any former mormons out there?

[JonathanKinsman]

You know that that is not what we believe. Lying about and slandering Joseph Smith will not help your cause. The answer to your question has already been given, and need not be given again.

zerinus

Hey everybody! Do a little research on the 'net and you will find LOADS of material about the nefarious dealings of Joseph Smith; including photographed copies of New York and Illinois documents re his arrests for fraud. What a prophet/profit !!

:bowdown: :bowdown: :bowdown: $$$$$$$$

 

[DiZent]

This has been a most interesting & informative thread. I have a family member who joined the LDS church many years ago. I don’t try to discuss this with her, but I do pray for her to re-vert. My question for the current & former LDS is this. Her husband died a couple of years ago, so she is a widow. They had their marriage “sealed” at the temple, and were both practicing Mormons. Can she re-marry?

 

[Nan_S]

This has been a most interesting & informative thread. I have a family member who joined the LDS church many years ago. I don’t try to discuss this with her, but I do pray for her to re-vert. My question for the current & former LDS is this. Her husband died a couple of years ago, so she is a widow. They had their marriage “sealed” at the temple, and were both practicing Mormons. Can she re-marry?

Yes, but she won’t be sealed for all eternity to her second or any later husband. A subsequent marriage ends with earthly death.

 

[Allweather]

You know that that is not what we believe. Lying about and slandering Joseph Smith will not help your cause. The answer to your question has already been given, and need not be given again.

zerinus

I’m not sure what part of my post you’re referring to when you say “that that is not what we believe.” Are you referring to the UNIVERSAL aspect of the so-called apostasy? If so, then I disagree with you that that is “not what (Mormons) believe.” I have discussed this with other Mormons, and they have told me that the apostasy is UNIVERSAL, COMPREHENSIVE. They’ve left no doubt that they believe that non-Mormons are apostates.

Matter of fact, here is a quote from Zerinus in #345 of this very thread:

““AS you know, LDS believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and modern Christendom, which includes Catholicism, is nothing more than a remnant of a dead and apostate religion, which has absolutely no divine authority and legitimacy before God, and is doomed to eventual dissolution and disbandment as the true Church that God has established in the last days (as prophesied in scripture) will continue to progress and increase until the purposes of God are fulfilled. You as a representative of a dead and apostate religion play your part well to hate and wage war against the true Church of God, but you will fail.””

Dead. Apostate. These are the words of Zerinus, who claims to know Mormon theology better even than Bruce R. McConkie, who also claims a UNIVERSAL apostasy. Yet, we still get not one iota of historical evidence to back up this claim. Zerinus will run, dodge, and jump to avoid answering a direct question. He has no evidence. In fact, there is none, because the so-called apostasy is a lie, a lie perpetrated by Joseph Smith and other cultists of the 19th century.

As for my “Lying about and slandering Joseph Smith,” it is slander only if what I’ve said are lies, which they aren’t, so it isn’t. Joseph Smith was a liar. We know this from the historical record. He practiced multiple partner sex among Mormon women for several years, all the while lying, in writing, when asked about it. If Zerinus is unaware of the evidence for this, I would be happy to link him to it. Joseph Smith was an adulterer. While still validly married to Emma Smith, he engaged in marital-like relationships with many other women, and when Emma objected, he had a “revelation” in which she was threatened with destruction unless she shut up and got with the program. The facts of these things, and many other derogatory things, is easy to find, and I am happy to help inform our very uninformed Mormon friend.

Zerinus complains, saying that we Christians slander Mormonism, and Joseph Smith, when we point to historical facts about them. Yet, Mormons in general, and Zerinus in particular, slander Christians by calling them apostate. Apostasy is just about the worst sin a Christian could commit. Apparently he doesn’t feel that this is slander, even though he cannot find and present a single shred of evidence to prove his apostasy claim.

 

[Nan_S]

But there are two sides to this story. The other side of it is that we believe that the Bible that be have today has not been preserved intact. We believe that many important parts have been removed from it as a result of that Apostasy. But what we have left of it is sufficient to teach us the basics of the gospel

zerinus

I was trying to post this answer when the forums network went down this morning. Took a while to assemble and type it, too. Grrrr.

