Mormonism

[RebeccaJ]

David,

That’s fine for you, but it would not have “flown” for the Pharisees who were saying that Christ “beareth record of thyself; thy record is not true.” (John 8:13) He taught that He and the Father met the law the Pharisees were familiar with, “that the testimony of two men is true.” (v.17) “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” (v. 18)

If He and the Father were “consubstantial” and “one divine being”, then had He taught this to the Pharisees they would have rejected the idea that it met the “law of two witnesses”, because it wouldn’t really be two independent, verifiable witnesses. It would be one witness in “two forms”.

ParkerD stumbling along…the Father confirms the Son and the Son confirms the Father. One God. Not two.

 

[soren1]

David,

That’s fine for you, but it would not have “flown” for the Pharisees who were saying that Christ “beareth record of thyself; thy record is not true.” (John 8:13) He taught that He and the Father met the law the Pharisees were familiar with, “that the testimony of two men is true.” (v.17) “I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.” (v. 18)

If He and the Father were “consubstantial” and “one divine being”, then had He taught this to the Pharisees they would have rejected the idea that it met the “law of two witnesses”, because it wouldn’t really be two independent, verifiable witnesses. It would be one witness in “two forms”.

ParkerD,

I don’t believe you understand fundamental Catholic metaphysics. Not even a little bit. There, I said it.

If you did understand Catholic metaphysics, here is how you would have dealt with the question: You would have noted at the outset, that the Father and Son are distinct as persons, though one in substance. You would have understood that “substance” as the act of existence simply, and a “person” is a rational individual who possesses substance. For instance, my substance is man, and my act of existence is being the particular man that I am. But that is not my person. My person is me, Soren.

If you admit this distinction, just for the sake of argument, then the doctrine of the Trinity, judged on its own terms, rather than the presuppositions of materialism, would fail Biblically if Scripture ascribes to the Father and Son a mode of distinction that is not specifically personal. For instance, if the Father and Son had different powers, existed through different forms (a major error you make explicitly in another post), then they would have to be two beings, since power and form are both properties of being as such.

If you grasped your subject in that way, you would have argued that testimony is a property of being without respect to individual personhood. In that case, two testimonies would entail two beings, and the doctrine of the Trinity would fall.

But that isn’t what you did. You don’t know the doctrine well enough to understand how to argue against it. No one who did would even attempt the argument you did unless he had a pretty well thought-out argument that testimony is not a decisively personal act; though obviously it is. Can anything or anyone besides a person be said to testify? If you answer yes, then Catholic metaphysics automatically answers your argument. Since testimony is an operation of persons, which are really, not just conceptually, distinct, it is thus totally unsurprising - even predictable from the Trinitarian hypothesis - that both the Father and Son can claim his own personal testimony, even when testifying as one.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

I don’t believe you understand fundamental Catholic metaphysics. Not even a little bit. There, I said it.

If you did understand Catholic metaphysics, here is how you would have dealt with the question: You would have noted at the outset, that the Father and Son are distinct as persons, though one in substance. You would have understood that “substance” as the act of existence simply, and a “person” is a rational individual who possesses substance. For instance, my substance is man, and my act of existence is being the particular man that I am. But that is not my person. My person is me, Soren.

If you admit this distinction, just for the sake of argument, then the doctrine of the Trinity, judged on its own terms, rather than the presuppositions of materialism, would fail Biblically if Scripture ascribes to the Father and Son a mode of distinction that is not specifically personal. For instance, if the Father and Son had different powers, existed through different forms (a major error you make explicitly in another post), then they would have to be two beings, since power and form are both properties of being as such.

If you grasped your subject in that way, you would have argued that testimony is a property of being without respect to individual personhood. In that case, two testimonies would entail two beings, and the doctrine of the Trinity would fall.

But that isn’t what you did. You don’t know the doctrine well enough to understand how to argue against it. No one who did would even attempt the argument you did unless he had a pretty well thought-out argument that testimony is not a decisively personal act; though obviously it is. Can anything or anyone besides a person be said to testify? If you answer yes, then Catholic metaphysics automatically answers your argument. Since testimony is an operation of persons, which are really, not just conceptually, distinct, it is thus totally unsurprising - even predictable from the Trinitarian hypothesis - that both the Father and Son can claim his own personal testimony, even when testifying as one.

