Drawing the Line for Mormons: A Closer Look at the LDS Church

[Courtneyjo]

Where is this writer totally off-base?

“It may be that in the not-too-distant future, we will have to categorize Mormonism as a separate world religion.”[not Christian]

catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=12664&sec_id=#section22508

 

[PaulDupre]

Many of us categorized the Mormons as a non-Christian religion long ago.

 

[ben_dy]

Courtneyjo:

Where is this writer totally off-base?

“It may be that in the not-too-distant future, we will have to categorize Mormonism as a separate world religion.”[not Christian]

catholicexchange.com/vm/index.asp?vm_id=2&art_id=12664&sec_id=#section22508

Very good article which, unlike the Newsweek article, does not presume to be true that which remains in dispute (even amongst LDS members). Although the points she emphasizes are not new - or, at least, should not be new to most readers of this news group, some of the remedies are somewhat new to the casual Catholic observer and the article presents a fair and reasoned response to various manners of modern day proselytizing.

 

[Zakuska]

There is even a move among Mormons to shorten the name of their church to simply “The Church of Jesus Christ.”

This ones new to me. We take pride in the “of Latter-Day Saints” It distinguishes us from the Church Christ set up when the Apostles walked the earth. We claim to be a restoration of that church.

A lot of what she has written is off base and scewed.

Why the Mormon Jesus is not the Christian Jesus:

The Mormon Jesus is the spirit-brother of Lucifer (Satan). They were both born in heaven by God the Father’s union with one of his many spirit wives.
According to Mormon teaching, when it was time for Jesus to come down to earth, God the Father sent down one of his spirit wives from heaven to be born as a woman, Mary. Then he came down and had physical, marital relations with her in order for her to give birth to a human body inhabited by Jesus coming from heaven. This is a denial of the Virgin Birth

1. Mormons in no way think God had Physical relations with mary and in no way deny the Virgin Birth. How ever it was God the Father who provided the imortal DNA. To fertilize the Egg in Marys womb that became Jesus. Thus his father was Imortal and his Mother was mortal giving him the unique power to Die and take his life back up again. Its only speculation on how God accomplished that.

What she has done is taken non-canonical writings and speculations of Leaders and passed them off as cannonical works. Thats like me taking the teachings of the ECFs on reincarnation and saying thats what the Catholic church teaches.

Its especially stupid when the BOM (Cannon along with the Bible) says this about mary:

1 Nephi 11
12 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.
13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.
14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?
15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.
16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?
17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.
19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!
20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.
21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?
22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.
23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

I can answer further questions if needed.

Also… Was not Lucifer a “son of God” (son of the morning) prior to his fall from heaven. Was he not part of the heavenly family?

Eph 2
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

And since we all are part of the heavenly family are we not all brothers and sisters? Thus Satan was Christs borther among the sons of God prior to his fall.

 

[ben_dy]

Zakuska:

This ones new to me. We take pride in the “of Latter-Day Saints” It distinguishes us from the Church Christ set up when the Apostles walked the earth. We claim to be a restoration of that church…

That statement really makes no sense - if you are “distinguished from the Church Christ set up” then how can you “claim to be a restoration of that church”? The very meaning of “distinguished from” means different from, distinct from, set apart. We Catholics do not make the claim of being different from the Church Christ ‘set up’ at all - in fact, we are that Church!

Zakuska:

A lot of what she has written is off base and scewed…

As a Catholic, I thought the article spot-on, unlike the Newsweek article which, in the first few paragraphs, perpetuates the myth that there were great revivals in the “burnt-out area” in 1820, as alluded to in the ‘official’ First Vision, than in 1824, as has been historically proven.

Zakuska:

1. Mormons in no way think God had Physical relations with mary and in no way deny the Virgin Birth. How ever it was God the Father who provided the imortal DNA. To fertilize the Egg in Marys womb that became Jesus. Thus his father was Imortal and his Mother was mortal giving him the unique power to Die and take his life back up again. Its only speculation on how God accomplished that.

What she has done is taken non-canonical writings and speculations of Leaders and passed them off as cannonical works. Thats like me taking the teachings of the ECFs on reincarnation and saying thats what the Catholic church teaches.

If these non-canonical speculations were of import to the LDS church (as they certainly are to the Catholic Church) then why has no living prophet ‘set the record straight’? Could it be because…

Its especially stupid when the BOM (Cannon along with the Bible) says this about mary:

1 Nephi 11
18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

…the manner of the flesh has theological and doctrinal implications that are somewhat problematic?

