Problems With Mormon Beliefs

[Religio71]

Being Catholic, we believe that the Catholic Church is the true Church, founded by Jesus Christ, with Peter as the first Bishop of Rome, the Pope. We believe that the Deposit of Faith was given, and we come to a fuller understanding of that Faith with time, though never believing in contradictory doctrine, or changing doctrine. When I was Mormon, I believed that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the restoration of the original church, restored by God through Joseph Smith. It is clear that two churches proclaiming to be the true Church, with the fullness of the Gospel, cannot both be right. Here are some of the issues I have had to confront as an ex-Mormon:

Baptism by Immersion only?

Mormons believe that one becomes a member of the Church of Jesus Christ through baptism, which is only done by immersion. The 4th Article of Faith states: " We believe that the first principles and ordinances? of the Gospel? are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance?; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands? for the gift of the Holy Ghost." Also, from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism: “Beginning with Adam (Moses 6:64-66), baptism by immersion in water was introduced as standard practice, and has been observed in all subsequent dispensations of the gospel when priesthood authority was on the earth.”, as well as “Latter-day Saints do not accept baptismal practices and teachings that arose among some Christian groups in the centuries after the death of the apostles, including infant baptism, baptism by means other than immersion, and the idea that baptism is not necessary for salvation.”

Catholics, on the other hand, believe that baptism can be done through immersion, as well as pouring. Did the early Church of Jesus Christ really not practice non-immersion baptism? One ancient source that we have is the Didache. Many sources claim that it originates from about 70 AD, with one date range given as 50-120 AD. In it, this is what we find:

"7:1 But concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;

7:2 but if thou hast not running water, baptize in some other water, and if thou canst not baptize in cold, in warm water;

7:3 but if thou hast neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. "

Therefore, we see the ancient precedent of allowing baptism by pouring as completely valid. Early Christians not only baptized by immersion, but also baptized by pouring. Eastern Orthodoxy also practices baptism by immersion, however, also using the Didache as a model, does allow pouring, and recognizes Catholic baptisms done by pouring as well. Where then does the Mormon practice of immersion-only baptism come from? Does the Greek “baptizo” always mean immersion? Catholics and Orthodox do not believe so.

The Priesthood

I believe we discussed the Aaronic and Melchizedek LDS priesthoods in another thread. There are many ways in which there are no Biblical parallels between the two, which were discussed in another thread.

Diaconate

Both the LDS Church and the Catholic Church have the Order of Deacon. Deacons are part of the Aaronic, or preparatory priesthood. 12-13 year old males are usually called as deacons. A major responsibility of the Mormon Diaconate is passing the Sacrament during Sacrament Meeting. They also (according to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism): [serve] as messengers, [collect] fast offerings, [provide] assistance to the elderly or disabled, and [care] for the meetinghouse and grounds." Is there a Biblical or historical precedent for ordaining teenagers to the diaconate? In fact, in 1 Tim 3: 8-11, it seems that Paul is demonstrating that deacons should be of marrying age (not necessarily that they are to marry, or have children, but that they should be of that age. He also writes on how married deacons that are fathers should act as well). Also, if the priesthood is really restored in the LDS Church, where is the precedent in the ancient Church of ordaining all males to the diaconate, or as elders (in the Melchizedek priesthood)?

Temples

Again, we have discussed the LDS practice of building and having ordinances in temples. According to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism-“In the temple, holy truths are taught and solemn covenants are made in the name of Jesus Christ, both by the individual members on their own behalf and as proxies on behalf of others who have died (the latter have the choice in the spirit world to accept or reject such vicarious service).” Mormons make parallels between the OT temple concept and the current LDS one, where patrons make covenants with God (through the Endowment ceremony). However the sacrificial nature of the priesthood and temples is lost in Mormon temples. Christ was the final sacrifice, the sacrificial lamb. However Mormons continue to make temples! Orthodox and Catholic priests (and others) continue the concept of a sacrificial priesthood, with the priesthood perpetuating that One Sacrifice of Christ on the holy altars, truly continuing in the spirit of Biblical temples. LDS also like to bring up NT temples. Is there evidence that endowments, baptisms of the dead, etc. were practiced in these temples? What was done in them? And of course besides 1 Corinthians 15:29, there isn’t any historical evidence for Christians practicing baptism of the dead.