Soren1,

I hope I haven’t conveyed that I thought I understood the “doctrine” of the Trinity, because I have read about it and have seen the “water, ice and steam” analogy so that’s why I used a word that was evidently the wrong word.

No question that the Pharisees would not have made a distinction between “being” and “person” when talking about Jesus Christ or about God. If Jesus had wanted them to understand the “Trinity” doctrine while also teaching about “two witnesses” as the Pharisees were familiar with, then this would have been the time to do that–but it wouldn’t have been accepted by them as meeting their criteria.

Given that I am not a subject matter expert at all, at this point I might as well understand whether when Catholics say their prayers, they are thinking in their mind that they are praying to the “one divine Being” (one consubstantial Being) or whether they are selecting a Person and praying to a “Separate Person” in the Trinity? (If I have understood, they select any one of the Three.)

Did Christ want the Pharisees to pray to God as a “Person” to ask if Jesus was the Son of God so they could come to know that and have that witness, or did He (as you see it) want them to pray to God the Father while having in mind that He is “One divine Being” who is consubstantial with the Son of God whom they were seeing talking to them?

 

[Miriam1947]

ParkerD, often when I pray, I pray to God. That would be God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But I’ll say, thank you God. I’m praying to the Trinity.

And I thank God every single day that He made me Catholic.

 

[Telstar]

Whenever Catholics pray, they always begin and end their prayers by making the Sign of the Cross, which is a prayer in itself. We say: “In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen”, while tracing out the cross on our body, by starting with the forehead (the “Father”), then down to the heart (“the Son”), then across the shoulders from left (“Holy”) to right (“Ghost”) [in the RCC, but right to left in some other Rites], then end by placing our hands together in the posture of prayer (“Amen”).

So, no matter which Person of the Trinity we might direct our supplications to (depending on our needs), we’re always heard by All Three, because they are all One God. The same goes for when we pray to Mary or any of the Saints to ask for their help. We always begin any prayers with the same Sign of the Cross. It’s a Tradition that goes back to the earliest days of the Church, in one form or another.

 

[soren1]

Soren1,

I hope I haven’t conveyed that I thought I understood the “doctrine” of the Trinity, because I have read about it and have seen the “water, ice and steam” analogy so that’s why I used a word that was evidently the wrong word.

The water, ice, and steam analogy is wrong for most purposes. The only thing it is good for is the logical point that “one and three” is not automatically contradictory if “one” and “three” reckon according to different rationales. But as an account of how the persons in the Trinity are actually distinct it is totally wrong. There are not three forms of of God, because God’s form is the same as his being.

No question that the Pharisees would not have made a distinction between “being” and “person” when talking about Jesus Christ or about God. If Jesus had wanted them to understand the “Trinity” doctrine while also teaching about “two witnesses” as the Pharisees were familiar with, then this would have been the time to do that–but it wouldn’t have been accepted by them as meeting their criteria.

An argument from silence is not an argument, and I do not consider myself in a position to say what Jesus should or should not have said to instruct the Pharisees. Apart from that, I totally agree that they would not have known what a “person” was, because it is a uniquely Christian idea originating in the Church rather than in Israel or even in Greece. But you don’t need to understand the definition of “person” to accept the doctrine of the Trinity by faith. The specification of “substance” and “person” is a developed, formal articulation of a doctrine taught in scripture materially, not formally.

Let me explain what I mean by “material” and “formal.” Material doctrine is the raw data of scripture taken in itself without significant interpretation. Formal doctrine is the expression of scriptural teaching as understood by the Church. A formal understanding of the Trinity is not necessary to believe in it materially, to be a Christian, and to be saved. Material doctrine is sufficient for that. The formal doctrine is a further development, implicit in the material doctrine, that Christians attain to as they grow to maturity.

What Christ does teach to the Pharisees are three doctrines that taken together materially constitute the doctrine that is nowadays known formally as the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. Oneness of God: God is one and his nature is expressed in the name I AM.
2. Distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the three persons are not interchangeable, and they relate to each other as individuals, speak to each other, have personal names, etc.
3. Equality of persons: all are the One God in the same sense and with no difference in degree; this does not exclude a subordination of Jesus as a man; although as God, “in the form of God,” he is equal to the Father he “becomes obedient” in taking on flesh and dying, notwithstanding his inherent equality. (Phil 2)

Of course, we don’t just look to what Jesus said to the Pharisees to establish these doctrines, and so I would reject any artificial attempt to make his teaching to the Pharisees a sole standard for determining what he taught about himself and his Father. Yet to limit ourselves for the sake of discussion to just the discourses with Pharisees, all three doctrines can be found there. In fact, you can find the Pharisees being offended by each of the second two and the third in particular. I suspect you already know the arguments for the first part of the doctrine, and you ask questions about the second lower down, so for now I will just discuss the equality of the Father and Son.

