Last week Mormon Times ran a guest blog by BYU professor Daniel Petersen titled “Mormon-Catholic tolerance goes back to Brigham Young years”. Dr. Petersen’s remarks were an informal response to Francis Cardinal George, the head of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who spoke at BYU on February 23rd (2010). Cardinal George reportedly wondered at how far Mormon-Catholic cordiality had come since the days of Brigham Young. In his blog, Dr. Petersen related stories of the friendliness and helpfulness early Mormon leaders provided the first Catholics who settle in Utah.
The noted Mormon-Catholic tolerance notwithstanding, Dr. Petersen acknowledged (but downplayed) “some harsh rhetoric over the years” that Mormons employed when discussing Catholics. Indeed, in 2009 the Salt Lake Tribune said the LDS Church’s no-cross protocol was instituted because of LDS President David O. McKay’s 1957 reaction against Catholicism.
What follows are a few more examples of the “harsh rhetoric over the years” to which Dr. Petersen alluded. One has to wonder: Does the LDS Church have greater respect for Catholicism today than indicated by these statements? Or has it just toned-down the rhetoric?
“…we would inform the Catholics, that the Church of Christ has not ceased to exist, neither has Peter ceased his existence, but both the Church and Peter are in heaven, far out of the reach of the gates of hell, and far out of the reach of the abominable soul-destroying impositions of popery. 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).
“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’ whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness” (Orson Pratt, The Seer, April 1854, 255).
“Christianity, as it is known in the world today, has fallen far short of the accomplishment of what might have been expected of it. It has failed in establishing those principles which Christ taught among the children of men. The great Catholic division of the Christian world, the Catholic church, is a national liability to any country. It wields a great power over the minds and the hearts of the children of men, but it is a power for evil rather than for good. It brings countless thousands regularly to confession; it rarely brings a single man to repentance and the abandonment of his sins” (Hyrum M. Smith, Conference Reports, October 1916, 42).
“At one time it grieved me to know that this Church was not numbered among Protestant churches. But now I realize that the Church of Christ is more than a protest against the errors and evils of Catholicism. This Church was established in the only way in which the Church of Christ can be established, by direct authority from God” (David O. McKay, Conference Reports, April 1927, 105).
“Catholicism – See Church of the Devil” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 108).
“It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this ‘church which is most abominable above all other churches’ in vision. He ‘saw the devil that he was the foundation of it’ and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (1 Ne. 13:1-10) He saw that this most abominable of all churches was founded after the day of Christ and his apostles; that it took away from the gospel of the lamb many covenants and many plain and precious parts; that it perverted the right ways of the Lord; that it deleted many teachings from the Bible; that this church was the ‘mother of harlots;’… (1 Ne. 13:24-42) Nephi beheld further that this church was the ‘mother of abominations,’ and ‘the whore of all the earth’…” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, 130).
This post was made by Mike Gendron on pro-gospel.org.
(February 23, 2010) Catholics and Latter-day Saints are important partners in the defense of religious freedom in the public square. That was the message His Eminence Francis Cardinal George, O.M.I. delivered today at Brigham Young University to thousands of students, faculty and others tuning in by satellite and on the Internet. Cardinal George is president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops and the first Chicago native to become archbishop of Chicago. He presides over 2.3 million Catholics in the Chicago Archdiocese.
Speaking of the partnership Catholics and Mormons have in defending religious freedom, Cardinal George acknowledged that “sometimes our common advocacy will make one of us the target of retribution by intolerant elements” but emphasized that such actions should not deter religions from making their voices heard. “In the coming years, interreligious coalitions formed to defend the rights of conscience for individuals and religious institutions could become a vital bulwark against the tide of forces that work in our government and society to reduce religion to a purely private reality.”
He also lauded the growing relationship between the Catholic Church and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and their joint efforts, such as providing aid to the poor and needy and combating pornography. “I’m personally grateful that after 180 years of living mostly apart from one another, Catholics and Latter-day Saints have begun to see one another as trustworthy partners in the defense of shared moral principles and in the promotion of the common good of our beloved country,” he said. Cardinal George said, “Our churches have different histories and systems of belief and practice, although we acknowledge a common reference point in the person and the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
The full report can be read at http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng/news-releases-stories/cardinal
Kens comment:
I didn’t know that the Catholic Church also believed that Jesus and Satan were brothers:) Things that make you go hummmm!
2 Corinthians 6:14-18 has got this subject nailed!
Lets see now it would have to read something like this,in 2 Corinthians 6:14-18, wouldn’t it?
14.Be ye therefore yoked together,un-believer to un-believer.For fellowship with un-belivers hath righteousness indeed,for communion with un-belivers is light in darkness.
15.For don’t all roads lead to Christ?,false gods,sincerity,being good,there are no infidels, by grace ye are saved, after all that you can do.
16.For don’t all temples,even those made with the hands of man contain god? Surley yea they say, yea all temples will god dwell in,for all un-belief is the same,wherefore we are one people,in religious,self righteous belief.
17.Therefore come toghether as one, regardless of your doctrines or beliefs,feel what is right to ye and touch the un-clean things,and I will accept it and you.
18.And I will be eternally with you, and ye shall spend eternity with me. Thus saith,
Satan.
LOL! nice one Ken!
As a former Catholic it makes me wonder if the archbishop knew what he was talking about. I was nodding my head “OK” when I was reading about religious freedom, but the statement about Jesus made my nod turn into a head-snap. That really pushes me over the edge. My guess is that the archbishop hasn’t a clue as to who Mormons think Jesus is. The fact that he went to BYU and spoke really bothers me.
I think it’s the lying and conniving of Mormons to hide their beliefs and lead people to think that they’re just another Christian denomination that really bugs me. It’s all the other claims too, like after the death of the apostles the Christian faith became corrupt or left the earth or whatever, that the writers of the Bible left Mormonism out (grand conspiracy) and the whole phony Nicea rap Mormons do makes it difficult for me to even think about joining with them in some attempt to stop pornography or promote religious freedom.
