then we will teach you concerning those things.”

    He had previously told William that it was too dangerous for ‘Young Joseph’ to take over the church in 1845:

    “Ses I to Brigham Young, ses I, ‘How is it a-going to be about the young Joseph, who should, in right, be the head of the church, as his father and family have stood the brunt [of] the storm?’ Ses he, ses Brigham Young, ‘If we go to preachin’ young Joseph now, these enemies on our borders will shoot the young prophet as they did his father;’ and so they set the head of the church aside, and ever since it ain’t bin gettin’ along at all!”

  23. grindael says:

    Seems Young changed his mind, then ‘invented’ his own ‘direct lineage’ story to counter the claims of the Smiths. Angelic ‘authority’ was never the precedent in the early Church [having been invented by Smith & Cowdery] but it was always DIRECT LINEAGE that was the source of ‘authority’. Modern Mormons have shifted the focus of this, but it does not change the facts that there are no documents before 1834 about these ‘angelic’ restorations, and the D&C HAD TO BE CHANGED to accommodate the fairytale of them.

  24. Ralph says:

    Grindael,

    You said “The same can be said for EVERYONE, Ralph – whether for or against.”

    Please reread what I said – you are agreeing with exactly what I state so why are you trying to make it look like I am wrong and you are right? I even said that I am biased.

    You also said “What EXACTLY biased us ex-whatever’s against the Church? How did we put our Church bias aside and look at the EVIDENCE against the Church without the ‘blinders’ on? I think you know, so I’ll leave it at that.”

    Can I ask you the same question in relation to the 2 ex-Evangelical now LDS members that have written on this site against the Evangelical religion? How did they put their biases aside and look at the evidence against the Ev church without the ‘blinders’ on? I know what it was – do you?

    And yes, I also know how you did it to leave the LDS church, but again my answer is from my bias and would be different to the answer you would give as your answer would support your bias.

  25. grindael says:

    Ralph,

    What Churches were they ‘biased’ about, and why did they leave? Did they stop believing the Bible? As you know, being Christian is believing in Jesus and the Bible. Nothing else is BINDING upon a Christian unless they allow it to be. You said:

    The fact is jackg is giving a biased opinion regardless of his background

    That is why I wrote: The same can be said for EVERYONE, Ralph – whether for or against. You were accusing Jackg of bias, I simply made the statement that of course everyone is biased. Bias comes from a belief about something. Some try to come off as unbiased, like maklelan, who said he was unbiased, but he was very transparent when it came down to it. My question is what exactly is the genesis of the bias? For those ev’s it could be anything, you were not specific. I can’t live with prophets that lie, teach false doctrine and are nowadays clueless to just about everything. You have some kind of bias that allows you to live with that. Fine by me.

  26. Mike R says:

    Grindael,

    You said,

    ” I can’t live with prophets that lie, teach
    false doctrine, and are nowadays clueless
    to just about everything.”

    That’s the all important issue. Can LDS prophets/
    apostles be trusted to rightly divide the Word of
    God?[2 Tim.2:15]. They’ve been teaching now for
    over a century, what does the record show? Do LDS
    merely dismiss their pronouncements on doctrine
    because they’re nice men? It must be very difficult to mentally break free from the thought
    of having to submit to the prophet in order to be
    accepted by God. To the ex-LDS on this blog: God
    bless you.

  27. falcon says:

    I love Ralph because he’s not in the class of the “arrogant” Mormon believer, but tilts more to being a “naive” Mormon believer. He really believes his child-like faith in Mormonism is really a virtue. Don’t write to me about what Jesus said about child-like faith please. There’s no virtue in naively following and giving one’s self over to a clever con job of a self-proclaimed false prophet.
    Our exMormon posters figured it out when it came to the false claims of Mormonism. What it takes is a change in thinking because all of the evidence that Mormonism is false is readily apparent. But if someone really wants to believe something (deep desire) they will find and loose thread to hold on to.
    Ralph can’t really defend Mormonism except to cast about for some nugget of information that he thinks he’s found regarding Christianity. Generally his application and understanding are misunderstood and massaged in order to make him think he’s really hit on some profundity.
    If he were Catholic, Ralph would be one of those people on EBay bidding on a muffin with what appears to be the image of the Virgin Mary.

  28. grindael says:

    I had to post this link. For the total cluelessness of a Modern Mormon Prophet (as per Steve Benson) read on:

    http://www.mormoncurtain.com/topic_spenderwkimball.html#pub_-1172807366

  29. falcon says:

    grindael,
    Thanks for posting the link. Steve Benson is one of my favorite writers. He used to write a lot for the Mormon Curtain. I think his articles can still be accessed there.
    And thanks to you grindael for sticking around here and writing. Some how you’ve stock piled a ton of Mormon information. I can see where the Mormon posters get frustrated with you. You bury them in documentation of the total falseness of Mormonism and about all they can do is spit and sputter and bear their testimony. It’s funny they haven’t accused you of being a drunken, meth addict, adulterating homosexual yet. We know this is what befalls people who leave the Mormon church, right?

  30. Mike R says:

    Falcon,

    I would agree with you that Ralph is not an
    arrogant person.He seems to be forthright in
    his statements on what he believes as a Mormon.
    He has testified on this blog that he hopes to
    be worshipped and adored as a Almighty God one
    day.One day creatures everywhere in his domain
    will sing to him similar adoration as in Rev.4:8.

    I appreciate Ralph. In his sincere honest desire
    to serve God, he has run into roadblocks placed
    in his path that detour him from coming all the
    way into God’s truth . These roadblocks have been
    created by Mormon prophets and apostles.

  31. jackg says:

    Grindael,

    Thanks for sharing the link. It was very informative. How sad that Mormons cling to such uninspired leaders.

    Blessings…

  32. jackg says:

    Falcon,

    In the mind of the faithful Mormon, all former members are operating without the gift of the Holy Ghost. We have been misguided and are now apostates. As usual, the inverse of what Mormons believe is really the truth.

    Peace…

  33. Enki says:

    Just curious what would a catholic official think of a person being baptized catholic? Wouldn’t THAT nullify the catholic ritual from the catholic perspective?

    I remember when someone got baptized LDS in high school, these young born again christians cried for hours over that.I told an LDS church member and at first she said ‘because of joy?’ and I said no, not exactly.

  34. jackg says:

    Enki,

    I was baptized a Catholic when I was a baby before my parents converted to Mormonism. I have talked to a couple of priests, and the answer is that I am still a Catholic in their eyes. I guess it’s once a Catholic, always a Catholic. It gives a new perspective to the “Catholics, come home” commercials for me. :-)

    I was baptized a Mormon when I was 9 (yeah, I was late). I finally received a legitimate baptism about 12 years ago or so by a believer who was qualified to perform the ceremony.

    Blessings…

Leave a Reply