The clearest evidence of the equality of persons - which oddly enough the Greek Fathers who framed to doctrine in the first place did not know enough Hebrew to catch on to - is that Jesus teaches that the Father and the son are both Yahweh. Most famous are the I AM statements in John. I know Mormons accept this, but what did the Pharisees think? It must be emphasized that the Pharisees knew of no higher God than Yahweh. There is no separate, higher being called Elohim for them, because they think Elohim and Yahweh are identical. One very representative example of Rabbinical thinking about Yahweh’s identity comes up in the Letter to the Hebrews, when Paul explains that the reason God swore to Abraham by his own name is that there was none higher to swear by. (Heb 6:13) Since Yahweh is the covenant name that God uses in making all his oaths and promises, this means Yahweh is the Most High God, the same as Elohim, El Elyon, El Shadday, etc. To be Yahweh is to be subordinate to no one; the form of all Old Testament covenant oaths is designed to make exactly that point, and Pharisees schooled in the same milieu as Paul understood it in that way.

That the Father is Yahweh is abundantly proven in Scripture, but Jesus teaches it to the Pharisees in particular Matt 22:44, when he interprets Psalm 110 as a discourse of the Father to the Son: “The Lord (Yahweh) said unto my Lord (Adonay), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Everybody knows whose right hands Jesus sits on, and here we are told it is Yahweh.

In working to a material account of the Trinity, we should note that there is a convergence in the doctrine of the Father and Son’s personal equality and the unity of God, because the divine name Yahweh is the locus of both teachings. The name, which simply means “I AM” makes reference to being, and identifies God precisely as he is in the order of being. The same name represents his unqualified sovereignty with none higher than him, not just from our perspective, but from his, since he has no one higher to swear by.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, often when I pray, I pray to God. That would be God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

But I’ll say, thank you God. I’m praying to the Trinity.

And I thank God every single day that He made me Catholic.

Miriam,

In contrast, Latter-day Saints pray to Father in Heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, and seek the guidance and influence of the Holy Ghost during and after our prayers, just as Jesus taught specifically to do. We seek to be guided in what to pray for, and pray that God’s will be done.

The gratitude I hear expressed is gratitude for the restored gospel and the happiness it brings, gratitude for the Savior and His loving sacrifice, and gratitude that we have the blessing of being here on this earth as God’s children.

 

[soren1]

Given that I am not a subject matter expert at all,

I don’t ask you to be. I don’t even consider myself an expert. My concern, and the reason I was unduly curt with you above, is that I don’t think you have a *basic *understanding, and I’m not sure how clearly you realize you don’t. I see you making the kinds of errors that a good teacher in a classroom weeds out within the first week. To be utterly blunt, I think this because you read Mormon apologetics, and have studied CES materials on the Godhead and its scriptural justification. I read the same stuff and you can’t begin to get a straight story on the Trinity from those sources. They are not even a starting point from which you could proceed to deeper studies; they are a barrier you must unlearn first. I came to reject most anti-Mormon literature early in my study of Mormonism becasue it has similar. I learned most of my Mormonism from actual Mormon texts, from the Journal of Discourses to Ensign Magazine. That is what I recommend that other Catholics do to learn it as well, starting with Gospel Principles. With that said, the single best book I can suggest to a beginner in the Trinity is the first third of Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity. If you don’t want to read that, or some other book, to learn the doctrine deeply, that is your right. But you would be best to forgo arguing about it and to debate only topics you understand. In discussions of the Trinity, you should restrict yourself to asking questions until you know how to answer them yourself. Only then are you ready to make arguments.

at this point I might as well understand whether when Catholics say their prayers, they are thinking in their mind that they are praying to the “one divine Being” (one consubstantial Being) or whether they are selecting a Person and praying to a “Separate Person” in the Trinity? (If I have understood, they select any one of the Three.)

Did Christ want the Pharisees to pray to God as a “Person” to ask if Jesus was the Son of God so they could come to know that and have that witness, or did He (as you see it) want them to pray to God the Father while having in mind that He is “One divine Being” who is consubstantial with the Son of God whom they were seeing talking to them?