BTW, the Catholic church is the favorite candidate for Whore of Babylon by some religious groups.
I didn’t know we were hiding our beliefs. Maybe we need to call back our some 60 thousand Missionaries and forget about sharing our doctrine with others. Hmmm, amazing, at least I don’t try to convince others we are just another Christian Church, but I do try and persuade them the read the Book of Mormon and share with them the restored Gospel that once was taught.
On topic, I have no problem with the cross being used as a symbol of faith. I surely respect anyone who wares or displays the Cross. If the Cross was to be put on our chapels it would not offend me in the least, and it not being there does not affect me either. Catholics most likely display it more then most other religions do.
Janet.
Wow,
Two denominations that have differing doctrines and call each other heretics and false churches and condemn each other to hell but come together on public issues that go against the teachings of the Bible and God – how novel.
Gee I wonder what the founding fathers of the Protestant movements think about the way its swung back to the Roman Catholic’s side again; and the Roman Catholic ministers/cardinals that decried the Protestants in the past seeing the Roman Catholic church in bed with the Protestants again in a theological move, not political.
Oops sorry, we’re talking about the Roman Catholic church and the LDS church here. I got a little distracted with history. What’s wrong with accepting the differences but assisting each other when it comes to opposing incorrect political views like gay marriages, or no religious soliciting allowed, etc?
Janet,
Certain topics are left up to the investigator to bring up in missionary discussions. I went through those with someone who eventually choose to be baptized. As far as I recall plural marriage was something HE brought up, not the missionaries. Same with the priesthood and descendants of Cain. The discussion was so very different from general church meetings, and general discussion among members. Its purposely and consciously made to be more acceptable to initiates. I was always taken aback by how often new members were stunned by certain discussions in gospel doctrine classes, often a year or more after becoming a member. I didn’t understand this until I went through the missionary discussions with someone.
I don’t see the cross going up on LDS church buildings anytime soon. I don’t even know if its ever been on any LDS building. I don’t know if any leader has ever had a habit of wearing one.
You are also not addressing the general contempt various LDS leaders expressed at various times, for not only Catholics, but any other religion. The BOM has this same attitude, along with the Temple ritual, but that has been softened quite a bit in recent years.
The other part of the discussion concerns Catholics. Some do not have kind words concerning Mormons. The general comment is that LDS are too zealous,and emotionally imbalanced. Not to mention not real Christians. Its taken awhile, but I got to know a Catholic family quite well. In my opinion they are more thoughtful, respectful and tolerant of other peoples philosophy than Mormons. They have invited me to Church services, not out of wanting to convert me, but just that I have some type of service. I have gone to the infant baptism of a family member. I watched them being baptized with about a dozen other babies. I thought it was beautiful and touching. I wouldn’t have thought so twenty years ago, when I was active in the LDS faith.
Ralph,
“…incorrect political views like gay marriages, or no religious soliciting allowed, etc?”
The issue of gay marriage is doctrinal for both churches. The context of the issue isn’t exactly the same however. Whats wrong with it? I don’t know. Aren’t you an active LDS member? Have you experienced any undue Catholic influence from this alliance on this issue?
I don’t know much about the ‘no soliciting allowed’ thing. With that you could probably better partner with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unification Church members, and Hare Krishnas. I suppose one has a legal right to go knocking door to door, but its something I don’t care to have happen to me. I haven’t had Catholics knock on the door, and they aren’t known for that sort of thing.
Ralph, there’s nothing wrong with partnering with Mormons or Roman Catholics as people to stand against a common social problem or feed the homeless, etc. The problem is when religious leaders promote ecumenism and give non-Christians the impression that all “Christian” religions lead to the same place. A similar thing occurred late last year with the Manhattan Declaration in support of marriage being between a man and a woman. Catholics, Mormons, and Protestants all share that common belief, but as a Protestant I wouldn’t have signed onto it because it gave the impression that Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestants were all united under the title, “Christian” without defining what a Christian is. I have no doubt that true Christians exist in each of those denominations, and there are non-Christians playing charades in Protestant churches as well, but as denominations our theologies are distinct enough that we cannot call each other “Christian” and mean the same thing. The fact that a Roman Cardinal could say the Mormons and Catholics share the same gospel and Jesus is just not true, and as a leader in the Roman Church he should know better.
I really do wonder what planet our Mormon poster lives on. Mormon missionaries are not upfront about the nature of God, who Jesus is and the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit. Prospects are not told that Mormons hope to become gods and rule their own planetary systems with their goddess wives and procreate spirit children into eternity. People join the Mormon church without this knowledge because Mormons know they have to masquerade as a regular Christian denomination. Mormonism has as its foundation lies and deceit as exhibited by its founder Joseph Smith and it continues today. To say otherwise is to be totally out of the loop as to how missionaries are trained.
I wouldn’t join with the Mormon church on social issues because it gives them cover and legitimizes their religion. Mormons believe they have the true restored Christian church. Let them go it alone!
Some Orthodox Christian choose to keep their distance from Mormons and others are quiet content in having Mormon friends and going to social events with them. It really boils down to the individual tolerance of other religions. What a scary place the USA would be if we only allowed one religion, I wonder which one it would be out of all the denominations out there. Mormonism and its foundation, Faith, Repentance, Baptism and gift of the Holy Ghost is special, and many who hear of it for the first time connect with the simplicity and beauty of our Doctrine. As one progresses and learns even more of the Doctrine of eternal Progression it becomes even more clear how loving our Heavenly Farther is in wanting to share all that he has.
