LDS worship

[Janderich]

So, if it is symbolic, it isn’t a real baptism?

Of course bodies are not exhumed. And it would be very strange to attempt to baptize cremains. So what exactly is done?

Is blood atonement also symbolic?

Let me try and clarify. It is rather simple. A living person is baptized in a font “for and in behalf of” someone who has passed on. A simple sentence saying that the living person is being baptized in behalf of a specific person who has passed on constitutes the difference between a living baptism and one performed for the deceased.

About blood atonement: A statement was put out by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 2010 which said:

In the mid-19th century, when rhetorical, emotional oratory was common, some church members and leaders used strong language that included notions of people making restitution for their sins by giving up their own lives.

However, so-called “blood atonement,” by which individuals would be required to shed their own blood to pay for their sins, is not a doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.

The anti-LDS crowed makes this out to be something it is not.

 

[TexanKnight]

Let me try and clarify. It is rather simple. A living person is baptized in a font “for and in behalf of” someone who has passed on. A simple sentence saying that the living person is being baptized in behalf of a specific person who has passed on constitutes the difference between a living baptism and one performed for the deceased.

Correction; A living person is baptized in a font “for and in behalf of” someone who has passed on WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE FAMILY THAT PERSON BELONGS TO. Tis is irrespective of the wishes of the deceased OR the family of the family of the deceased AND, in some cases, irrespective of promises by the LDS Authorities NOT to do it.

About blood atonement: A statement was put out by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 2010 which said:
The anti-LDS crowed makes this out to be something it is not.

lol…this is just another dishonest attempt by the current leaders to whitewash the past. I know. I was part of it. I was part of the promise to cut the throat of others and allow my throat to be cut. I was part of the promise to slice open the bowels of others and allow my bowels to sliced open.

You could take what the current leaders have tried to whitewash, rewrite, deny and forget and it would fill volumes of books. THAT is the biggest problem of the LDS Church and the most convincing proof it is a false church: A True Church would not have hide, whitewash and forget.

 

[Marie5890]

A non-whitewashed, historical look at the doctrine of blood atonement prior to the modern day LDS church abandonment of it.

And from Brigham Young, himself. Second only to Joseph Smith in terms of Mormon historical and “prophet” importance.

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/atonement.html

 

[Stephen168]

Tarboy,
Thank you for seeking to understand and clarify. It is symbolic as you have said, no bodies are exhumed in the process.

Let me try and clarify. It is rather simple. A living person is baptized in a font “for and in behalf of” someone who has passed on. A simple sentence saying that the living person is being baptized in behalf of a specific person who has passed on constitutes the difference between a living baptism and one performed for the deceased.

So nothing really happens at a Mormon baptism because it is JUST a symbol. You do not become a member of the Mormon Church and you are not cleansed of your sins, because it is just a symbol.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Let me try and clarify. It is rather simple. A living person is baptized in a font “for and in behalf of” someone who has passed on. A simple sentence saying that the living person is being baptized in behalf of a specific person who has passed on constitutes the difference between a living baptism and one performed for the deceased.

I’m sorry but that doesn’t clarify it, at least to me (I don’t mean to sound uncharitable; sometimes things that are very clear to others are just not clear to me). It sounds like baptism by proxy & that sounds like an attempt to take away someone’s free will yet I’ve been told in this thread that the person who is being “symbolically” baptised has the freedom to not accept the baptism. If it’s only symbolic then what happens? It would be like having what is called “Communion” but only in a symbolic way (and that is practiced by many Protestant denominations). It’s pointless if it’s only symbolic, isn’t it? Personally, I don’t want anyone to even attempt to baptise me as a Mormon. I’ve already been baptised as a Catholic.

So why is it done? I’m really confused by this.

About blood atonement: A statement was put out by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 2010 which said:
The anti-LDS crowed makes this out to be something it is not.