Worship of God does not really occur in the temple. The Temple in Jerusalem had various offering to God taking place. This does not occur in the LDS temple. Instead, the focus is on gaining the knowledge, signs, and tokens one needs to pass the angels and enter into the presence of the Heavenly Father in the Celestial Kingdom.

 

[Religio71]

God

Both Catholics and LDS believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Catholics believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate, distinct persons, united in substance. Mormons believe that they are three separate, distinct personages, united in purpose. Mormons also believe that God the Father is married to the Heavenly Mother, of which we see nothing in the Bible or in ancient Christian history. LDS prophets and apostles have stated many interesting things about God. Many of these controversial statements were believed to be the true words from God, and accepted as such. However as time passes, we come to see that many of the words of these Prophets and Apostles of God about that very God they represent are summarily denied by the LDS Church. Here are some examples:

The King Follet Discourse

This is a very controversial address given by the Founding Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. Joseph Smith is the first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the one that God himself chose to restore his Church on earth. So let’s see what the Prophet says about this God.

“First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man;”

"We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. "

Adam=God

Brigham Young, another Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, taught the Adam-God theory. Here is a statement by Young known by many:

“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” Young further developed this doctrine, and currently the LDS Church rejects this doctrine (or more accurately believing it never was doctrine), but again, it is interesting what Prophets of God have taught on God. Some even say that the Adam-God theory was included in the Endowment Ceremony in the past.

 

[Religio71]

Race and LDS

Another controversial area of LDS theology. According to the LDS Church, there were blacks that were ordained to the priesthood in the beginning of its history, with Elijah Abel being the most prominent example, becoming a Seventy. However gradually, with the Presidency of Brigham Young, it was LDS practice to have all of African descent banned from the priesthood. Many speculated on the reasoning, with theories on a Curse of Cain, being less valiant in the pre-existence, etc. Mormons will say that even though blacks were denied the priesthood until 1978 (when the Prophet Spencer Kimball and the Quorum of Twelve Apostles received revelation and testimony that the priesthood should be opened to all worthy males), they were allowed to become baptized and members in the Church. However, this doesn’t emphasize the necessity for the priesthood in Mormon life and the afterlife. Blacks could not participate in the ordinances necessary to exaltation, the highest degree of salvation in the Celestial Kingdom, the Endowment and Celestial Marriage. Therefore at this time, Mormons could talk about how they offered families to be forever for eternity. Except if you were of African descent. Blacks could not have any real officiating role in the Church, as all require the priesthood. It is very important to have the priesthood in the home in the LDS Church, and until 1978, Black Mormon homes did not have those blessings. Thankfully, God revealed that it was time, in 1978 to open the priesthood to all, and this is now LDS scripture.

Here are some of the well known, interesting statements by Mormon Prophets and Apostles:

Prophet Brigham Young

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind …. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants’.”

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”

Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith

“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures”. In his book he made clear that the contents were his opinion."

Prophet George Albert Smith

“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.”

Apostle Mark Petersen

"I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn’t that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it.

Apostle Bruce McConkie

“Of the two-thirds who followed Christ, however, some were more valiant than others. Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes.”

“The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence. Along with all races and peoples he is receiving here what he merits as a result of the long pre-mortal probation in the presence of the Lord.”

Thankfully, the LDS Church has moved on from such institutional racism, and even has temples in Africa. As a former black LDS, I did not experience any overt racism in my ward, though this troubling past that is so recent was a great issue. I’m sure those black LDS that actually lived during times when the priesthood ban was in effect would know how hard those times were (I remember in the video the LDS Church released on the 30th anniversary of the 1978 revelation, one person said that they remembered loving the priesthood, wanting it, but unable to actually hold it. Very sad).

Sorry for my ramblings

 

[LDSGuy]

1 Timothy 3 also says that Bishops can be married to only one wife. How does the Catholic Church understand this? No bishops in the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox have ever been married, and it certainly isn’t allowed at all now. So there’s a logical disconnect here in your argument.

 

[Tezza]

1 Timothy 3 also says that Bishops can be married to only one wife. How does the Catholic Church understand this? No bishops in the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox have ever been married, and it certainly isn’t allowed at all now. So there’s a logical disconnect here in your argument.

I wouldn’t say no bishops. Peter was married. Whether his wife was living at the time of Jesus is unkown.