Janet
Constant Readers:
Thank you, Sharon. Once again Modern Mormonism tries to ‘mainstream’ itself by distancing itself from the words of it’s apostles and prophets…Lest anyone forget I’ve been called to remind you:
“What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world” – Smith, Teachings, p.270
“Christianity…is a perfect pack of nonsense…the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.” -Brigham Young, JOD:616
“Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the “whore of Babylon” whom the Lord denounces… as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act. If any penitent believer desires to obtain forgiveness of sins through baptism, let him beware of having any thing to do with the churches of apostate Christendom, lest he perish in the awful plagues and judgments, denounced against them. The only persons among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who have authority from Jesus Christ to administCer any gospel ordinance are those called and authorized among the Latter-day Saints. Before the restoration of the church of Christ to the earth in the year 1830, there have been no people on the earth for many generations possessing authority from God to minister gospel ordinances. We again repeat. Beware of the hypocritical false teachers and imposters of Babylon! – Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255
“…the Book of Mormon remains secure, unchanged and unchangeable, …But with the Bible it was not and is not so….it was once in the sole and exclusive care and custody of
an abominable organization (Christianity), founded by the devil himself, likened prophetically unto a great whore, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion. In these hands it ceased to be the book it once was.” – Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation, pp. 12, 13
“This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth…” -Ezra Taft Benson, Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165
Remember what John from the Bible said? I do:
18Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
19They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us.
20But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth
21 I do not write to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it and because no lie comes from the truth. 22Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son.23No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
24See that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.25And this is what he promised us—even eternal life.
26I am writing these things to you about those who are trying to lead you astray. 27As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you.
But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit—just as it has taught you, remain in him. –John, TRUE Apostle of Jesus Christ, Book of 1st John Chapter 2.(NIV, Biblegateway.com)
And then remember what Mormons REALLY teach:
“In bearing testimony of Jesus Christ, President Hinckley spoke of those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints ‘do not believe in the traditional Christ.’ ‘No, I don’t. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages.’ -Gordon B. Hinckley, LDS Church News, June 20, 1998, p.7
Because we are losing our effectiveness in getting our message out because of the tidal flow of information on the internet and other places:
Let’s help build pagan temples, let’s forget about the King Follet Discourse, let’s abandon polygamy, let’s whitewash our history & send out our Missionaries with that version. Let’s forget about our blatant racism, let’s gloss over our violent statements from the pulpit (like blood atonement). Let’s use the name of Jesus, even if it is not the Jesus of the Bible, to try and cuddle up and mainstream our message. Let’s forget we said WE have the only authority and all those who claim to worship the Jesus of the Bible do so with the full approval and at the instigation of Satan.
Let’s make up secret rituals that include blood oaths for violating Masonic covenants and make sure we put in a word about revenging the blood of our so-called prophets. Let’s forget our former prophet’s taught NOT to turn the other cheek, but KILL people to help them. Let’s say we don’t get involved in politics but do so from behind the scenes. Let’s say we have enough revelation so we don’t get caught up in obvious lies like our predecessors did. Let’s say we are prophets, but not prophecy. Let’s call those we laud as former prophets teachers of false doctrine but still revere them as prophets. It was all al long time ago, we are beyond all that now, we are different, we are like you, let us help you.
Lets just forget about the wonderful Christian Crusades. The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry “Deus Vult” (God wills it).
Janet
Janet,
And your POINT Is?
I’m not Catholic and don’t endorse the Crusades OR ANY OTHER VOILENCE perpetuated in the name of Jesus. Neither does the Bible endorse it. But some Christians have denounced the Crusades:
The Reconciliation Walk is an interdenominational grassroots movement of Western
Christians,…retracing the route of the First Crusade, apologizing to Muslims, Jews and Eastern Christians for the atrocities of the Crusades — foremost among them, the misuse of the name and message of Jesus.”
The organizers of the Reconciliation Walk are unaware of any previous, ” serious effort to repair this damage” caused by the crusades. The first crusaders set off for Jerusalem in 1096-APR, from the cathedral in Cologne. Exactly 900 years later, on Easter Sunday, about 150 walkers departed from the same cathedral. Their first stop was a Turkish Mosque and teaching center. Their leader explained that the walkers had come to apologize for the atrocities committed in the name of Christ during the Crusades. Then they read a letter of apology in German, Turkish and English. They were “greeted with loud, sustained applause.” The Imam responded: “When I heard the nature of your message, I was astonished and filled with hope. I thought to myself, ‘whoever had this idea must have had an epiphany, a visit from God himself.’ It is my wish that this project should become a very great success.”
Perhaps your Church can learn a lesson from the above, and issue official statements that they were WRONG to preach violence from the pulpit, include it in Temple Rituals & the fact that they had a heretical racist doctrine for years. But sadly, they change things in secret or with ‘new revelation’, never admitting that these things were NOT OF GOD, because that would show just how FALSE Mormonism is.
This is a reminder to Ralph and Janet that “the church” is not any religious organization.
The label “Mormon” can be applied to a wide range of people, from the baptized-at-8-and-that’s-where-it-ended to the tries-to-live-a-decent-life-and-is-moderately-active to receives-stipend-and-know-all-the-handshakes. These are all Mormons. Probably the only Mormons the Mormons would call not-Mormon are the fundamentalist Mormons.
In the same way, “Christian” is a label that gets lots of different use, from Catholic, to Mormon, to Protestant, etc.
However, not all “Christians” are really Christian, like liv4jc said above. The real “church of Christ” has been continuously called out and brought to Jesus, by the Holy Spirit, from their errant beliefs to His Truth, Way, and Life.
You can’t blame Jesus/true Christianity for the Crusades, for Catholicism, or for Mormonism. None of those are His fault, or His church body.