Speaking of questions, you have some good ones here. Alas, you do have another major error, undoubtedly unintentional. “Separate persons” is a formal heresy, identified by the Fathers of the fourth century with Arianism because “separation” entails a plurality of beings. When the Athanasian Creed says “Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance” is excludes any doctrine of separation. The faith of the Church, therefore, is that the persons are “distinct, not separate.” Learn that phrase well. If God were a material being, this would be contradictory, since you can’t have a plurality of distinct physical persons except by material division, that is, separation. Being immaterial and infinite, however, God exists as persons by a different mode of distinction than separation, by internal procession, which is entirely contained within his being but results in a real distinction of three.

Because the three persons possess the same act of being, there is no opposition between praying to the Trinity or two any one of the persons. One can pray, as Stephen and John do, directly to the Son as the Son, but when you do that, you are already praying in the Father and Holy Spirit, and likewise for all other combinations. Since praying to God is an act of glorification, and the Son’s mission is to glorify the Father, he fittingly instructs us to pray to the Father in his name.

When Jesus talks to the Father, it is natural to assume that two beings are involved if you disregard all the other teachings that show otherwise. The Trinity is not proven from any single text or type of proof text, because it is a synthesis of a variety of revealed information which must all be accepted simultaneously. The Father and Son’s unity in being is not a principle opposed to their distinction. It is the necessary context in which their distinction as persons is intelligible. The carnal reasoning that presupposes philosophically that God’s infinite personhood is bound by the same conditions as finite, human personhood is totally crushed by the revelation of Christ, that Yahweh talks to Yahweh, but isn’t talking to himself. Whether they could parse it out technically or not, that is the truth that Christ’s prayer confronted the Pharisees with, and which they rejected, accusing him of blasphemy.

 

[ParkerD]

The water, ice, and steam analogy is wrong for most purposes. The only thing it is good for is the logical point that “one and three” is not automatically contradictory if “one” and “three” reckon according to different rationales. But as an account of how the persons in the Trinity are actually distinct it is totally wrong. There are not three forms of of God, because God’s form is the same as his being.

An argument from silence is not an argument, and I do not consider myself in a position to say what Jesus should or should not have said to instruct the Pharisees. Apart from that, I totally agree that they would not have known what a “person” was, because it is a uniquely Christian idea originating in the Church rather than in Israel or even in Greece. But you don’t need to understand the definition of “person” to accept the doctrine of the Trinity by faith. The specification of “substance” and “person” is a developed, formal articulation of a doctrine taught in scripture materially, not formally.

Let me explain what I mean by “material” and “formal.” Material doctrine is the raw data of scripture taken in itself without significant interpretation. Formal doctrine is the expression of scriptural teaching as understood by the Church. A formal understanding of the Trinity is not necessary to believe in it materially, to be a Christian, and to be saved. Material doctrine is sufficient for that. The formal doctrine is a further development, implicit in the material doctrine, that Christians attain to as they grow to maturity.

What Christ does teach to the Pharisees are three doctrines that taken together materially constitute the doctrine that is nowadays known formally as the doctrine of the Trinity:

1. Oneness of God: God is one and his nature is expressed in the name I AM.
2. Distinction of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: the three persons are not interchangeable, and they relate to each other as individuals, speak to each other, have personal names, etc.
3. Equality of persons: all are the One God in the same sense and with no difference in degree; this does not exclude a subordination of Jesus as a man; although as God, “in the form of God,” he is equal to the Father he “becomes obedient” in taking on flesh and dying, notwithstanding his inherent equality. (Phil 2)

Of course, we don’t just look to what Jesus said to the Pharisees to establish these doctrines, and so I would reject any artificial attempt to make his teaching to the Pharisees a sole standard for determining what he taught about himself and his Father. Yet to limit ourselves for the sake of discussion to just the discourses with Pharisees, all three doctrines can be found there. In fact, you can find the Pharisees being offended by each of the second two and the third in particular. I suspect you already know the arguments for the first part of the doctrine, and you ask questions about the second lower down, so for now I will just discuss the equality of the Father and Son.

