LDS: Do they consider Catholics christian?

[runningdude]

Mormons believe that Catholics are Christians, meaning followers of Christ, but believe there is no salvation outside of the LDS church.

What happens to faithful Catholics and Protestants when they die then?

They are provisionally baptized post-mortem by proxy in the LDS temple if a family member or other eligible LDS member present their name. The LDS believe the dead are free to accept or reject the baptism.

 

[Padres1969]

They are provisionally baptized post-mortem by proxy in the LDS temple if a family member or other eligible LDS member present their name. The LDS believe the dead are free to accept or reject the baptism.

What if they don’t have LDS family?

 

[Padres1969]

Simple question. I’ve tried googling but all links end up been about what Catholics think of Mormons, not the other way. I did work out that Mormons don’t consider a Catholic baptism valid, which suggests to me that they don’t consider us Christian but that could simply be me assuming they think the same way the Church does.

My admittedly outsider understanding of it is that the LDS view Catholics, and indeed other Christians, as fellow Christians who lack the whole of truth. That theirs, the LDS Church, is the one true restored church of Christ and that you must be Mormon to have the whole of truth. Not totally unlike the Catholic view of Protestants and other Chrisitans.

 

[Crusaderbear]

Please forgive me, but is there a REASON I, as a believer in the Roman Catholic faith, should be in the least bit concerned about what members of the LDS (or any other faith with differing views than the Catholic Church) believe about my chances for salvation? Am I reading more into this discussion than is being presented? It’s always interesting to know and understand other beliefs, but it’s not really my problem if they don’t agree with me. I can’t (and won’t) force them -believe or die ended with the inquisition (at least for the Christian world). God will sort us all out in the end.

 

[twopekinguys]

This work will be completed and corrected during the millennium, the 1000 years of peace after Christ returns. Also, it is important to know that no ordinance is valid unless it is accepted by the person for whom it is being performed, and sealed by the Holy Spirit.

But unfortunately, with the mormon church records indicating that something has been done, it gives a totally different appearance. It’s not like they get a written acceptance from beyond.

People in 100 years tracing their family roots will be falsely led to believe their ancestors were mormon by the “ordinances” listed.

When your church was caught baptizing Jewish Holocaust victims, such as Anne Frank, did they ever make the claim that it wasn’t valid until accepted by her? Did they ever remove that record?

Rather a slippery slope. Here is an interesting read on the subject. nytimes.com/2012/03/03/us/jews-take-issue-with-posthumous-mormon-baptisms-beliefs.html?_r=0

 

[jane_doe]

People in 100 years tracing their family roots will be falsely led to believe their ancestors were mormon by the “ordinances” listed.

If someone was born, lived, and died in Spain in the 1800’s, and LDS baptism is dated 2004 in San Diego, I’m pretty sure there’s not going to be a mix up.

 

[runningdude]

What if they don’t have LDS family?

That is why the Mormons work hard on producing genealogical records. They want to preserve the memory so that a distance grandchild or grandnephew could seek a licit baptism.

Some LDS members also cheat, and will baptize just about anyone. This has caused grave offense to some family members of the vicariously baptized.

 

[twopekinguys]

If someone was born, lived, and died in Spain in the 1800’s, and LDS baptism is dated 2004 in San Diego, I’m pretty sure there’s not going to be a mix up.

Unfortunately, many of these unauthorized “ordinances” have been done much, much sooner. i.e. Saint Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa, Princess Dianna, etc.

The fact the a record exists is problematic enough.

 

[Miriam1947]

The LDS teaching is that the Catholic Christian Church went apostate very soon after the death of the Twelve Apostles. Catholic Tradition and the Catholic Bible are considered corrupted. The valid Church was restored and the Book of Mormon translated/dictated by Joseph Smith in 19th Century America.

Mormon theology is very different from Catholic, rejecting the Trinitarian God. Despite our large theological differences, there is much that Catholics can find admirable about the LDS. Their prolife, pro-family teachings and practices are very commendable.

Is the Mormon church really pro-life?