Can be married doesn’t mean should be married. If it was good enought for Jesus…

Peace,
Teri

 

[RebeccaJ]

1 Timothy 3 also says that Bishops can be married to only one wife. How does the Catholic Church understand this? No bishops in the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox have ever been married, and it certainly isn’t allowed at all now. So there’s a logical disconnect here in your argument.

Actually, I’d say this is a problem for Mormons who at one time had bishops who practiced plural marriage.

 

[ParkerD]

Race and LDS

Another controversial area of LDS theology. According to the LDS Church, there were blacks that were ordained to the priesthood in the beginning of its history, with Elijah Abel being the most prominent example, becoming a Seventy. However gradually, with the Presidency of Brigham Young, it was LDS practice to have all of African descent banned from the priesthood.

Thankfully, the LDS Church has moved on from such institutional racism, and even has temples in Africa. As a former black LDS, I did not experience any overt racism in my ward, though this troubling past that is so recent was a great issue. I’m sure those black LDS that actually lived during times when the priesthood ban was in effect would know how hard those times were (I remember in the video the LDS Church released on the 30th anniversary of the 1978 revelation, one person said that they remembered loving the priesthood, wanting it, but unable to actually hold it. Very sad).

Sorry for my ramblings

Religio71,
I just want to let you know that I think that for blacks in the United States, the issues you brought up definitely pose an Abrahamic test of faith, and would be very difficult (that’s what “Abrahamic test” means–a supremely difficult test of faith). There would be no question in my mind that because of these issues, blacks in the United States will not join the LDS church in significant numbers, even though the LDS church in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, and other African nations will continue to surge in dramatic growth. A Kenyan is now in one of the leading quorums of the LDS church, as you may know. I think that is exciting and gives evidence that blacks are having and are going to have significant positive influence wherever they are in the world, whether in the LDS church or not, but within the LDS church they will indeed have significant positive influence.

Best wishes to you always.

 

[Religio71]

Religio71,
I just want to let you know that I think that for blacks in the United States, the issues you brought up definitely pose an Abrahamic test of faith, and would be very difficult (that’s what “Abrahamic test” means–a supremely difficult test of faith). There would be no question in my mind that because of these issues, blacks in the United States will not join the LDS church in significant numbers, even though the LDS church in Ghana, Nigeria, Kenya, and other African nations will continue to surge in dramatic growth. A Kenyan is now in one of the leading quorums of the LDS church, as you may know. I think that is exciting and gives evidence that blacks are having and are going to have significant positive influence wherever they are in the world, whether in the LDS church or not, but within the LDS church they will indeed have significant positive influence.

Best wishes to you always.

Hey Parker,

Yes I agree that the difficulty would be greater in the USA than in African countries. It is great that there are people like Helvecio Martins and Joseph Sitati, being called to the Second and First Quorums of the Seventy. I think the messages of the LDS Church may sound nice to black investigators, but when they discover the priesthood ban, many/most would probably think “how can I join a church that used to ban me from a priesthood that was/is universal among male members, which is so important to full salvation, and which is important in having the priesthood blessing and power in the home? How can I join a church where it’s very leaders, so-called Apostles and Prophets of God, said such terrible things about Africans?” Thankfully the LDS Church now has the priesthood available to all worthy males and doesn’t restrict black progression in the church anymore.

 

[Chris-WA]

Mormons also believe that God the Father is married to the Heavenly Mother, of which we see nothing in the Bible or in ancient Christian history. LDS prophets and apostles have stated many interesting things about God. Many of these controversial statements were believed to be the true words from God, and accepted as such. However as time passes, we come to see that many of the words of these Prophets and Apostles of God about that very God they represent are summarily denied by the LDS Church. Here are some examples:

The King Follet Discourse

This is a very controversial address given by the Founding Prophet Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. Joseph Smith is the first prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the one that God himself chose to restore his Church on earth. So let’s see what the Prophet says about this God.