The clearest evidence of the equality of persons - which oddly enough the Greek Fathers who framed to doctrine in the first place did not know enough Hebrew to catch on to - is that Jesus teaches that the Father and the son are both Yahweh. Most famous are the I AM statements in John. I know Mormons accept this, but what did the Pharisees think? It must be emphasized that the Pharisees knew of no higher God than Yahweh. There is no separate, higher being called Elohim for them, because they think Elohim and Yahweh are identical. One very representative example of Rabbinical thinking about Yahweh’s identity comes up in the Letter to the Hebrews, when Paul explains that the reason God swore to Abraham by his own name is that there was none higher to swear by. (Heb 6:13) Since Yahweh is the covenant name that God uses in making all his oaths and promises, this means Yahweh is the Most High God, the same as Elohim, El Elyon, El Shadday, etc. To be Yahweh is to be subordinate to no one; the form of all Old Testament covenant oaths is designed to make exactly that point, and Pharisees schooled in the same milieu as Paul understood it in that way.

That the Father is Yahweh is abundantly proven in Scripture, but Jesus teaches it to the Pharisees in particular Matt 22:44, when he interprets Psalm 110 as a discourse of the Father to the Son: “The Lord (Yahweh) said unto my Lord (Adonay), Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.” Everybody knows whose right hands Jesus sits on, and here we are told it is Yahweh.

In working to a material account of the Trinity, we should note that there is a convergence in the doctrine of the Father and Son’s personal equality and the unity of God, because the divine name Yahweh is the locus of both teachings. The name, which simply means “I AM” makes reference to being, and identifies God precisely as he is in the order of being. The same name represents his unqualified sovereignty with none higher than him, not just from our perspective, but from his, since he has no one higher to swear by.

Soren1,

I agree that the Pharisees would have seen no distinction between Yahweh and Elohim, which is why they were so incensed when Jesus said He was “I AM” and considered it to be blasphemy. My Sunday School gospel doctrine class discussed this fairly recently, and since we had a member who had been brought up Jewish she was able to confirm this is true about Jewish beliefs. But it is why Jesus’ emphasis on getting the witness from Father in Heaven that He was and is the Son of God, the promised Christ, was so important–because it was something they weren’t expecting and weren’t prepared to accept.

 

[garyo49]

Hello, I’m a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, permit me to share my view on a few of your comments.

I don’t think it is any more kooky than the beliefs of other faiths.

Was it Martin Luther that wanted to get married, or wasn’t it the King of England when the Church of England broke off? Either way, Latter-day Saints don’t really agree with those that seek/sought to reform Christianity. Instead, we believe that our Church is a restoration of the Church established by Jesus Christ anciently.

No, we do not believe in the traditional doctrine of the Trinity.

Critics tend to believe that Joseph Smith and/or his companions wrote the Book of Mormon. Latter-day Saints don’t believe that the Book of Mormon was written by “Mormon”. Instead, we believe that the Book of Mormon is a compilation of books written by various prophets that was then abridged by the prophet Mormon.

Why was there a need for a restoration when Christs authority continues to this day in an unbroken line of authority from the original apostles?

 

[TheExorcist]

Why was there a need for a restoration when Christs authority continues to this day in an unbroken line of authority from the original apostles?

Exactly! Isn’t that what Christ himself promises in Matt 16:18?

 

[Garland]

Hello, excuse me for butting in , but the mormon jesus is NOT the Jesus of the new testament. The mormon jesus is a flesh and blood thing that lives on a planet called kolob beggetting spirit things to populate another planet where a good 33rd degree mormon can go be a “god” for that place. There are many many gods and more being made by the mormon church all the time. Lucifer is not a bad angel just a brother to the mormon jesus who was not chosen by heavenly father for the earth.
There are many many strange doctrines like those that they don`t tell you until you are suckered in so beware . Satan, Lucifer or any other name you chose to call the bad angel wispered to Eve, “you too can be a god” and he wispered to joseph smith the same tired old message, and the mormon church does the same thing today. The big “lie”, he has always told to men he wants to rebell against the True God as revealed in the Jewish and now the Catholic Faith is always the same, YOU TOO CAN BE A god, sad that so many have bought into this and spread this heresy. The REAL Christians in the world need to pray for those poor mislead souls that go happily down the path to destruction. Blessing Garland

 

[garyo49]