Mormons love the “equivalency argument”. That is try and find something in the history of the Christian church and claim an “equivalency”. Now all we need is the favorite Mormon tag line, “therefore the (Mormon) church is true”. So in-other-words, they can’t deal with the legitimate points made, so they go on the offensive and attack. It doesn’t prove their point but their tactic is to draw attention away from the lies and total out-to-lunch proclamation of their prophet/leaders past and present.
Now here, in these words, we see the Mormon smoke screen; “faith, repentance, baptism, gift of the holy ghost, simplicity and beauty, as one progresses and learns”. What a total farce! “Progress and learns” translated means “don’t tell these people the truth up front. Seduce them into the cult and once they’ve been been sufficiently indoctrinated then tell them who the god of Mormonism is.” I would think that a minimal requirement for entry into any religion is knowing who their god is. Not in Mormonism. Man these people lie to themselves and cloak it all in their perceived super spirituality of progression of knowledge, which incidentally comes right out of Free Masonry.
Who is the Mormon holy ghost. Do prospects think it’s the same Holy Ghost/Spirit that is revealed in the Bible? Are they told the difference? No! What pretty words; faith, repentance, baptism. Meant of course to blow a bunch of smoke around the prospect. “Simplicity and beauty”? How about convoluted and ugly? Joseph Smith taught that to reach the highest level of the Celestial kingdom a man has to have plural wives. Mormons teach that Joseph Smith has to punch their ticket to gain their reward. Yea, real simple and beautiful?
People aren’t living in the 1800s anymore, we do have the internet and information is readily available to all. Interesting that with all this ready data, more and more people are still eager to join even with all the good/bad you can find. Methinks that those who want to know the truth will acknowledge it comes from the Spirt of God, or the Holy Ghost. Ignorance is not an excuse anymore.
Janet.
I’d like to point out that there’s a major difference between the idea of religious groups banding together to address a common social concern and having friends that belong to that group. There are religious groups that I wouldn’t care to be linked to while at the same time I may have friends that are part of that group. Mormonism, with it’s practice of not being candid about their basic doctrines and history (for the purpose of recruitment) would not be an organization that I’d want to link-up with. I may, at the same time, have individual friends in the Mormon church that I’d partner with as long as the religion wasn’t part of the advertised effort. I’m just not going to give tacit approval to an organization that I see as being fundamentally dishonest.
I was wondering, speaking of lying, what type of woman was the easiest for Joseph Smith to seduce? We know that not all the women he hit on, succumbed to his amorous proposals. I would guess the women had to either be easily intimidated or flattered, or had some sort of romantic notions in their heads that kept them from using any type of sound judgment.
BTW, I had a typo in my last post. “Moron” should have read “Mormon”.
More and More people?
Go here http://www.mormoninformation.com/stats.htm to see the statistics on how Mormonism is really “growing”.
I stand by my statement that the flow of information is actually HURTING the Mormon Church.
That is why they have to hire PR firms to ‘soften’ the message, and their prophets have to go on national TV and conveniently ‘forget’ what Smith taught about his god, and gloss over their racist doctrines and that they ‘have enough’ revelation and don’t really need much anymore.
Ignorance is everything to the Mormon Hierarchy, consider the watered-down Church History and the ‘don’t rely on scientific facts’ in relation to the BOM. Just rely on the ‘placebo effect’ of the burning of the bosom and follow the leaders…and you will be ok. (Make sure you pay that tithing though)!
I’m sure ‘follow the leader’ (of men) is what some thought when they followed Koresh to Waco and Jim Jones to Guyana.
Just read the Bible and follow Jesus. Simple, easy, and HE doesn’t hide anything or lie. Remember what John said, with Jesus you do not need anyone to teach you, HE will do it all.
Go here to see the difference between internet Mormonism and Chapel Mormonism : http://www.mormoninformation.com/imvscm.htm
Wait a minute. The Holy Ghost and the Holy Spirit are not the same thing in Mormonism. The Holy Ghost is a Personage whereby the Holy Spirit is a “force” like electricity. I must remind our Mormon poster that two thirds of those on the rolls of the Mormon church are inactive. Somethings not right in this perfect little world. The SLC LDS has a major leakage problem but they’ve adopted this magical thinking that everything is wonderful and beautiful. Mormonism is a real Alice in Wonderland world. The rest of us see the distortion with reality, but the magical thinking Mormons don’t.
More and more people are eager to join? Please, get in the real world. The truth about Mormonism will never be revealed by those promoting the religion. The fact of the matter is that people have to go find it themselves. I passed Jim Spencer’s book “Beyond Mormonism” on to someone going through the Mormon Missionary lessons. She dropped the lessons once the light went on in her head. She saw in Jim’s book the seduction and deceit that takes place during the Mormon indoctrination program.
I think the archbishop needs to haul out a copy of the Catholic Baltimore Catechism. One of the copies I have here is written at about a third grade level and is meant for elementary schools students. Chapter 3 which starts on page 19 is the “Unity and Trinity of God”. The first question, “Is there only one God?” Answer, “Yes there is only one God.” Question two: “How many Persons are there in God?” Answer, “In God there are three Divine Persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” Question three: “What do we mean by the Blessed Trinity?” Answer: “By the Blessed Trinity we mean one and the same God in three Divine Persons.”
Obviously the archbishop needs to go back to this elementary school catechism and draw a distinction between the Mormon god and the God that is revealed in the Bible. I don’t think he’d be so eager to associate himself with the Mormon pagans.
I don’t know why, but having posted out here on MC for so long I can sense things, especially Mormon responses. Be ready for the Mormon persecution card to get played here at any time. It’s a favorite right up there with the “I know” personal testimony.
Why would Christians resist linking themselves with the Mormon church on some social issue of common concern? We could make a long list here but primarily why would we want to give the Mormon church cover? Most everyday folks, it is true, don’t know the first thing about Mormonism. They see the pictures of happy smiling Mormon faces that appear in ads in popular magazines and think that Mormonism is no different than their Christian denomination. Mormons certainly aren’t going to tell people the truth of their doctrine, history and shady founding prophet. Mormon missionaries are taught that when someone brings up the “other gospel” verses and the angel from heaven preaching it (Galatians) they are simple to say, “It’s not another gospel.” Now that would imply that it’s the same as the Christian gospel, right? That’s what the average person would think.