“First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man;”

"We have imagined that God was God from all eternity. [That he was not is an idea] incomprehensible to some. But it is the simple and first principle of the gospel-to know for a certainty the character of God, that we may converse with him as one man with another. God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible. "

To me, these bizarre teachings of Joseph Smith are clear evidence that he was a false prophet. The belief that God is actually a resurrected human being from some other world is utterly anethema to all that Judaism and Christianity have taught from the very beginning. These beliefs also demand that there was a god above God the Father who had to resurrect Him and so on and so on back into eternity. Most LDS are unaware of these strange teachings, and those that are aware always find some way to either minimize them or dismiss them as personal speculation by Joseph. I cannot accept this though because Joseph taught these things to the LDS church as truth, and they believed it. It’s only in recent times that LDS downplay or deny them. I believe Gordon B. Hinkley was asked about some of these teachings in an interview and he denied them.

Adam=God

Brigham Young, another Prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, taught the Adam-God theory. Here is a statement by Young known by many:

“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.” Young further developed this doctrine, and currently the LDS Church rejects this doctrine (or more accurately believing it never was doctrine), but again, it is interesting what Prophets of God have taught on God. Some even say that the Adam-God theory was included in the Endowment Ceremony in the past.

How millions of LDS claim this man as a true prophet escapes me. Most of course are not aware of these sorts of things, yet many are and still uphold these men as true prophets. Brigham also taught some pretty bizarre things, which modern LDS either deny or make excuses for. LDS give their prophets incredible lattitude for teaching falsehood as truth and then ignoring it later.

 

[Religio71]

I agree. Joseph Smith clearly teaches in the King Follet Discourse that God the Father was not always God, that he once as we are now, and is an exalted man. Now, we all agree that Jesus Christ was as we are now, being fully God and fully man on Earth (though there is a LDS sunday school book that says Jesus Christ was “half-man, half-Deity”). However Joseph Smith took it further and said that the Father also lived on an Earth. This is a Prophet of God, a man that God supposedly chose to restore the Gospel through, speaking.

Apostle Bruce McConkie also stated:

“Most of those professing belief in God consider him to be an indefinable force, essence, or power of an incomprehensible nature. According to revelation, however, he is a personal Being, a holy and exalted Man, a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones…”

It seems that the Prophets and Apostles in the LDS Church have made many statements that are no longer considered to be doctrine or actual LDS belief.

 

[GodIsGracious]

1 Timothy 3 also says that Bishops can be married to only one wife. How does the Catholic Church understand this? No bishops in the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox have ever been married, and it certainly isn’t allowed at all now. So there’s a logical disconnect here in your argument.

First of all, it’s not just “Roman Catholic,” it is The Catholic Church. Within that, you have different rites, Latin Rite (roman and some others), Eastern Rite (byzantine, etc.), here is a list of the various rites and church that fall under the Catholic Church and are what as referred to as the “universal catholic church,” not protestants or others:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Next.

There are some Eastern Rite priests who are married. I believe in the U.S. they’re not allowed to be married, but elsewhere they can be. I’m not entirely clear on that.

So that alone makes your post false.

 

[Religio71]

Prayer to Jesus

A distinguishing feature of LDS interaction with Jesus is that they do not pray to Him. They end prayers “in the name of Jesus Christ”, however prayers are only directed to the Heavenly Father in the LDS Church. Mormons do believe that Jesus is God (as in a god in the Godhead), and they do love Him. However prayer is never directed to Him.

Again, Apostle Bruce McConkie stated:

“Another peril is that those so involved often begin to pray directly to Christ because of some special friendship they feel has been developed. In this connection a current and unwise book, which advocates gaining a special relationship with Jesus, contains this sentence:

Because the Savior is our mediator, our prayers go through Christ to the Father, and the Father answers our prayers through his Son.

This is plain sectarian nonsense. Our prayers are addressed to the Father, and to him only.”

“We worship the Father and him only and no one else. We do not worship the Son and we do not worship the Holy Ghost. I know perfectly well about what the scriptures say about worshipping Christ and Jehovah, but they are speaking in an entirely different sense - the sense of standing in awe and being reverentially grateful to Him who has redeemed us. Worship in the true and saving sense is reserved for God first, the Creator.”

In contrast, leaders of the Catholic Church advocate worship and prayer to the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as each is fully God, fully Divine.

 

[Tezza]

First of all, it’s not just “Roman Catholic,” it is The Catholic Church. Within that, you have different rites, Latin Rite (roman and some others), Eastern Rite (byzantine, etc.), here is a list of the various rites and church that fall under the Catholic Church and are what as referred to as the “universal catholic church,” not protestants or others:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Next.