It’s my understanding that blood atonement was the shedding of someone else’s blood, not one’s own blood, and that it was done in order to “save” the killed person’s soul. It’s my understanding that the rationale behind this is that if the killed person really knew that it was saving his/her soul, then he/she would gladly accept the killing.

"During the early years of Mormonism it was frequently alleged that the leaders of the church sanctioned the practice of putting both Gentiles and Mormon apostates to death. In 1969-70, we made a detailed study of the charges and published our conclusions in a book entitled, The Mormon Kingdom, Vol. 2. The evidence that we marshalled convinced us that many of the claims were genuine. Since doing this research we found even more evidence to verify that there was a conspiracy to destroy dissenters and other people that the Mormon leaders hated.

"While many Mormon scholars would like to scoff at those who have seriously studied this matter, there is incontrovertible proof that Brigham Young, the second prophet of the Mormon Church, publicly preached a doctrine called “blood atonement.” Although one might think that the name of this doctrine came from the atonement of Jesus on the cross, the truth of the matter is that it relates to people being put to death. Brigham Young explained this in a sermon given on September 21, 1856:

“'There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.”

exmormon.org/d6/drupal/bloodatn
[underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

Is my understanding completely incorrect? The part that I have underlined implies very strongly that some people who were killed did not give their consent to be killed. And that makes it outright murder. It also claims that there are sins which cannot be forgiven in this world or in the world which is to come and that is just not true. The only sin (singular) that will not be forgiven (note that I did not say “cannot be forgiven”) is a sin against the Holy Spirit, which is the refusal to atone and repent of a mortal sin. God will forgive every sin except this one because if He did so it would take away the sinner’s free will. We also do not know what happens at the point of death and that is why the Church does not claim that any specific person is in hell. The Church simply does not know. It’s quite possible that one is given the chance, at the point of death, to atone and repent for all sins committed during his/her lifetime.

There are lots of things about the Mormon Church that I don’t understand and this is one of them. I’ve also read that Mormons such as Bishop Snow castrated young men who refused to end their relationships with young women who had been chosen as wives by Mormon leaders.

“In Utah it has been the custom with the Priesthood to make eunuchs of such men as were obnoxious to the leaders. This was done for a double purpose: first, it gave a perfect revenge, and next, it left the poor victim a living example to others of the dangers of disobeying counsel and not living as ordered by the Priesthood.”

[taken from same website as provided above]

I’ve asked a question before but never got a straight answer (I’m not accusing you of not answering; nobody answered in a way that I could understand). The Mormon Church, at least at one time, promoted the idea of polygamy - one man could have several wives. I’ve read that Joseph Smith had numerous wives, some of whom were already married when he took them as his wives. I’ve also read that after his death, some of his wives married Brigham Young.

My question is: during this time was it acceptable to Joseph Smith/Brigham Young and the Mormon Church for women to have multiple husbands? I’m asking because I’ve never read about women having multiple husbands but I’ve read about men having multiple wives. Will you please clarify this? Thanks in advance.

 

[LittleSoldier]

A non-whitewashed, historical look at the doctrine of blood atonement prior to the modern day LDS church abandonment of it.

And from Brigham Young, himself. Second only to Joseph Smith in terms of Mormon historical and “prophet” importance.

law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mountainmeadows/atonement.html

Thank you for the link! It not only states the following:

Brigham Young took the doctrine of blood atonement further than Smith. According to historian Juanita Brooks, “Young advocated and preached it without compromise.” Young, in an 1857 fire-and-brimstone sermon, demanded to know whether his his flock would have the courage to do what was necessary should a fellow Mormon commit an unforgiveable sin: “Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed his blood?” Some sinners, Young preached, who are “now angels to the devil” could have been saved if only some among their Mormon brethren would have “spilled their blood on the ground as a smoking incense to the almighty.”

---

but presents some concepts/teachings of the Mormon Church of which I was not aware:

(1) theocracy;
(2) communalism;
(3) “holy murder.”