Our buddy Keven that used to post here was a Mormon convert and was in the program for a few years. I asked him if, when he joined, did he think the Mormon church was the same as a Christian denomination? He said that he didn’t know, when he joined, of the vast differences in doctrine especially that dealing with the nature of God. Andy Watson has an ex-Mormon buddy who reports that he wasn’t told of the difference either until it was time for him to go through the temple. The bishop came over to his house and laid that item on him.
Mormons hold this back because they know people wouldn’t sign on. They are counting on softening the person up, seducing them emotionally, ingratiating themselves to the person so it’s difficult to back out. Let’s face it, in America if people are given the whole story, aren’t jumping into the Mormon baptismal tank.
That’s a good distinction to make, Falcon. As evangelists, there is nothing more we’d like than for someone to look into every aspect of the Bible, and thoroughly, patiently, prayerfully study it from every angle. Going back and looking at the history of it is something we HOPE they’ll do. We can’t wait for them to have MORE information — the more, the better. Try it, test it, search it, figure it out! And then, sign up for our religion? NO WAY! Just come to JESUS! He’ll direct you personally after that!
What’s interesting is when an evangelist gives an invitation, it is to receive the gift of eternal life that God is offering through faith in Jesus Christ. The message is that men are separated from God due to sin. No matter what we do we can’t bridge the gap between God’s holiness and our sinful condition. So the invitation is to recognize our sinful condition, repent, and receive-through faith in Jesus-the gift of eternal life. Repentance of course means to turn away from sin and walk in a newness of life in Christ. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
Mormonism on the other hand has a whole lot of doing that a convert must be involved in in order to achieve the brass ring which is deification to godhood. Converts don’t know this of course because if they knew and understood up front what the Mormon history, doctrine and expectations are, they wouldn’t join.
Joining Mormonism is not made by means of an informed decision. The whole idea is to get people feeling something and then convincing them that the feeling is a sign from God. Mormonism is a real bait and switch con. Thankfully most people who join either leave or go inactive. Unfortunately many get turned off to religion in general and lose their way spiritually.
Ralph is right in one sense – protestants and Catholics have criticized one another in harsh terms. But as I have said before, the “Reformers” were just that – reformers who sought to get rid of error in the Church. On the other hand, Mormons claim the Christian Church is essentially wrong at the most basic core – the nature of God and man. Big difference. I think the Roman Church did get rid of a lot of Biblical DOCTRINE, but the Bible remained untouched – that’s how the Holy Spirit enlightened the understanding of the Reformers to the gospel – salvation by grace through faith. Mormon statements that the Bible has had many precious things removed is just not supported by the facts. The Roman Church neglected and subverted Biblical truth, but the Bible remained untouched – as evidenced by the fact that it undermines many of the “works”oriented doctrines they proclaimed.
I have a friend who called me saying someone they know just joined the Mormon Church – what should they do? I said – tell them the gospel, explain the sacrificial system and how Jesus became our sacrifice and redeemed us. Proclaim Christ to them – salvation by grace. That’s the best antidote to man centered or works centered religion. I am going to give them some of the info I have learned here on Mormon Coffee, but Jesus is the redeemer – proclaim Christ crucified.
Grindael
Interesting idea of Chapel Mormons and Internet Mormons. Maybe they will have temple services available online at some point, complete with instructions for washings, and anointings.
Isn’t there several internet christian fellowships, or online churches etc? Maybe there are some differences between christians who prefer online services or physical services also.
The Sikh religion seems to be very adaptable to radio and internet. That seems curious now that I think about it. There is a basic sikh baptism, but everything else seems to be a recitation of prayers or readings from their sacred text. There are the 5k’s but anyone could assemble those in any location. I don’t know the specifics as to what would be officially recognized. Thats kind of off topic. At least the internet hasn’t appeared to be a major factor in causing a split in this religion.
However, the internet does seem to be causing a split among the LDS body, or at least by the way of what you hear in person or online.
Yes, Janet, the whole “look at the crusades” argument is weak. It is not a good attempt at distracting or making excuses for your Mormon leadership.
See the thing that LDS on here don’t seem to understand is Christianity isn’t a religion. It isn’t a denomination. It is a relationship with THE one and ONLY Creator.
Christ’s church isn’t some organization of meeting hall’s built around the world with middle men saying “hey, in order to receive any ordinances to propel you into exaltation, you gotta go through an interview in which a MAN deems you worthy or not.”
Christians give their heart and soul over to God and trust Him with them DIRECTLY. He changes us from the inside out.
In Christianity the whole world could be destroyed leaving only you, and you can still see the beauty in God’s creation to know to seek Him and He will rescue you.
In Mormonism if all the temples were destroyed and everyone killed off and you haven’t had the chance to get endowments, get married, abandon sin completely, then you are “on your own”.
mobaby wrote
If you seriously engage reformation church history, you’ll find a marked difference with the reformation in its early stages and more modern “restoration” movements (such as Mormonism).
The difference is that the early reformers (especially Luther, and Jan Hus before him) attempted to reform the Roman church from within. There were even some attempts within the Roman church to accommodate the proposed reforms (the Colloquy of Marburg? – Its late and I’ll have to refer to my notes). However, the enthronement of a new Pope committed the Roman church to an anti-reformist position, and Luther and his colleagues had to walk out. Later reformers like Calvin, Zwingli and Bucher came onto the scene after the divorce. The political re-alignment of Europe into more clearly defined nation states capitalized on and fostered religious differences.