What I want to ask is whether the Mormons had any revelation as to what those removed important parts may have been, and whether you have any evidence outside of Mormon sources that those parts existed. We have archaeological records with vast libraries of ancient documents from the Middle East that never made it into the Holy Bible, yet the Mormon standard works do not seem to be among them.

It’s very curious. I’m not saying that I would necessarily believe in the reliability of the Mormon standard works if they were in the independent ancient Middle Eastern records, but I would be considerably more likely to give them a serious inspection. Can you help me with identifying these records?

Traces of many non-Mormon documents exist in a variety of forms, including complete and partial manuscripts and fragments. In some cases only anecdotal evidence remains, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Assumption of Moses, and, until just recently, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, yet they are still well-known. In anecdotal cases it is harder to p(name removed by moderator)oint the actual works being referenced, because certain book names were used by the Early Church Fathers and were re-used by the gnostics for their own works. Yet the names still survive.

The records of the Early Church Fathers show considerable argument in the selection of books for canonization into the New Testament, and the lists the Fathers prepared date back as far as the dawn of the second century AD, when the Great Apostacy was just beginning. Some of the Fathers advocated on behalf of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Apocalypse of Peter, as well as other books. Yet none of these lists propose inclusion of any of the Mormon standard works in the New Testament

The list of books in the Septuagint Old Testament was likewise fixed before the time of Christ and remained unchanged; the Masoretic Old Testament canon also did not recognize any books not in the Septuagint. Neither do any of the Mormon standard works make an appearance in any other established Jewish canon.

And yes, I am aware that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from and Egyptian papyrus scroll. Curious, though, that apparently only that particular papyrus had that particular text, as the scrolls were routinely included with mummies, and Egyptologists can now read the language. If it still exists, I would like to see Joseph Smith’s scroll lent to a prominent Egyptologist for an independent translation and validation of the text, now that we can read the language. Such a gesture would go a very long ways in validating the texts and claims from the Mormons.

Can you help me with this?

Nan

 

[zerinus]

I was trying to post this answer when the forums network went down this morning. Took a while to assemble and type it, too. Grrrr.

My solution to that is that I type all my long posts in a word processor, and then copy and paste it into the forum. That way, if a glitch occurs, I still have the original, and can save it for another time.

What I want to ask is whether the Mormons had any revelation as to what those removed important parts may have been, . . .

Yes, we have some ideas. The Book of Mormon mentions the names of a couple of additional books of the OT, and quotes extracts from them, that are not found in our current Bible. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price also mention the names of other ancient sacred texts, and prophesy that at some future date they will be revealed to the world. Shortly after the organization of the Church, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to make an inspired translation of the Bible. Some of the longer portions of that translation were added to and canonized as part of the Pearl of Great Price, which consist of the Book of Moses and a lengthy extract from the gospel of Matthew. Other extracts form that translation (though not yet fully canonized) have been added as footnotes and appendices to the latest edition of the LDS (KJV) Bible. The most extensive changes were made in the NT, and you will find them scattered in the footnotes and an appendix to the book. They are identified in the footnote as JST. The easiest way to study them is to get hold of a copy of the LDS Bible, and go through the footnotes (in the New Testament mainly) with a highlighting pen, and highlight all the references that are prefixed with JST. After that read the book and compare the KJV text with the JST footnotes. Longer passages have been added to the appendix.

. . . and whether you have any evidence outside of Mormon sources that those parts existed. We have archaeological records with vast libraries of ancient documents from the Middle East that never made it into the Holy Bible, yet the Mormon standard works do not seem to be among them.

It’s very curious. I’m not saying that I would necessarily believe in the reliability of the Mormon standard works if they were in the independent ancient Middle Eastern records, but I would be considerably more likely to give them a serious inspection. Can you help me with identifying these records?