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or

A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or

A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct."

deseretnews.com/article/700131590/The-Mormon-Churchs-official-statement-on-abortion.html?pg=all

 

[Padres1969]

Is the Mormon church really pro-life?

"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions.

The Church allows for possible exceptions for its members when:

Pregnancy results from rape or incest, or

A competent physician determines that the life or health of the mother is in serious jeopardy, or

A competent physician determines that the fetus has severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth.

The Church teaches its members that even these rare exceptions do not justify abortion automatically. Abortion is a most serious matter and should be considered only after the persons involved have consulted with their local church leaders and feel through personal prayer that their decision is correct."

deseretnews.com/article/700131590/The-Mormon-Churchs-official-statement-on-abortion.html?pg=all

Depends on what you view as Pro-Life. For a ardently Pro-Choice person who believes there should be no restrictions on abortion at all, restricting abortion to these very limited exceptions (and even then counseling otherwise) would seem very Anti-Abortion. For a Catholic who accepts no exceptions at all and rejects any and all elective abortion, I would imagine the view the LDS church espouses above would seem Pro-Abortion in that it has those limited exceptions.

 

[Marie5890]

Unfortunately, many of these unauthorized “ordinances” have been done much, much sooner. i.e. Saint Pope John Paul II, Mother Theresa, Princess Dianna, etc.

The fact the a record exists is problematic enough.

So offensive.

As if John Paul, Mother Theresa etc, have Mormon family members…

The arrogance.

 

[mtolympus]

My admittedly outsider understanding of it is that the LDS view Catholics, and indeed other Christians, as fellow Christians who lack the whole of truth. That theirs, the LDS Church, is the one true restored church of Christ and that you must be Mormon to have the whole of truth. Not totally unlike the Catholic view of Protestants and other Chrisitans.

I think you summed it up nicely.

Your response reminded me of my first Sunday in U. S. Army basic training. In morning formation the sergeant called, “All Catholics over here” “All Protestants over here” “All Jewish over here” This left five of us standing there.

The sergeant yelled. “What are you guys?”

One called back, “LDS”

You go to the LSD church?

No! Latter-day Saints.

OK, go with the Protestants.

It was a nice experience, but the next week we were able to go on our own to a Latter-day Saint branch on the post.

 

[mtolympus]

A disciple must love Jesus even more than his immediate family. (Luke 14:26)
A disciple requires self-denial, complete dedication, willing obedience, and total commitment – even unto death (Luke 14:27)
A disciple surrenders everything for Jesus. (Luke 14:33)
A disciple loves others as Jesus has loved him. (John 13:34-35)

A disciple remains true to Jesus’ words and teachings. (John 8:31)

This last one is where the agreement or disagreement lies, when there are discussions about who is or is not a Christian. Obviously, at a Catholic forum the position is that the words and teachings of Jesus are preserved and handed on in the Church He established, and modifications to His words and teachings are either heresy or something entirely different.

Excellent verses that give us a biblical definition of Christian/disciple of Christ. St. John 8:31 is very important. “Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, If you remain in my word you will truly be my disciples.” This shows that more than believing is required.

I can see how the position of the Catholic forum could use this to exclude Latter-day Saints from the definition. On the other hand, this verse could also give Latter-day Saints a reason to exclude Catholics. However, we will give you the benefit of the doubt.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Excellent verses that give us a biblical definition of Christian/disciple of Christ. St. John 8:31 is very important. “Jesus then said to those Jews who believed in him, If you remain in my word you will truly be my disciples.” This shows that more than believing is required.

I can see how the position of the Catholic forum could use this to exclude Latter-day Saints from the definition. On the other hand, this verse could also give Latter-day Saints a reason to exclude Catholics. However, we will give you the benefit of the doubt.

I don’t see things so black and white as you.

I recognize that individual members of the LDS Church seek to follow the words of Jesus Christ, according to their own conscience, and in so doing are genuine disciples. A disciple also has a valid baptism, which individual LDS member lack, and so are not technically Christian, as baptism is what incorporates us into the Body of Christ.