Contrast the “restoration” movements, which made no attempt to engage the established church. Joseph Smith, at the age of 14 (or was it 17?), decided that ALL the established Christian denominations were an abomination, so he set up his own.
I’ve heard a saying that has stuck with me; if someone doesn’t love the church, don’t listen to him.
What is clearly meant is love for the established church. Now, I don’t need to be convinced that the established church has its faults (and sometimes sins inexcusably), but it is still the Bride of Christ. If I am to honor Christ’s love for His Church, then I am to love His Bride (get it?). I don’t know the exact composition of this Church, but I dare say there will be some Protestants, some Catholics, some Orthodox hopefully some LDS, and most probably some mobs we haven’t even heard of.
…ctd…
…ctd…
My point with the early reformers is that they LOVED the (Roman) Church, which is evident from the strenuous efforts they put into their attempts at reforming it. It was only when the Roman Church refused to be reformed, and raised the stakes with burnings and excommunications, that the divorce became inevitable.
I don’t see any love lost between the “restorationists” and the established church.
Finally, was Jesus a reformer? I would argue that He was, on the basis that He tried to engage and reform second-temple Judaism.
His execution at the hands of the anti-reformists might have been inevitable, but it is clear from the Gospels how much He loved them; as He calls out to them
(Matt 23:37 and Luke 13:34).
As Christians, I would say one reason we don’t want to be linked to Mormonism even if it’s for a social cause/issue with which we have agreement, is the Christians views of who Jesus is and what He did for us. In Christianity Jesus is everything. He is the source of our spiritual life and our redemption.
In Mormonism, Jesus is helpful, but not all that necessary to achieve the Mormon goal of personal deification. In Mormonism there are two levels of salvation. One being a universal salvation offered to everyone. The second level is the deification to godhood program run (Mormons claim) exclusively through the Mormon church. Now the Mormon is in charge of this particular part of the dual-salvation program based on “doing all they can do”. In the Mormon narrative, it is possible for someone to achieve deification on their own although there is a provision for the Mormon god to sign-off on the program and supply what’s needed if the Mormon comes up short.
As-an-aside, I can never figure out why Mormons just don’t save themselves a lot of time and trouble and do the minimum and let the Mormon god pick-up the rest of the tab. Kind of like having a friend pay the bill in a restaurant and you just leaving the tip. Or is it the Mormon god who leaves the tip?
None-the-less, I’m not real interested in joining forces with a religion that blasphemes God by recognizing a notion that there are perhaps millions or billions of gods in the universe all progressing and a religion that seeks to make themselves into gods. I just ask myself one question; “Would God want me doing this?” The answer in an emphatic “no”!
Grindael said:
“The flow of information is actually HURTING the Mormon Church.”
Couldn’t Radical Jiihadist Muslims say the same thing about America? Don’t they use the internet to disseminate their venomous conspiracy theories and anti-American rhetoric in gaining recruits?
You assume that the information that is “flowing” is correct information. That is a big assumption.
But from your perspective, any information that criticizes the church is correct. I think the terrorist folk feel the same way about propoganda intended to damage America.
Some here love to cite statistics about church inactivity, etc. I wouldnt’ set your hopes upon the church failing or crumbling. Faithfulness among followers is a normal phenomenon in any organization, including Christ’s church, hence His parable of the sower of seed.
The biggest challenges to the church are those things that threaten a persons commitment to Christ.
Grindaels statement that “Ignorance is everything to the Mormon Hierarchy” could be plugged into almost any conspiracy theory statement about any big organization. It is pure rhetoric. There is a consistent campaign in the church to encourage members to increase their knowledge and build testimonies. It is just that Grindael considers anybody that disagrees with him ignorant.
The official manuals of instruction for Priesthood and Relief Society lessons, titled Teachings of Presidents of the Church, are little more than farces from a historical standpoint.
The following is from the introduction to the first manual, subtitled “Brigham Young,” © 1997 by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, page v., last paragraph, beginning with the third sentence. Comments, in italics, are mine:
“Each statement has been referenced, and the original spelling and punctuation has been preserved;”
So the words themselves have been changed? Why? What’s there to hide?
“however, the sources cited will not be readily available to most members.”
Why not? Wasn’t Brigham Young a prophet of God? If so, shouldn’t his words be readily available to all the world, and all the more especially the church’s own membership? Once more, what’s there to hide?
“These original sources are not necessary to have in order to effectively study or teach from this book. Members need not purchase additional references and commentaries to study or teach these chapters. The text provided in this book, accompanied by the scriptures, is sufficient for instruction.”
What if I want to purchase these additional references? Why bother telling me I don’t need to? Why all the fuss? Are there going to be contradictions or misquotes if I do? Again, what’s there to hide?
And the following is from the introductions to both the second and third manuals, subtitled “Joseph F. Smith” and “Harold B. Lee,” respectively, © 1998 and 2000 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc., page vii (in both). The comment in italics is mine:
“It is not necessary or recommended that members purchase additional commentaries or reference texts to support the material in the text.”
Why is it not recommended?
http://www.mormoninformation.com/bymanual.htm
Jim said, talking to grindael:
“But from your perspective, any information that criticizes the church is correct”
Jim,
Grindael constantly and consistently presents QUOTES from MORMON SOURCES
this is hardly just him agreeing with “any information that criticizes the church”
it’s not like he’s out there buying up the tabloids and reporting back that he thinks all Mormons have horns or something.
setfree,
I understand that we all like to perceive ourselves as important, but I was not talking about Grindael’s posts here. I was talking about the “information” on the internet he alluded to that is supposedly causing so much difficulty for the church.
But since you bring it up, I do stand by my point that critics of the church will usually accept any information from any source of any quality that makes the church look bad. That includes almost all of the critics here.
That is the religious “bloodlust” I spoke of on another thread. The rabid rush to hurt the church so lowers the standards of scholarship of the internet critic, if it can be called that, that they discredit themselves by almost any reasonable standard.