The short answer to that is no! I am not a scholar of ancient manuscripts, and I cannot give informative answers to that question. However, I believe that traces of it can be found. For example, I am informed (I am not sure how reliably) that the Dead Sea Scroll collection of the hymns contains an additional hymn that is not in the Bible. I have also seen an extract from the Scrolls that contains a very direct and forthright prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ that is very similar to the Book of Mormon prophecies, but not found in the OT. More importantly, however, there are unmistakable signs in the NT itself that the four Gospels are not original works, but abridgements of larger works the originals of which have not survived. I have already discussed that adequately in my previous posts.

zerinus

continued . . . /

 

[zerinus]

/. . . continued

Traces of many non-Mormon documents exist in a variety of forms, including complete and partial manuscripts and fragments. In some cases only anecdotal evidence remains, such as the Shepherd of Hermas, the Assumption of Moses, and, until just recently, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, yet they are still well-known. In anecdotal cases it is harder to p(name removed by moderator)oint the actual works being referenced, because certain book names were used by the Early Church Fathers and were re-used by the gnostics for their own works. Yet the names still survive.

The records of the Early Church Fathers show considerable argument in the selection of books for canonization into the New Testament, and the lists the Fathers prepared date back as far as the dawn of the second century AD, when the Great Apostacy was just beginning. Some of the Fathers advocated on behalf of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Apocalypse of Peter, as well as other books. Yet none of these lists propose inclusion of any of the Mormon standard works in the New Testament

The list of books in the Septuagint Old Testament was likewise fixed before the time of Christ and remained unchanged; the Masoretic Old Testament canon also did not recognize any books not in the Septuagint. Neither do any of the Mormon standard works make an appearance in any other established Jewish canon.

I am sure you are right. However, on the subject of the apocryphal writings, you might be interested to know that when Joseph Smith was commanded by the Lord to make the inspired translation of the Bible, he inquired of the Lord to know what he should do with regard to the Apocrypha, and the Lord gave him this revelation:

D&C 91:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.

4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;

6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

This inquiry I believe was made with regard to the OT Apocrypha, or what you call the deutrocanonicals; but I believe that principle of it is equally applicable to the NT apocryphal writings.

And yes, I am aware that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Abraham from and Egyptian papyrus scroll. Curious, though, that apparently only that particular papyrus had that particular text, as the scrolls were routinely included with mummies, and Egyptologists can now read the language. If it still exists, I would like to see Joseph Smith’s scroll lent to a prominent Egyptologist for an independent translation and validation of the text, now that we can read the language. Such a gesture would go a very long ways in validating the texts and claims from the Mormons.

The portion of the text that the Book of Abraham was translated from apparently has not survived. The Church does not own any portions of the papyri that have not been made public.

zerinus

 

[DiZent]

Yes, but she won’t be sealed for all eternity to her second or any later husband. A subsequent marriage ends with earthly death.

Thanks. I will continue to pray for her. She is leaving SLC to live with her son (who never became LDS)

 

[Allweather]

The portion of the text that the Book of Abraham was translated from apparently has not survived. The Church does not own any portions of the papyri that have not been made public.

zerinus

Wasn’t at least some part of the papyri returned to the LDS church by a NYC museum a few years ago?

 

[christianley]

Thanks. I will continue to pray for her. She is leaving SLC to live with her son (who never became LDS)

I think you have been able to see in this thread exactly how much control the Mormon Church has over the minds of its members. Even when the obvious shortcomings of their scriptures and history are presented to them, they will not be swayed. I am lucky to somehow have escaped the mind control tactics used by those who lead that organization – there is a reason they are urged to bear their testimonies so often to reinforce their belief. Even though the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham have been completely debunked, they continue to fervently testify of them based on some kind of spiritual experience they claim to have had. It is no wonder that Utah is the multi-level marketing capital of the world – Mormons are taken advantage of rather easily.

 

[Allweather]

So, it is clear from Zerinus’ wordy but non-forthcoming reply to Nan that, no, there are no independent, non-Mormon sources of Mormon “scripture.” Unlike the NT, which, BY FAR, is the best attested collection of ancient literature, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham must be accepted merely on faith as if they were actually a true revelation to an 18th century adulterer, who used his religion to justify his adultery, lied about it when asked, and threatened his true wife with “destruction” because she had the nerve to complain about his adultery.

It would have been better if, instead of weaving a wordy waffle that might sound good to the gullible, Zerinus simply answered with one word: No.