I need to find out more about these. It seems clear that blood atonement was not always performed at the request and/or acceptance of the one to be killed and that it was not always performed on Mormons but also on “gentiles” (those who were not Mormons). If true, this is very frightening. It leads me to wonder if those in power used these doctrines as rationalizations for murdering those who did not agree with Mormon beliefs.

 

[Jerusha]

It leads me to wonder if those in power used these doctrines as rationalizations for murdering those who did not agree with Mormon beliefs.

You wonder? A number of early LDS autobiographies refer to anti-LDS as “demons [or fiends] in human form.”

 

[pmccombs]

Thank you for the link! It not only states the following:
I need to find out more about these. It seems clear that blood atonement was not always performed at the request and/or acceptance of the one to be killed and that it was not always performed on Mormons but also on “gentiles” (those who were not Mormons). If true, this is very frightening. It leads me to wonder if those in power used these doctrines as rationalizations for murdering those who did not agree with Mormon beliefs.

And what, LittleSoldier, of Theodorus who would sanction the murder of heretics with his pen dipped in the holy wine? If true, this is very frightening.

What of the popes of the tenth century, whose histories are full of intrigues, debaucheries, violence, torture, murder, and so forth? Can you imagine? Holy men behaving in this manner! If true, this is very frightening.

Perhaps you shall say that these histories are incomplete, taken out of context, biased, misrepresented, oversimplified, falsified, or misunderstood. When Mormon apologists make these same kinds of claims, they are accused of “whitewashing” their history.

Or perhaps you shall say that these iniquitous pontiffs were misguided and that the Holy Church has since been placed on straighter paths. Perhaps you shall discover some doctrinal loopholes, or theories of affliction with which to excuse the Church even if its leaders sometimes misbehave. When Mormon apologists candidly admit the fallibility of their past leaders, and point out that the modern church disavows such errant doctrines and no longer practices them, it is said that this is just more evidence that the Mormon church could not be true, for what sort of God would have allowed such things in His holy and allegedly inspired Church?

The past is a foreign land; we can make of it what we wish. What we choose to see in the histories of other faiths speaks more to our own character than it does to those whom we wish to discredit. Mormon adherents cherish their faith for the beauty they find in it, not for the ugliness. Like the Catholic faith does for its many faithful, the Mormon church fills a God-shaped hole in the hearts of sincere Mormons.

I would hope, so as to avoid hypocrisy, that the generous Catholic whose Church has not always risen above reproach, would extend a certain courtesy to the Mormon who finds himself in similar circumstances. It does not become us, people of good will, to dig up the troubling past of our neighbor’s church. Does it really build our own faith to, like a voyeur, relish the immodest moments of someone else’s church?

I know that, as a Mormon agnostic, I am far more persuaded by the Catholics who share with me the awesome and faith-inspiring truths of Catholicism than by those who find something “frightening” to point out about my church.

 

[Patavium]

pmccombs,

See this thread about Bad Popes
forum.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=670307

Many of the central truths of the Catholic Religion were being opposed or ignored. It was clear that the faith of the ordinary Catholic was being eroded and destroyed by this revolutionary and rapid change.

This is not to say that there was not a need for reform. Most Catholic historians and theologians acknowledge that some aspects of Catholic life were in need of reform. There was little proper seminary training for priests and the sacraments and sacramentals were being abused by Churchmen. Some princes and kings were given too much power in the Church and many clergy were meddling in affairs of State. While all of this is true, we must remember that this poor state of affairs in the Church did not affect all areas of the Faith.

Even despite all their corruption and human weakness, the bad Popes and unscrupulous clerics did not change the centuries-old body of Catholic teaching. They did not re-write Catholic doctrine nor try to change the traditional beliefs about the Mass and the Sacraments.

It was the protestant reformers who wanted these changes to Catholic doctrine and practice. Many of these reformers complained about the obvious corruption which did exist in the Church, but they also wanted to change basic belief.