And Grindael may use church sources in many of his posts, but his assumptions and conclusions are flawed and ridiculously biased.
Jim,
You obviously have your head so buried in the sand you wouldn’t be able to see a 10 ton truck coming straight at you. That’s ok for you, but it is NOT for me. Your tactics on these threads has been: present your mopologist evidence, and then when backed into a corner, attack the messenger. You don’t bother to understand WHY those that leave the Church do so, (as I’ve explained in detail on the last thread) you just call me biased and say I “assume”. I haven’t assumed anything, I’ve drawn logical conclusions from the evidence presented. I just don’t have on the filtered goggles you and the paid mopologists so obviously wear, I took mine off a long time ago.
Have you heard of the New Order Mormons? Probably not. These are Mormons who have jettisoned most of the Doctrinal teachings of the Church but have chosen to stay in it. According to their web-site:
Why? Why would they stay? Because they have no where else to go, (they are trapped) and do not want to lose family and social ties. But even these Mormons have just enough common sense to know that something is seriously wrong with the Doctrine of the Church. And more and more Mormons are jumping on this bandwagon, or jumping off the wagon altogether.
I spent the entire day yesterday reading Fair material. I do it often, and often find it interesting, if misguided. For example, to justify the Smith in relation to his 1826 (pre-trial) and the fact that he used a peep-stone and believed in magic, they go to great lengths to proclaim that ‘hey, he was just
living in his time, and that is what damn near everyone believed back then.’ But the FIRST thing they do is try to discredit the find, (and Walters) because Walters removed the documents from where he originally found them.
Bottom line was, Brodie and the Tanners were right, Smith was found guilty and to keep from being tried in a court for the crime, & he ‘took leg bail’, as he did in Kirtland & Far West. He got cornered in Nauvoo, and wanted the Legion to come and rescue him, but it didn’t happen, and he died in a gunfight, just like David Koresh did years later. But Mopologist’s try to filter the material, to make it more palatable, searching desperately for any loophole that will disqualify smith from the evidence.
They call us Anti’s, and give examples of sites like where the teachings of Amasa Lyman are proclaimed as the mainstream teachings of the Church, to show that ALL who disagree with the Church can’t be trusted. (Sure this happens, but not all those who don’t believe in the Church purposely deceive as in that example – and it is not typical no matter what the mopologists say.)
When they come up with defenses for “the faith”, mopologists and their sympathizers automatically assume that the scenario they’ve concocted, however unlikely, is “good enough” to provide Mormonism with an “out,” at which point all criticism is dismissed.
For example, when it comes to the Book of Abraham controversy, the characters written down the left margins of three of the four manuscripts prove that the recovered papyri were indeed the source of the Book of Abraham and not any “missing black and red scroll.” Yet some mopologists say that the scribes went “maverick” and wrote the characters in the margins on their own without any input from Joseph. The fact is that Joseph was broken of his habit of loaning out scriptural manuscripts way back in 1828. The idea that he would let scribes “have their way” with such important documents
may be an extremely remote possibility, but is not a probability by any means.
So who are the ones stretching the truth here and making “assumptions and conclusions are obviously flawed and ridiculously biased?” Not me. Mopologists routinely accuse critics of “telling us what we believe” and say, “We are the authorities on what we believe, not the critics.” This line of thinking is more common among the less-educated mopologists. I am very aware of what I was taught in the Mormon Church, and it’s impact and applications.
Ignorance of their own history has rendered most Mormons unable to recognize that their religion has changed and evolved over the years. Such mopologists assume that the church they have come to know–three hours of church on Sunday, Boy Scout campouts, home teaching, Relief Society activity night, etc.–is the way Mormonism always was. Unfortunately, Mormonism in its early years had far more in common with the Branch Davidian Compound.
I have heard this catch-phrase put to use many times when those who post here need to deny or discount embarrassing statements from past prophets ( which I quote frequently), especially Brigham Young. They fall into the trap of interpreting all previous prophetic pronouncements through the goggles of modern-day Mormonism as opposed to going by the plain-English meaning.
For example, when responding to Brigham Young’s teaching that Adam “is our Father and our God, and the only God with whom we have to do,” mopologists assume that it is utterly impossible that he meant exactly what he said, or they say we are ‘distorting, misinterpreting or quoting ‘snippets’. Then, when I lay out quote after quote, I get hit with, ‘Oh, that’s too much information, I can’t handle all that…It’s the old, ’ Damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario, and it is played to the hilt by such as you.
Author and historian D. Michael Quinn said it best: “Apologists extend the broadest possible
latitude to sources they agree with, yet impose the most stringent demands on sources of information the apologists dislike” (Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, Revised and Expanded Edition (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998). p. 47).
Time after time, any statement or document which makes the Church look good is automatically assumed to be 100% reliable, whereas any statement or document which makes the Church look bad is automatically assumed to be “biased” and “anti,” which in a mopologist’s mind immediately translates to “false.”
Rather than address the issue at hand, mopologists will often “dig for dirt” on the critic. For example, they responded to Grant Palmer’s book An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins mostly by attacking his service as an LDS Institute teacher & they have attacked the author of Losing a Lost Tribe for having a relationship while being legally separated. (Predictably, the more difficult a disbeliever is to refute, the greater the number of personal attacks made against him or her.)
Needless to say, shooting the messenger doesn’t negate the truth of the message–a subtle point that pro-Mormons either don’t realize or hope their readers aren’t astute enough to notice. So Jim, shoot away & call me anything you like, it will not change what your leaders have said nor the conclusions that I draw from their statements. ‘Bloodlust?’ Try reading up on Blood Atonement. Now that was Bloodlust. I do have a ‘lust’ for the truth though, and the ‘truth will out’, much to the dismay of the Leaders, mopologists & you.