Yet, Zerinus is full of criticism of the NT. The best attested library of ancient literature is to be subject to the critique of a cultist who can’t even produce the source documents for his own deviant religion. Anyone investigating this Mormon religion had better sit up and pay attention to this. Mormonism stands on the word of a man, and men, who, if alive today, would surely be behind bars, perhaps cellmates with Warren Jeffs. The source documents for Mormonism are nowhere to be found. There are “prophesies” which claim that, someday, they will be found. Other “prophesies” failed to come true in the timeframes given within them, yet we are to believe that these prophesies can serve as attestation in the meantime, absent true documentation. I suppose Mormons view this as a test of faith, right Zerinus?

On the other hand, we have Catholicism, which expects men to use their brains along with their faith. God inspired the writing, canonization, and dissemination of the New Testament, and made sure that no other collection of work of ancient literature has better source attestation. The Bible, the New Testament, has stood the test of time. It has been attacked by the greatest atheistic minds, from every possible angle, and yet, it is still without parallel. And along comes this puny little adulterer, saying on his own word alone, that it is unreliable, and that people who adhere to its teachings are apostate, members of a “dead” religion. The nerve.

 

[DiZent]

I think you have been able to see in this thread exactly how much control the Mormon Church has over the minds of its members. Even when the obvious shortcomings of their scriptures and history are presented to them, they will not be swayed. I am lucky to somehow have escaped the mind control tactics used by those who lead that organization – there is a reason they are urged to bear their testimonies so often to reinforce their belief. Even though the Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham have been completely debunked, they continue to fervently testify of them based on some kind of spiritual experience they claim to have had. It is no wonder that Utah is the multi-level marketing capital of the world – Mormons are taken advantage of rather easily.

Early on after they converted, I tried to do a little debating with her husband, but I went about it the wrong way. I decided that prayer was the best answer. I went to SLC to attend his funeral, which was very moving. I knew very little about the LDS except the the beautiful choirs & temples, and that they used to practice polygamy. I always thought they were Christian, but pretty far removed from the mainstream. My take on LDS was always “too much Joseph Smith, not enough Jesus Christ”.

 

[christianley]

Early on after they converted, I tried to do a little debating with her husband, but I went about it the wrong way. I decided that prayer was the best answer. I went to SLC to attend his funeral, which was very moving. I knew very little about the LDS except the the beautiful choirs & temples, and that they used to practice polygamy. I always thought they were Christian, but pretty far removed from the mainstream. My take on LDS was always “too much Joseph Smith, not enough Jesus Christ”.

I’m not sure it is worth debating whether or not Mormons are Christian. I always considered myself Christian as a Mormon and now that I am out I prefer to simply consider them unorthodox Christian. Rather than worry about whether or not they are Christian, I tend to focus on their scriptures which are fundamentally flawed and which have been thoroughly debunked. The idea that ancient American prophets wrote the Book of Mormon is simply indefensible. The idea that Abraham wrote the Book of Abraham is equally indefensible. We now know that all Mormon scriptures are the creation of either Joseph Smith or some other modern LDS leader.

 

[Nan_S]

I’m not sure it is worth debating whether or not Mormons are Christian. I always considered myself Christian as a Mormon and now that I am out I prefer to simply consider them unorthodox Christian. Rather than worry about whether or not they are Christian, I tend to focus on their scriptures which are fundamentally flawed and which have been thoroughly debunked. The idea that ancient American prophets wrote the Book of Mormon is simply indefensible. The idea that Abraham wrote the Book of Abraham is equally indefensible. We now know that all Mormon scriptures are the creation of either Joseph Smith or some other modern LDS leader.

Which leads us right back to Paragraphs 847 and 848 of the Catechism.

847 …Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

Di, you keep right on praying for her and her son. If she has spent her life sincerely seeking and striving to obey God, and part of that was being submissive to her husband, she should be just fine. We may (and do) argue about the validity of the Mormon leadership, scriptures and teachings, but I, for one, do not question the devotion to Christ and holiness to which it leads its members.