Zakuska:

I can answer further questions if needed.

Oh, I think we know many of the answers…

Zakuska:

IAlso… Was not Lucifer a “son of God” (son of the morning) prior to his fall from heaven. Was he not part of the heavenly family?

Eph 2
14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named,

And since we all are part of the heavenly family are we not all brothers and sisters? Thus Satan was Christs borther among the sons of God prior to his fall.

The LDS sees us all as literally begotten - sired - by a god and all spirits as literally sired by a god, We see ourselves as ‘created’ and ‘made’: not begotten as the primary definition of the word implies. So no, as we do not believe in a pre-mortal existence in which we were literally fathered by a god, we do not believe that we are all brothers and sisters. However, through Christ, who is one with God the Father, as he is one with the Holy Spirit, we do become the adopted ‘sons and daughters of God’ and in that sense we can, without presumption, become brothers and sisters (and fathers and mothers) in a manner here on earth and, should we acheive salvation, become adopted sons and daughters of God in heaven.

 

[Zakuska]

1. How can the “catholic” church with all its varieties of flavors be… the church of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t even bare his name. Sure it talks all about him and his family a lot.

Not to mention all the “Schisms” that arnt supposed to be there. (1 Cor. 12: 25 )

As a Catholic, I thought the article spot-on, unlike the Newsweek article which, in the first few paragraphs, perpetuates the myth that there were great revivals in the “burnt-out area” in 1820, as alluded to in the ‘official’ First Vision, than in 1824, as has been historically proven.

Actually you need to get up on your current
scholarship.

IN PALMYRA
Joseph states that about 1820 religious excitement had
commenced, and the whole district of country was affected
by it. The Palmyra newspaper reported many
conversions in the “burned-over” district. Joseph often
attended these so-called “revivals” and “camp meetings”
in the Palmyra area. The Palmyra Register recorded that
the Methodists had a religious camp meeting in 1820.55
Since they did not have a chapel yet, they would meet
in the woods on Vienna Road.56 Pomeroy Tucker states
that “protracted revival meetings were customary in
some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of
different denominations…”57 These revivals in 1820
must have helped the Methodists, for they were able to
build their first church in Palmyra by 1822, down on
Vienna Road where they held their camp meetings.58
The Zion Episcopal Church was originated in 1823.59
In 1817, the Presbyterians were able to split into an
eastern group and a western group. The eastern group
used the only actual church building that was in
Palmyra in 1820, while the western group assembled
in the town hall.60
Some critics have erroneously supposed that there was
no religious excitement in Palmyra in the years 1820
through 1823. This theory has proved false with the finding
of the Palmyra Sentinel newspaper articles reporting
of the Methodist camp meeting in Palmyra in 1820.
Also, Pomeroy Tucker and Orsamus Turner were eyewitnesses
to the excitement.
fairlds.org/pubs/jshist.pdf

Myth of no revivals - Busted.

 

[majick275]

First, The Catholic church literally means the universal church. Church coming from the greek kyriaken (yes I know I mispelled it) meaning Gods possession. SO catholics believe their religion to be Gods universla possesion. Literally a part of his kingdom.

Joseph Smith originally called his church the church of Christ but later changed it to add the LDS. I would hope that we don’t get too bogged down in the semantics of what the church is called.

Regarding the article linked to in the OP, I tend to agree with the general conclusions drawn by the Author. I question some of the specifics used to develop these conclusions but I understand the Authors need for brevity.

The first vision is something that I believe is still not clearly defined. The writngs in JS own hand appear to provide a very different account than that which is in the PoGP today. I find it of interest that this was not published until well after his death. The accounts “distributed” in the early days of the LDS church when viewed alongside all other available written accounts seem to indicate a changing doctrine on the nature of God. When you look at the lectures on faith as originally published in the LDS canon you really see this. There is clear progression from Orthodox trinity as seen in the testimony of the three witnesses and much of the BoM to a Father and Son who share one mind (Holy Ghost) in the lectures on faith to the current LDS “godhead” consisting of three Gods who are one in purpose.

 

[ben_dy]

Zakuska:

1. How can the “catholic” church with all its varieties of flavors be… the church of Jesus Christ. It doesn’t even bare his name. Sure it talks all about him and his family a lot.