The RCC has their bad laundry AVAILABLE for anyone to see!. We do not hide it. Can the Mormon Church say this?, and NO, Bad Popes did not change Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching unlike other christian churches teaching does not change to please the generations. It is about pleasing God alone!.

 

[Patavium]

I know that, as a Mormon agnostic, I am far more persuaded by the Catholics who share with me the awesome and faith-inspiring truths of Catholicism than by those who find something “frightening” to point out about my church.

So, you dislike being told that some practices of the Mormon Church are unscriptural, and lack historical validity… You prefer to just be told about how we have Apostolic Succession, and then you can mention that the Mormon Church has that too, and we can both smile happily?.

You know, Christian Catholics are willing to hear where we go wrong. It is part of learning more about our faith. Being challenged about what we believe. I am not bothered, when someone tells me that “You Catholics worship saints”, or any other question. I am happy to answer this.

 

[LittleSoldier]

And what, LittleSoldier, of Theodorus who would sanction the murder of heretics with his pen dipped in the holy wine? If true, this is very frightening.

Are you actually using this as a defense for your church? If so, I am very surprised. Surely two wrongs do not make a right. Also, I will point out that the founder of the Catholic Church was God Himself, who never did wrong. His Church is perfect as she is the Body of Christ. Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church - not God. And *that *is only one reason why I find what I have read “frightening.”

What of the popes of the tenth century, whose histories are full of intrigues, debaucheries, violence, torture, murder, and so forth? Can you imagine? Holy men behaving in this manner! If true, this is very frightening.

I’m sure that some of it *is *true, but their actions were never condoned by the Church, while the actual doctrines of the Mormon Church (as far as I can tell) condoned murder and adultery.

Perhaps you shall say that these histories are incomplete, taken out of context, biased, misrepresented, oversimplified, falsified, or misunderstood. When Mormon apologists make these same kinds of claims, they are accused of “whitewashing” their history.

And perhaps I shall not.

Or perhaps you shall say that these iniquitous pontiffs were misguided and that the Holy Church has since been placed on straighter paths. Perhaps you shall discover some doctrinal loopholes, or theories of affliction with which to excuse the Church even if its leaders sometimes misbehave. When Mormon apologists candidly admit the fallibility of their past leaders, and point out that the modern church disavows such errant doctrines and no longer practices them, it is said that this is just more evidence that the Mormon church could not be true, for what sort of God would have allowed such things in His holy and allegedly inspired Church?

Well, you seem to have pretty much decided what I am going to say; you’ve given me some options but not very many. It’s difficult to pigeon-hole me. And that is because I am honest and when I say something is frightening I do not mean it in an uncharitable way but simply because it is frightening. I believe I’ve covered this part in my first response above.

The past is a foreign land; we can make of it what we wish. What we choose to see in the histories of other faiths speaks more to our own character than it does to those whom we wish to discredit. Mormon adherents cherish their faith for the beauty they find in it, not for the ugliness. Like the Catholic faith does for its many faithful, the Mormon church fills a God-shaped hole in the hearts of sincere Mormons.

No. We cannot change what has happened. It is *not *a foreign land. These events happened no matter how I personally feel about them. Now Jesus did not practice polygamy or blood atonement and you have not defended these practices but do seem to be admitting that what I have read is true. And yes, that is frightening. To me.

I would hope, so as to avoid hypocrisy, that the generous Catholic whose Church has not always risen above reproach, would extend a certain courtesy to the Mormon who finds himself in similar circumstances. It does not become us, people of good will, to dig up the troubling past of our neighbor’s church. Does it really build our own faith to, like a voyeur, relish the immodest moments of someone else’s church?