Nan

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I’m not sure it is worth debating whether or not Mormons are Christian. I always considered myself Christian as a Mormon and now that I am out I prefer to simply consider them unorthodox Christian. Rather than worry about whether or not they are Christian, I tend to focus on their scriptures which are fundamentally flawed and which have been thoroughly debunked. The idea that ancient American prophets wrote the Book of Mormon is simply indefensible. The idea that Abraham wrote the Book of Abraham is equally indefensible. We now know that all Mormon scriptures are the creation of either Joseph Smith or some other modern LDS leader.

The Church (at the Vatican website) has a document approved by Pope John Paul II (and probably penned by Pope Bendict) that Mormons are NOT Christian due to their pantheology and non-Christian beliefs.

Therefore (and this is the initial question of the paper) Mormons do NOT have a valid Christian baptism like mainstream Protestants and Orthodox have in common with the Catholic Church.

Pax Christi

 

[Allweather]

The Church (at the Vatican website) has a document approved by Pope John Paul II (and probably penned by Pope Bendict) that Mormons are NOT Christian due to their pantheology and non-Christian beliefs.

Therefore (and this is the initial question of the paper) Mormons do NOT have a valid Christian baptism like mainstream Protestants and Orthodox have in common with the Catholic Church.

Pax Christi

Correct. And, referring to the two paragraphs that Nan quoted out of the Catechism, it is because of a lack of knowledge, through no fault of their own, that Mormons may expect salvation. You take Zerinus, for example. Zerinus has had the facts presented to him in quite some detail. He therefore cannot claim to be ignorant, through no fault of his own. That is why I have said, more than once, that he is in grave peril, now that he knows the truth, not only of Mormonism, but of Catholicism: that the former is false, and the latter is true. The longer he holds to these irrational tenets, the shorter his time to make a decision to turn away from them, and towards the light of Christ. We do him no favors by implying that he’s OK because he might be good-intentioned. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions

 

[christianley]

Correct. And, referring to the two paragraphs that Nan quoted out of the Catechism, it is because of a lack of knowledge, through no fault of their own, that Mormons may expect salvation. You take Zerinus, for example. Zerinus has had the facts presented to him in quite some detail. He therefore cannot claim to be ignorant, through no fault of his own. That is why I have said, more than once, that he is in grave peril, now that he knows the truth, not only of Mormonism, but of Catholicism: that the former is false, and the latter is true. The longer he holds to these irrational tenets, the shorter his time to make a decision to turn away from them, and towards the light of Christ. We do him no favors by implying that he’s OK because he might be good-intentioned. The road to Hell is paved with good intentions

I think it is possible for people to be blinded by their tradition and be unable to recognize the truth. Ultimately, it is the Holy Spirit, not us, who leads people to recognize the truth. I have faith that the Lord in His own due time will bring people out of darkness. Zerinius is in darkness right now – let us continue to pray for him and all of those who are in the same situation that the Lord will be merciful to them.

 

[christianley]

The Church (at the Vatican website) has a document approved by Pope John Paul II (and probably penned by Pope Bendict) that Mormons are NOT Christian due to their pantheology and non-Christian beliefs.

Therefore (and this is the initial question of the paper) Mormons do NOT have a valid Christian baptism like mainstream Protestants and Orthodox have in common with the Catholic Church.

Pax Christi

Do you have a link? All I see is a short paragraph saying Mormon baptism is invalid with no other comments about the “Christianity” of Mormons.

 

[Nan_S]

Yes, we have some ideas. The Book of Mormon mentions the names of a couple of additional books of the OT, and quotes extracts from them, that are not found in our current Bible. The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price also mention the names of other ancient sacred texts, and prophesy that at some future date they will be revealed to the world. Shortly after the organization of the Church, the Lord commanded Joseph Smith to make an inspired translation of the Bible. Some of the longer portions of that translation were added to and canonized as part of the Pearl of Great Price, which consist of the Book of Moses and a lengthy extract from the gospel of Matthew. Other extracts form that translation (though not yet fully canonized) have been added as footnotes and appendices to the latest edition of the LDS (KJV) Bible.

Thank you. However, my question is whether any independent non-Mormon sources also have or make reference to these particular additional books which are in the Mormon standard works. It’s no great leap to say that forgotten ancient texts will be found. Justifying their insertion into scripture is something much more problematic. That generally would require evidence from additional ancient records that the proposed texts were meant to be in there originally but were not because of, say, being lost through fire or flood or malicious act.