Not to mention all the “Schisms” that arnt supposed to be there. (1 Cor. 12: 25 )

The only ‘flavors’ of Catholicism have to do with rites as practiced in different regions of the world. The greatest differences are in the Western (Roman) rites and the Eastern rites - yet it is still the same ‘Church’ and the meaning of the rites are the same universally: only the language (in some cases) and the order of worship is ‘different’. Believe me, if you were a life-long Catholic visiting an Eastern Rite Church for the first time, even though the language might be completely foreign.

As to schism - they occur when men place themselves above Christ and His Church. And yet some retain great truths of the Church and there is always hope that we may be re-united.

Zakuska:

Actually you need to get up on your current
scholarship.

IN PALMYRA
Joseph states that about 1820 religious excitement had
commenced, and the whole district of country was affected
by it. The Palmyra newspaper reported many
conversions in the “burned-over” district. Joseph often
attended these so-called “revivals” and “camp meetings”
in the Palmyra area. The Palmyra Register recorded that
the Methodists had a religious camp meeting in 1820.55
Since they did not have a chapel yet, they would meet
in the woods on Vienna Road.56 Pomeroy Tucker states
that “protracted revival meetings were customary in
some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of
different denominations…”57 These revivals in 1820
must have helped the Methodists, for they were able to
build their first church in Palmyra by 1822, down on
Vienna Road where they held their camp meetings.58
The Zion Episcopal Church was originated in 1823.59
In 1817, the Presbyterians were able to split into an
eastern group and a western group. The eastern group
used the only actual church building that was in
Palmyra in 1820, while the western group assembled
in the town hall.60
Some critics have erroneously supposed that there was
no religious excitement in Palmyra in the years 1820
through 1823. This theory has proved false with the finding
of the Palmyra Sentinel newspaper articles reporting
of the Methodist camp meeting in Palmyra in 1820.
Also, Pomeroy Tucker and Orsamus Turner were eyewitnesses
to the excitement.
fairlds.org/pubs/jshist.pdf

Myth of no revivals - Busted.

Actually, the tale of the Methodist camp meeting is old news - very old news - and does nothing to bolster the case for great fervor amongst all sects of the region: Smith doesn’t speak of asking God if the Methodist religion is true (although there is evidence that he believed it was) but rather speaks of great excitement of all sects, and asks which of the lot is true. This portion of Smiths history has simply been proven wrong in far too many instances to right it with a story of a single camp meeting in 1820 followed, in 1824, with true religious fervor amongst all the sects. This topic - with overwhelming evidence against Smith’s versions - was put on the shelf by LDS scholars long ago and unless you’ve some startling new information to offer, I would suggest that trying to ‘prove’ this discrepancy can only do harm to the LDS ‘case’.

 

[Chris-WA]

Zakuska:

And since we all are part of the heavenly family are we not all brothers and sisters? Thus Satan was Christs borther among the sons of God prior to his fall.

No. The Catholic Church teaches that Satan was a fallen angel, and that angels are entirely a different race of beings than men. Angels have the abililty to appear in different shapes and forms, and are vested with certain supernatural powers. They are not sons and daughters of God in the same sense we are. They are God’s messengers, warriors, etc. They are not resurrected humans as is the case in the LDS view of angles (Moroni).

 

[Zakuska]

Chris-WA:

No. The Catholic Church teaches that Satan was a fallen angel, and that angels are entirely a different race of beings than men. Angels have the abililty to appear in different shapes and forms, and are vested with certain supernatural powers. They are not sons and daughters of God in the same sense we are. They are God’s messengers, warriors, etc. They are not resurrected humans as is the case in the LDS view of angles (Moroni).

Gabriel is an Angel correct?

Not according to Daniel.

Dan. 8: 16
16 And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

Dan. 9: 21
21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

 

[Zakuska]

ben,

This topic - with overwhelming evidence against Smith’s versions - was put on the shelf by LDS scholars long ago and unless you’ve some startling new information to offer, I would suggest that trying to ‘prove’ this discrepancy can only do harm to the LDS ‘case’.

If this topic where “put on the shelf long ago” as you claim… why was the linked article written… in 2002?

fairlds.org/pubs/jshist.pdf

History shows the facts… do with them what you want.

 

[majick275]

because FAIR is a spin factory that serves a PR function.

 

[Zakuska]

ROFL!

 

[AugustineH354]

I am truly beginning to wonder if I am the only Catholic who refuses to use poor arguments when discussing the CoJCoLDS. The essay that Zak linked to clearly demonstrates that of much of the “reasoning” in this thread is faulty.