Hmmm…evidently someone is attempting to gag me. I do not take kindly to that. It also appears that someone is making an attempt to skirt the issues by taking the focus off the Mormon Church and placing it squarely on the Catholic Church and on me. And I have now been called a voyeur and you have implied that I am a hypocrite and ungenerous and that I am trying to dig up the troubling past of your church…oops, I missed one. You also have implied that I “relish the immodest moments of your church.” Well, this is the first time that I have ever been called a voyeur, at least to my face (so to speak). A voyeur. That is not nice. Uncharitable behavior does not sit well with me. I brought up some issues that are frightening to me. I have tried to be charitable. But instead of discussing the issues you point the finger at someone else (the Church) and then hurl a few ad hominems at me.

I know that, as a Mormon agnostic, I am far more persuaded by the Catholics who share with me the awesome and faith-inspiring truths of Catholicism than by those who find something “frightening” to point out about my church.

With all due respect, I am not concerned with persuading you. I’m not trying to convert you! I brought up issues with your church in order to understand it and instead of discussing those issues you began discussing me. I believe the moderator has warned us about this practice.

Please try to remain on-topic. If you feel that I have broken any forum rules you are free to notify the moderator. And I would appreciate it if you discontinue discussing me, especially when it comes to implying that I am a hypocrite, a voyeur, and that I “relish” the immodest moments of your church. I am not a hypocrite. I am not a voyeur. And I certainly do not relish the immodest moments of your church. I find them sad.

 

[TexanKnight]

And what, LittleSoldier, of Theodorus who would sanction the murder of heretics with his pen dipped in the holy wine? If true, this is very frightening.

Context, please

What of the popes of the tenth century, whose histories are full of intrigues, debaucheries, violence, torture, murder, and so forth? Can you imagine? Holy men behaving in this manner! If true, this is very frightening.

Ah…the failed LDS strategy of comparing popes to alleged prophets and comparing what happened in the tenth century in Europe to what happened in the 1850s in the USA. Incredibly amusing

Or perhaps you shall say that these iniquitous pontiffs were misguided and that the Holy Church has since been placed on straighter paths. Perhaps you shall discover some doctrinal loopholes, or theories of affliction with which to excuse the Church even if its leaders sometimes misbehave. When Mormon apologists candidly admit the fallibility of their past leaders, and point out that the modern church disavows such errant doctrines and no longer practices them, it is said that this is just more evidence that the Mormon church could not be true, for what sort of God would have allowed such things in His holy and allegedly inspired Church?

The Catholic Church has NEVER claimed that popes are prophets who, according to Joseph Smith, speak face to face with God. To compare them means that you do not really believe the LDS prophets to be true prophets. I am ok with that

The past is a foreign land; we can make of it what we wish. What we choose to see in the histories of other faiths speaks more to our own character than it does to those whom we wish to discredit. Mormon adherents cherish their faith for the beauty they find in it, not for the ugliness. Like the Catholic faith does for its many faithful, the Mormon church fills a God-shaped hole in the hearts of sincere Mormons.

So? Filling a void does not make it true. And we do not try to whitewash and change our history like the LDS Church does of their very short and well-documented (in English) history

I would hope, so as to avoid hypocrisy, that the generous Catholic whose Church has not always risen above reproach, would extend a certain courtesy to the Mormon who finds himself in similar circumstances. It does not become us, people of good will, to dig up the troubling past of our neighbor’s church. Does it really build our own faith to, like a voyeur, relish the immodest moments of someone else’s church?

I know that, as a Mormon agnostic, I am far more persuaded by the Catholics who share with me the awesome and faith-inspiring truths of Catholicism than by those who find something “frightening” to point out about my church.

Your church is led by false prophets. that needs to be pointed out. And, I admire your honesty in claiming to be LDS Agnostic. Frankly, all LDS should label themselves as such.

 

[LittleSoldier]

ADDENDUM TO MY POST #131:

Actually the “holy wine” is not wine at all. And so “holy wine” is a misnomer. That raised a red flag. When the wine is consecrated it ceases to be wine and is now the Blood of Jesus.