Jim commented
…we’re talking about the “plain and precious” revelations from your own prophets. It’s not our fault they make your “church” look bad.
(BTW, in case you missed it, the information is sourced from LDS archives and checked against the historic background)
What information have you actually offered here? All I see is that you have attempted to re-cast Smith and Young into a modern Mormon mold, contrary to what they taught and did. I know you’d love it for these guys to bear your image (to look like you), but it just wont fly. They were who they were; you cannot change that by wishing they were different.
So, you’ve got a choice. Either buy into the actual vision that they had (not the modern LDS fairy-tale), or bail. I guess you’ll try to head for some sort of a compromise, but that’s just taking the first step to apostasy.
I’ve commented here before, and I’ll comment again; one of the reasons I don’t believe in the Mormon Prophets is that the Mormon Church doesn’t believe in them either. As setfree noted earlier, don’t they CARE. If they don’t, why should I?
PS Grindael; good job! You’d think that the Mormon movement might be pleased that the plain and precious revelations of their founding prophets is being broadcast to a wider audience.
Grindael,
This was the first time I posted on this thread. And where have I been “cornered” and attacked the other party as my only way out? Sounds good, but it just ain’t true.
So lets see, once again grindael, we have in your lengthy post:
1. New Order Mormons
2. Joseph conviction for treasure seeking- (he was never actually convicted because it wasn’t a trial, it was an “examination”- but critics never will admit that).
3. Joseph died in a gun-fight, just like David Koresh.
4. Book of Abraham Papyri “fraud.”
5. Adam-God teachings of Brigham Young.
6. Blood atonement.
In typical Grindael fashion, you race through your list of flashy controversies to impress those who don’t know any better.
Pick something and stick with it. I often stay out of the fray because I know nobody on your side will stick to a topic, including you (LDS also do this-but I am not countering them).
I am curious about your story and why it is you are so angry with the church- yes I know you were lied to, etc. etc. etc. …..
But I mean what really went on in the brain of young Grindael to wind him up so tightly. These things don’t come from nothing. And I don’t expect to get it here. Just something I think about sometimes when I see what seems like an endless amount of rage. No offense. I expect the typical answers of being fueled by a love of Christ- but I know too much of human nature to believe that is the motivating force. Christ simply doesn’t drive people to this point, IMO.
Jim, our devotion to Christ does drive us to this point when he is presented as something less than God incarnate. He is the only God, not just a subordinate god, and the bible clearly presents him as such. Mormonism presents Jesus Christ (and the Father) as the same “species” as man, when in fact the bible clearly recognizes him as the creator of man. Mormonism presents Jesus as nothing more than our brother who we are to look to as merely an example of how we too can become gods by following all of the laws and ordinances of daddy, just like he did. Jesus Christ is to be worshiped, as well as followed.
Jim,
Read my comments to Janet at the end of the Amasa Lyman thread, it will answer your question about why I do what I do.
(But You abandoned the thread – calling me laughable & a spin doctor & then ending with: You are so extreme in your opinions and conspiracy theories, you are no different than those who believe Bush planned 9/11 or that aliens are running the world.)
So yeah, you got ‘cornered’ called me names and left, so you missed what I posted that you so desperately seem to want to know.
As for being in a rage, it’s all you got because you can’t figure me out. My post above was not all over the place: it has a logical beginning, middle and end. It was not intended to be rebutted point for point. The points I made were in reference to mopologist behavior, and how you mimic them in every way.
And if you read my post (sans ignorance) you would have seen that I said “Smith’s PRE-trial,” for that is what it was. I never called it a trial. I was well aware of this because (again if you read the post sans ignorance) I told you I spent the day at Fair sites. It’s one of their BIG points. (not that it means anything in the long run) Because there was a mittimus, and they called twelve jurors, but Smith took ‘leg-bail’ before he could be tried. Again, you SEE what you want to SEE, not what I am posting. That is why you see RAGE.
And when you say you stay out of the fray because “NO ONE WILL STICK TO A TOPIC INCLUDING YOU”, is a lie. I spent a long time on the Olive Tree topic with you. I took it to a logical conclusion. You did not think so, but still, here you are speaking with ignorance again. Do you do this on purpose? (no offense, but) If you can’t keep up with an intellectual discussion, than by all means, stay out of the fray.
For those “never-Mo” readers what Jim has done is attempt to hijack the thread and force grindael into a PPI or “personal priesthood interview”.
Courtesy of D&C 104:11-12 and http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Priesthood_Interview
“the format …of the interview varies to fit the needs and circumstances, it
might include the following: discussion and resolution of administrative or organizational problems; training in administrative and management skills; resolution of interpersonal problems; sharing information on what is happening in the organization, including success experiences; identification of individual and organizational needs; and discussion of personal problems as appropriate. The last matter on the agenda of a priesthood interview is often a review of new assignments generated during the meeting, ensuring mutual understanding and verifying the accuracy of the notes recorded.
Another technique Mormons use to hard-ass people into the CK.
This describes Smith to a tee:
9Then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.
Bold and willful, they do not tremble as they blaspheme the glorious ones, 11 whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord. 12 But these, like irrational animals, creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed, blaspheming about matters of which they are ignorant, will also be destroyed in their destruction, 13 suffering wrong as the wage for their wrongdoing. They count it pleasure to revel in the daytime. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their deceptions, while they feast with you. 14 They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children! 15 Forsaking the right way, they have gone astray. They have followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved gain from wrongdoing, 16 but was rebuked for his own transgression; a speechless donkey spoke with human voice and restrained the prophet’s madness.
17 These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. 18 For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. 19 They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. 20 For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. 21 For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. 22 What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.” -2 Peter 2
Now, was Peter in a rage when he said this?
Pingback: Mormon Coffee » Catholic and Mormon