Joseph states that about 1820 religious excitement had commenced, and the whole district of country was affected by it. The Palmyra newspaper reported many conversions in the “burned-over” district. Joseph often attended these so-called “revivals” and “camp meetings”in the Palmyra area. The *Palmyra Register *

recorded that the Methodists had a religious camp meeting in 1820.Since they did not have a chapel yet, they would meet in the woods on Vienna Road.Pomeroy Tucker states that “protracted revival meetings were customary in some of the churches, and Smith frequented those of different denominations…”These revivals in 1820 must have helped the Methodists, for they were able to build their first church in Palmyra by 1822, down on Vienna Road where they held their camp meetings.The Zion Episcopal Church was originated in 1823.In 1817, the Presbyterians were able to split into an eastern group and a western group. The eastern group used the only actual church building that was in Palmyra in 1820, while the western group assembled in the town hall.

Some critics have erroneously supposed that there was no religious excitement in Palmyra in the years 1820 through 1823. This theory has proved false with the finding of the *Palmyra Sentinel *newspaper articles reporting of the Methodist camp meeting in Palmyra in 1820. Also, Pomeroy Tucker and Orsamus Turner were eyewitnesses to the excitement. (fairlds.org/pubs/jshist.pdf )

 

[Chris-WA]

Zakuska:

Gabriel is an Angel correct?

Not according to Daniel.

Dan. 8: 16
16 And I heard a man’s voice between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision.

Dan. 9: 21
21 Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.

Dan 8:15 describes Gabriel as a manlike figure:
While I, Daniel, sought the meaning of the vision I had seen, a manlike figure stood before me
Dan 9:21 doesn’t say Gabriel is a man at all:
I was still occupied with this prayer, when Gabriel, the one whom I had seen before in vision, came to me in rapid flight at the time of the evening sacrifice.
Even so, angels can and do appear as men, as in the case of the two angels visiting Lot before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[ben_dy]

Zakuska:

ben,

If this topic where “put on the shelf long ago” as you claim… why was the linked article written… in 2002?

fairlds.org/pubs/jshist.pdf

History shows the facts… do with them what you want.

Actually, although that article is dated 2002, it does nothing to offer any new news of religious excitement in 1820 than the same information published in the 1940’s-1970’s (from my readings) - as I said, “old news”. It could be regurgitated in a forthcoming article in 2006 and it would still be old news, and the great revivals of the area would still not have taken place until 1824. It’s a factual error - get over it. I have. There are at least four ‘First Vision’ versions - the official one links the revivals in the area to 1824; by the time the official version was recorded, Smith may not have remembered the date correctly - regardless of the can of worms that this may open, he got the date wrong and when his story began to be seriously questioned, this was noted. He was dead by the time, so couldn’t retract his age or date or explain it. So - as I said - just leave it as an error because hard as had been tried, it can’t be refuted.

It’s rather like the hierarchies’ message regarding the Hill Cumorah - there was one and one only and to speak of two to try to ‘explain’ the lack of archeological evidence, etc., does nothing but put doubt in peoples mind - so accept one Hill Cumorah and god will reveal what he will reveal and keep hidden what he chooses to keep hidden.

Enough said.

 

[ben_dy]

AugustineH354:

I am truly beginning to wonder if I am the only Catholic who refuses to use poor arguments when discussing the CoJCoLDS. The essay that Zak linked to clearly demonstrates that of much of the “reasoning” in this thread is faulty.

Could you interpret that comment? It seems to imply that you see yourself as the only Catholic who is capable of arguing anything well, without resulting to faulty logic, when “discussing the CoJCoLDS”. The link that Zak provided is to a well-known apologetics tactic that implies that great revivals took place in his region in 1820, rather than 1824. How does this essay "
clearly demonstrate(s) that of much of the “reasoning” in this thread is faulty"? Are you agreeing that a single camp meeting of Methodists constitutes a great excitement of all religious sects in the area in 1820 or am I missing something, perhaps because of my “poor arguments” and “faulty” “reasoning”?

 

[Zakuska]

beny,

The link that Zak provided is to a well-known apologetics tactic that implies that great revivals took place in his region in 1820, rather than 1824.

Actually Joseph Smith contrary to the illiteracy and problems with reading comprehention that many on this thread have demonstrated… did not claim the “great revivals” where in 1820.

Let us again go back to his narrative.