I looked around for references (you didn’t provide any) and all I could find was your post (the first hit on google) and a couple of very rabid anti-Catholic websites. If you have a reliable reference please post it. Otherwise it is an unfounded assertion. I’m not saying it didn’t happen but I don’t enjoy visiting websites that are extremely nasty to the Church.

 

[LittleSoldier]

After that, a Sacrament Hymn (a hymn about Communion, Christ’s sacrifice, etc) is sung. During the Sacrament Hymn, young men and/or adults that are ordained to the priesthood break the bread that will be blessed. Following the Sacrament Hymn, the bread and water (we do not use wine or grape juice) are blessed by the priesthood, and passed to the congregation to partake.

Do Mormons believe in the Real Presence? In transubstantiation? Why isn’t wine used? I’m asking the last question because Jesus used wine.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

 

[LittleSoldier]

TexanKnight:
pmcombs said:
And what, LittleSoldier, of Theodorus who would sanction the murder of heretics with his pen dipped in the holy wine? If true, this is very frightening.

TexanKnight said:
Context, please.

I googled this as I am not very well-read in the history of heretics, although I know a little. When I read “holy wine” a red flag popped up. As far as I know there is wine and there is the Blood of Jesus. It’s not holy wine and IMO if this term is used it is a misnomer. But then what do I know?

What I found was a link to the post to which you responded (as did I) and and some links to rabid anti-Catholic websites. I tried to find it on NewAdvent and failed but that doesn’t mean much because I’m sure you know how difficult it is to navigate through NewAdvent.

What really happened, as explained on NewAdvent and Wiki (which stated it had taken its information from NewAdvent and then had drastically changed that information (I wonder why)), is so complicated that I gave up trying to understand it. It does involve heresy. As far as Theodorus dipping his pen in “holy wine” - well, I don’t know about that. But I did learn some interesting facts about the Church on those anti-Catholic websites.

 

[HonoraDominum]

Do Mormons believe in the Real Presence? In transubstantiation? Why isn’t wine used? I’m asking the last question because Jesus used wine.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

Mormons do not believe in Transubstantiation. They bless the bread with these prayers (and the blessing for the water is similar):

O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he hath given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen

Young boys, about 16 years old, bless the bread, and if there is any stumbling or mispronouncing of the words, the prayer starts all over again.

As a Mormon, I was taught that the “wine” that Christ used at the Last Supper was simply unfermented grape juice, and that the water was symbolic of the wine used.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Mormons do not believe in Transubstantiation. They bless the bread with these prayers (and the blessing for the water is similar):

Young boys, about 16 years old, bless the bread, and if there is any stumbling or mispronouncing of the words, the prayer starts all over again.

As a Mormon, I was taught that the “wine” that Christ used at the Last Supper was simply unfermented grape juice, and that the water was symbolic of the wine used.

Thank you. I didn’t think they believed in the Real Presence but using water instead of wine had me stumped.

 

[pmccombs]

Also, I will point out that the founder of the Catholic Church was God Himself, who never did wrong. His Church is perfect as she is the Body of Christ. Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church - not God. And *that *is only one reason why I find what I have read "frightening."I’m sure that some of it *is *true, but their actions were never condoned by the Church, while the actual doctrines of the Mormon Church (as far as I can tell) condoned murder and adultery.

I have little to say in defense of my church, or any other. I am an agnostic with a vicious streak of nihilism who attends and participates in the Mormon church because it is the faith of my fathers. At one time I felt strongly about the truth claims of my church; now I regard all such claims with equal skepticism. You say that God founded the Catholic church; the Mormon says that God founded the Mormon church. The Catholic excuses his church in spite of the ill behavior of its chosen leaders by saying that at least the doctrine has remained pure; the Mormon likewise argues that the extreme teachings of some past leaders were never raised to the level of doctrine through the means set out in our own scripture, and when they have been, he points to practices apparently not frowned upon in biblical times among the ancients.