Hello, excuse me for butting in , but the mormon jesus is NOT the Jesus of the new testament. The mormon jesus is a flesh and blood thing that lives on a planet called kolob beggetting spirit things to populate another planet where a good 33rd degree mormon can go be a “god” for that place. There are many many gods and more being made by the mormon church all the time. Lucifer is not a bad angel just a brother to the mormon jesus who was not chosen by heavenly father for the earth.
There are many many strange doctrines like those that they don`t tell you until you are suckered in so beware . Satan, Lucifer or any other name you chose to call the bad angel wispered to Eve, “you too can be a god” and he wispered to joseph smith the same tired old message, and the mormon church does the same thing today. The big “lie”, he has always told to men he wants to rebell against the True God as revealed in the Jewish and now the Catholic Faith is always the same, YOU TOO CAN BE A god, sad that so many have bought into this and spread this heresy. The REAL Christians in the world need to pray for those poor mislead souls that go happily down the path to destruction. Blessing Garland

Amen!!

 

[Allen2Saint]

I am disappointed by the judgemental attitudes and the simplistic thinking going on in this thread.

One does not need to accept any part of Mormonism as truth to acknowledge the good they do to the least of our brothers. Is their pursuit of Christian life flawed in our view? Yes. Do we need to bash them in such unkind language? To what end? If there is a glimmer of my Jesus in the eye of another, I have hope. They may have all these outlandish ideas, and they may BE outlandish, but isn’t the substance of Jesus Christ in there to some degree, regardless of all the other stuff? Isn’t acknowledging any small aspect of the truth exactly what Vatican 2 taught us to do so we can be in a community with them?

We have by far the most elaborate and well thought out theology on the planet, next to our Eastern Rite brothers and sisters, so where’s the graciousness?

 

[JustaServant]

I am disappointed by the judgemental attitudes and the simplistic thinking going on in this thread.

One does not need to accept any part of Mormonism as truth to acknowledge the good they do to the least of our brothers. Is their pursuit of Christian life flawed in our view? Yes. Do we need to bash them in such unkind language? To what end? If there is a glimmer of my Jesus in the eye of another, I have hope. They may have all these outlandish ideas, and they may BE outlandish, but isn’t the substance of Jesus Christ in there to some degree, regardless of all the other stuff? Isn’t acknowledging any small aspect of the truth exactly what Vatican 2 taught us to do so we can be in a community with them?

We have by far the most elaborate and well thought out theology on the planet, next to our Eastern Rite brothers and sisters, so where’s the graciousness?

You are aware the Church is older than Vatican 2 right?

 

[Allen2Saint]

Hey! What do you know? Snarkiness. Never could have seen that coming.

I’m just curious what this inquiry proves. We get to tell ourselves we’re better than someone else because their theology is faulty? Are we or are we not still human and still sinners?

When a Mormon gets down on his or her knees and prays to Jesus what’s in their hearts and who hears them, regardless of what their books say?

I was told by my savior to reserve judgement because it’s god’s job. I’ll stick with that.

 

[JustaServant]

Hey! What do you know? Snarkiness. Never could have seen that coming.

I’m just curious what this inquiry proves. We get to tell ourselves we’re better than someone else because their theology is faulty? Are we or are we not still human and still sinners?

When a Mormon gets down on his or her knees and prays to Jesus what’s in their hearts and who hears them, regardless of what their books say?

I was told by my savior to reserve judgement because it’s god’s job. I’ll stick with that.

One minor point: according to the Catholic Church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is not Christian.
In 2001 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in a decision approved by Pope John Paul II, addressed the question: “Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid. The response: “Negative.”

 

[Garland]

Allen2Saint, I`m confused, when I tell what the mormons actually believe and try to warn them of the comming destruction, and ask for prayers for them, it is considered “snarkiness”, but when you cut me for it , its not. Blessings Garland

 

[Allen2Saint]

The snarkiness was directed at the person with the Vat 2 comment.

Ooooooh, not considered Christians??? What should we do? Somedays I don’t feel I’m a very good Christian so I guess you can count me with them.

Their theology is clear. It’s not mine. But whats in their hearts when they pray or how God hears it is way above my pay grade. Its above everyone’s.

 

[JustaServant]

You said:

Isn’t acknowledging any small aspect of the truth exactly what Vatican 2 taught us to do so we can be in a community with them?

I replied:

You are aware the Church is older than Vatican 2 right?

No “snarkiness”. First, V2 taught no such thing. Second, the Catholic Church defiined heresy long before V2 and has never refuted it. You cannot cite V2 for your personal opinion that we should be “in a community” with Mormons.
Your argument is not with me, its with the Church in your religion moniker.