JSH 1
3 I was born in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and five, on the twenty-third day of December, in the town of Sharon, Windsor county, State of Vermont . . . My father, Joseph Smith, Sen., left the State of Vermont, and moved to Palmyra, Ontario (now Wayne) county, in the State of New York, when I was in my tenth year, or thereabouts. In about four years after my father’s arrival in Palmyra, he moved with his family into Manchester in the same county of Ontario—
4 His family consisting of eleven souls, namely, my father, Joseph Smith; my mother, Lucy Smith (whose name, previous to her marriage, was Mack, daughter of Solomon Mack); my brothers, Alvin (who died November 19th, 1823, in the 26th year of his age), Hyrum, myself, Samuel Harrison, William, Don Carlos; and my sisters, Sophronia, Catherine, and Lucy.
5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

Hmmm… why was there no mention of Billy Graham coming to town riding on a pony?

Joseph Smith says this “excitement” started… with the methodists. Which History has shown as printed in a Local Newspaper did indeed start with tent meetings by the methodist less that 15 miles from Josephs home in that very year. I vote the analogy that some have made with the term “excitement” and “Christian Crusaides” is a red herring straw man.

Joseph does not mention “Grandious Fire from heaven tent Revivals at all”. Simply "Excitment in his Neighborhood starting with the Methodists. The Methodists where indeed the first to hold tent meetings in his neighborhood.

If this is the best you’ve got… heaven help the Bible with its screwed up Chronology that does not aline correctly. (eg There are 2 missing years for Noah, things get really fuzzy around the time of Abraham, many missing years there.)

 

[AugustineH354]

Hi Ben,

I am quite familiar with the tactics used by opponents of the RCC. For instance, James White (and a legion of other anti-Catholic authors) use similar arguments concerning be evidence for any successor to St. Peter (as universal pastor of the Church) before the 6th century, that they use for evidence of 1820 revivals in the Palmyra area. But, if one is trying to be objective, and really looking for it, the evidence for successors to St. Peter’s chair is there.

I submit that if you re-read the essay provided by FAIR with the same objectivity, evidence for revivals in 1820 is there.

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[ben_dy]

Zakuska:

beny,

Actually Joseph Smith contrary to the illiteracy and problems with reading comprehention (sic) that many on this thread have demonstrated… did not claim the “great revivals” where (sic) in 1820.:

Zakuska:

Let us again go back to his narrative.:

Yes, lets…

5 Some time in the second year after our removal to Manchester, there was in the place where we lived an unusual excitement on the subject of religion. It commenced with the Methodists, but soon became general among all the sects in that region of country. Indeed, the whole district of country seemed affected by it, and great multitudes united themselves to the different religious parties, which created no small stir and division amongst the people, some crying, “Lo, here!” and others, “Lo, there!” Some were contending for the Methodist faith, some for the Presbyterian, and some for the Baptist.

6 For, notwithstanding the great love which the converts to these different faiths expressed at the time of their conversion, and the great zeal manifested by the respective clergy, who were active in getting up and promoting this extraordinary scene of religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued—priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another, if they ever had any, were entirely lost in a strife of words and a contest about opinions.

7 I was at this time in my fifteenth year. My father’s family was proselyted to the Presbyterian faith, and four of them joined that church, namely, my mother, Lucy; my brothers Hyrum and Samuel Harrison; and my sister Sophronia.

8 During this time of great excitement my mind was called up to serious reflection and great uneasiness; but though my feelings were deep and often poignant, still I kept myself aloof from all these parties, though I attended their several meetings as often as occasion would permit. In process of time my mind became somewhat partial to the Methodist sect, and I felt some desire to be united with them; but so great were the confusion and astrife among the different denominations, that it was impossible for a person young as I was, and so unacquainted with men and things, to come to any certain conclusion who was right and who was wrong.

9 My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.

Zakuska:

Hmmm… why was there no mention of Billy Graham coming to town riding on a pony?:

Presumably because Billy Graham had not yet been born. I am also unaware of Graham traveling to his tent meetings, revivals, and crusades, astride a pony.

Zakuska:

Joseph Smith says this “excitement” started… with the methodists. Which History has shown as printed in a Local Newspaper did indeed start with tent meetings by the methodist less that 15 miles from Josephs home in that very year. I vote the analogy that some have made with the term “excitement” and “Christian Crusaides” is a red herring straw man.

And I think you are down-playing the actual words of Smith, “unusual excitement… became general among all the sects in that region of the country,” “no small stir and division amongst the people,” “extraordinary scene of religious feeling”, etc. - with a bare mention of a Methodist camp meeting.

…continued…