And perhaps I shall not.Well, you seem to have pretty much decided what I am going to say; you’ve given me some options but not very many. It’s difficult to pigeon-hole me. And that is because I am honest and when I say something is frightening I do not mean it in an uncharitable way but simply because it is frightening. I believe I’ve covered this part in my first response above.

I do not decide what you shall say, I merely imagine what you could possibly have to say. Did you have something else to say about apologetic approaches to difficulties in past history that I did not cover (i.e., through claiming misrepresentation or by reconciliation)? I fail to see how your self-proclaimed honesty and alleged charity in calling a thing “frightening” has anything at all to do with the methods of apologia I commented about.

No. We cannot change what has happened. It is *not *a foreign land. These events happened no matter how I personally feel about them. Now Jesus did not practice polygamy or blood atonement and you have not defended these practices but do seem to be admitting that what I have read is true.

You misunderstand me. We cannot change what has happened, but we typically know very little about it. Do you think you know all about Jesus’ practices? Based on tradition? Based on several hundred pages of second-hand writings that appeared long after the history they purport to describe? Simply because a thing is not recorded does not mean that it did not happen. Jesus didn’t practice polygamy or blood atonement? Probably not. But little historic evidence remains on the matter, and the man is known to have lived for at least three decades if he lived at all. You have greater certainty in the past than I. The more I find out about what evidence there is, the less convinced I am that Jesus founded any Church at all (but that’s why we all have apologetics, to deal with these problems).

Hmmm…evidently someone is attempting to gag me.

I see I have struck a nerve. I apologize. If it helps you to feel any better, you will notice that I brought up what many perceive to be the Catholic church’s “dirty laundry,” thus placing myself in the same censured company that I framed you, and thereby allowing me to turn my criticism to the general “we” rather than at “you” in particular. If you read closely, that is.

I brought up issues with your church in order to understand it and instead of discussing those issues you began discussing me. I believe the moderator has warned us about this practice.

It is only that I understood the topic of the discussion to be a question about LDS worship, and here we are talking about blood atonement, polygamy, polyandry, and every other salacious and unsavory aspect of Mormonism that has long since been left behind; and even when it was current, it didn’t contribute significant character to Mormon worship due to its secretive nature. I suggested that perhaps such discussions are not becoming of goodly people (particularly in light of the original topic), an assertion understandably taken quite personally; and whereas I am to understand that your epithet of “frightening” is to be interpreted as rendered in a spirit of charity, the language of my original comment–even though I was careful to couch criticism and censure in general pronouns and abstractions rather than at you specifically–apparently does not qualify for the same consideration.

Please try to remain on-topic. If you feel that I have broken any forum rules you are free to notify the moderator. And I would appreciate it if you discontinue discussing me

I am not personally offended at your commentary and am not concerned about any breaches of forum rules. As I said before, I have little attachment to my own religion, other than insofar as it provides me with a means of community engagement and common worship. I personally think it very unlikely that any Church is “true.” As an observer with no particular allegiance to any doctrine, I read the Catholic forums mostly for the positive affirmations of faith I find here. I had difficulty passing this unfortunate thread by after becoming acquainted with the overall tone of its contents–which to me seemed rather “unchristian.” I have no intention of making personally-directed implications, but rather generalizations under which others are always free to feel themselves categorized. Your comments gave me that opportunity to speak to the whole; and I am not surprised that offense was taken.

 

[Stephen168]

You say that God founded the Catholic church; the Mormon says that God founded the Mormon church.

Do Mormons believe Joseph Smith is God, too?

 

[pmccombs]

Do Mormons believe Joseph Smith is God, too?

No, not as such. You may find in some more speculative discussions, Mormons who talk about deification and the eternal progression. But even this doctrine does not find particular favor in the now-correlated doctrinal teachings. They believe that the act of establishing the Church was done personally by God through Joseph Smith.