The Mormon church, itself, however, propagates many innovations that exist outside of Christianity and is not a Christian religion. The baptism it provides its members is not valid, from a Catholic POV.

In short, I see LDS members as Jesus did those who were performing miracles in His name. Paraphrasing, if you aren’t against Christianity, you are with us.

It gets more complicated with individual doctrines and beliefs, as in some very major instances, LDS are against us.

So yeah, I see LDS members as desiring to follow the word of Jesus’, but have major stumbling blocks put in their way. Which is not to say, nah nah nah. All of us have hurdles to overcome, in our journey towards Christ.

 

[jane_doe]

A disciple also has a valid baptism, which individual LDS member lack, and so are not technically Christian, as baptism is what incorporates us into the Body of Christ.

There are groups within Christianity mainstream which view a baptism as unnecessary to salvation (that it doesn’t actually “do” anything), and hence those members don’t get baptized. Would you consider them to not be Christian?

 

[RebeccaJ]

There are groups within Christianity mainstream which view a baptism as unnecessary to salvation (that it doesn’t actually “do” anything), and hence those members don’t get baptized. Would you consider them to not be Christian?

Same answer as for LDS.

 

[Padres1969]

There are groups within Christianity mainstream which view a baptism as unnecessary to salvation (that it doesn’t actually “do” anything), and hence those members don’t get baptized. Would you consider them to not be Christian?

Do you have any examples of what denomination(s) you’re referring to specifically? Because most of the “mainstream” Christian faiths that believe in the trinity and such do practice baptism.

And based on what you’re saying I’d presume that any member of one of these faiths would need to be baptized if they joined one of the mainstream trinitarian Christian faiths that does practice baptism.

 

[jane_doe]

Do you have any examples of what denomination(s) you’re referring to specifically? Because most of the “mainstream” Christian faiths that believe in the trinity and such do practice baptism.

For example, my friend attends an non-denominational church, who views physical baptism as completely “you are baptized in the spirit when you come unto Christ, and no act we can do adds to the finished work of Christ”. Majority of the members there simply don’t bother being baptized.

And based on what you’re saying I’d presume that any member of one of these faiths would need to be baptized if they joined one of the mainstream trinitarian Christian faiths that does practice baptism.

I’m just asking whether or not you would consider such a person to be a Christian.

 

[Stephen168]

For example, my friend attends an non-denominational church, who views physical baptism as completely “you are baptized in the spirit when you come unto Christ, and no act we can do adds to the finished work of Christ”. Majority of the members there simply don’t bother being baptized.

I’m just asking whether or not you would consider such a person to be a Christian.

I would not consider a non-denominational church part of the Christian main stream and in this case people who reject Christ and the Apistle’s requirement for baptism. Baptism is required to be Christian.

 

[Padres1969]

For example, my friend attends an non-denominational church, who views physical baptism as completely “you are baptized in the spirit when you come unto Christ, and no act we can do adds to the finished work of Christ”. Majority of the members there simply don’t bother being baptized.

I’m just asking whether or not you would consider such a person to be a Christian.

I would argue your friend’s church isn’t really Christian then and definitely not mainstream. One of the core unifying traits among Christians has always been baptism in the proper trinitarian formula. Any of the true mainstream churches do not recognize people who have not been baptized as Christians, hence they’re baptized when they join (or re-baptized if “baptized” as part of a non-Christian faith that does practice their own form of baptism). Most non-denominational churches I’ve seen do practice baptism, even if some frame it as symbolic of a conversion that has already taken place within a person when someone was “born again,” but they still practice it as it is a significant identifier of being Christian.

But it is one issue I have with the rise of the non-denominational churches, the wild variation in theology between some of them. Most I’ve seen are basically just Southern Baptist, American Baptist, one of the Pentacostal Christian churches, etc… by a different name and outside the formal denominational structure. The one my cousin goes to for example actually was a Southern Baptist Church by name until they disaffiliated about 15 years ago, but their doctrine is still essentially Baptist. But some of the non-denominational churches do stray outside what I’d consider Christian, and it sounds like your friend’s church might be at the fringe, if not over the line, of being not actually Christian.