If the Pope were to announce that previously unknown works had been revealed to him by God and should be included in scripture, but did not produce anything other than an unknown manuscript drawn from the Vatican archives which he refused to hand over for independent inspection, I doubt very much that any other church would welcome the insertion. Nor would most Catholics.

The short answer to that is no! I am not a scholar of ancient manuscripts, and I cannot give informative answers to that question. However, I believe that traces of it can be found. For example, I am informed (I am not sure how reliably) that the Dead Sea Scroll collection of the hymns contains an additional hymn that is not in the Bible.

The additional hymn you are referring to is the 151st Psalm. It is well known, and has always been part of the Holy Bible as canonized in the Orthodox church. The Orthodox OT also includes 3rd and 4th Maccabees. All of the books included in the OT canon by the Orthodox but omitted by the Catholic are well known, and the reasons for their inclusion/omission are also well documented in ancient records.

The discovery of the 151st Psalm amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls was the sort of independent validation of unique scriptures held by a particular church that I was asking about. I was hoping you could attest to something similar for the Mormon standard works.

I have also seen an extract from the Scrolls that contains a very direct and forthright prophecy of the coming of Jesus Christ that is very similar to the Book of Mormon prophecies, but not found in the OT. More importantly, however, there are unmistakable signs in the NT itself that the four Gospels are not original works, but abridgements of larger works the originals of which have not survived. I have already discussed that adequately in my previous posts.

Similarity of the wording in a prophecy doesn’t help much, but it’s more than what we have to go on with other Mormon standard works. If you can dig up more about this, I would appreciate it.

I agree that we have already beaten to death the idea that the NT gospels are abridgements, so let’s move on. Absent any manuscript or anecdotal evidence of these larger gospels, I remain unconvinced.

I am sure you are right. However, on the subject of the apocryphal writings, you might be interested to know that when Joseph Smith was commanded by the Lord to make the inspired translation of the Bible, he inquired of the Lord to know what he should do with regard to the Apocrypha, and the Lord gave him this revelation: D&C 91

: …This inquiry I believe was made with regard to the OT Apocrypha, or what you call the deutrocanonicals; but I believe that principle of it is equally applicable to the NT apocryphal writings.
Unfortunately, this D&C section merely addresses the exclusion of certain books, using objections that are similar to those also voiced by Protestants in general. It does not allow for the inclusion of previously unknown ancient manuscripts. In fact, it argues against such inclusion. So, no help here.

I thank you for your thoughtful answer.

Nan

 

[Nan_S]

Do you have a link? All I see is a short paragraph saying Mormon baptism is invalid with no other comments about the “Christianity” of Mormons.

Here is the Vatican website link regarding Mormon baptism.

Regarding Mormonism in general, this March 15, 2001 Pontifical Council text is posted on the Vatican website: ASSEMBLEA PLENARIA DELLA PONTIFICIA ACCADEMIA DELLE SCIENZE

The text alternates between Italian, French and English; scroll about a third of the way down the page for the English-language portion that addresses Mormonism. Here’s the pertinent part:

This addresses a central and urgent aspect of New Age and in various other new religious movements, although its current importance in American Evangelical Christian circles has come about through a concern with Mormonism. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) used to teach with some vehemence that Christians were doomed to hell. More recently, though, they have tried to insist that they, too, are Christians. Given their numbers, they claim that they are one of the “mainline” Christian denominations. But Mormon theology distorts Christian doctrine on most major issues; they have become rather reticent in their new stance towards Christianity about their teaching that “men (sic) can become gods”. In fact, though, they have maintained deification rites. This has sparked off a renewed interest in the writings of the Church Fathers on theosis (e.g. Saint Irenaeus’ dictum in the Preface to Book V of Adversus Haereses: “… Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself”). Confusion apparently reigns, especially since much of the discussion has been carried on through the Internet!

These above appear to be all the Vatican has officially published about the Mormons, other than a declaration by Pope Leo XIII that polygamy as practiced by the Mormons is an offense against Christian marriage.

Nan