There are some Eastern Rite priests who are married. I believe in the U.S. they’re not allowed to be married, but elsewhere they can be. I’m not entirely clear on that.

So that alone makes your post false.

From my understanding, Bishops in the Eastern Rite are only selected from the celibate priests. Married priests are uneligible for elevation to the role of bishop. I think that’s what he meant by his statement. Of course, I could be wrong, as I’ve been wrong once or twice in my lifetime

 

[LDSGuy]

First of all, it’s not just “Roman Catholic,” it is The Catholic Church. Within that, you have different rites, Latin Rite (roman and some others), Eastern Rite (byzantine, etc.), here is a list of the various rites and church that fall under the Catholic Church and are what as referred to as the “universal catholic church,” not protestants or others:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

Next.

There are some Eastern Rite priests who are married. I believe in the U.S. they’re not allowed to be married, but elsewhere they can be. I’m not entirely clear on that.

So that alone makes your post false.

I know that there are many churches in the Catholic Church, I used to be Catholic

Yes I’m aware that priests in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to be married prior to them becoming priests. However if you notice in my post you quoted, I was talking about bishops, not priests. Eastern Christianity does not allow married bishops, as they historically have been chosen from monks, for example.

So my question still stands: 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is discussing bishops. It states that bishops can be married to one wife. However this has never been allowed in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. If we are criticizing LDS deacons using the verses that come after 1-7, then there are also questions involving bishops.

So to make clear, my post never mentioned priests.n

 

[GodIsGracious]

From my understanding, Bishops in the Eastern Rite are only selected from the celibate priests. Married priests are uneligible for elevation to the role of bishop. I think that’s what he meant by his statement. Of course, I could be wrong, as I’ve been wrong once or twice in my lifetime

Ah yes, bishops.

I think I’ll go back to working…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I know that there are many churches in the Catholic Church, I used to be Catholic

Yes I’m aware that priests in the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches are allowed to be married prior to them becoming priests. However if you notice in my post you quoted, I was talking about bishops, not priests. Eastern Christianity does not allow married bishops, as they historically have been chosen from monks, for example.

So my question still stands: 1 Timothy 3:1-7 is discussing bishops. It states that bishops can be married to one wife. However this has never been allowed in the Catholic or Orthodox Churches. If we are criticizing LDS deacons using the verses that come after 1-7, then there are also questions involving bishops.

So to make clear, my post never mentioned priests.n

Your question has been answered. The passage says they can be married to one wife. It does not state that they must be married. Jesus was not married. Neither were all of the Apostles.

To the Orthodox, my understanding is that they could choose a married priest to ordain as bishop. The practice is to not, for practical reasons, in that a bishop puts all his energies and attentions into his duties as bishop. Either the marital relationship, or the bishop’s diocese, would suffer.

 

[Religio71]

The Endowment

The Endowment is a very important Mormon ordinance that is carried out inside Mormon temples. One cannot enter a temple unless they receive a Temple Recommend. A Temple Recommend deems someone worthy to enter the temple. Worthiness involves chastity, tithing, living the Word of Wisdom, etc. There are different types of Temple Recommends. You can get one to do your own Endowment and/or sealing (marriage for eternity as well as sealing children to you for eternity), one to do the ordinances for the dead, and one to only carry out baptism for the dead (this Recommend is for un-Endowed LDS).

The Endowment is a very unique ceremony in current Christianity. In the Endowment, one learns about Gods’ plan of salvation. It basically is a drama that one watches on a movie screen (very few temples still have “live” Endowments), that begins with the Creation, the Fall, etc. It ends with one standing at the Veil, which symbolizes the boundary between this world and the Celestial Kingdom where God the Father lives. Throughout the Endowment, one learns the signs and tokens that are necessary to pass the angels that guard the Celestial Kingdom, and pass through the Veil into the Celestial Kingdom. This is actually done in the Endowment, where the participant gives the signs and tokens, learns their New Name, and passes through the Veil into the Celestial Room, which symbolizes the Celestial Kingdom. One also receives the Garment, which is a two piece underwear set with special markings, that symbolizes the covenants they made in the temple, and are to wear at all times (similar to the scapular in Catholicism).

It seems that there is no parallel between the Endowment ceremony and early Christianity. Christians have always made covenants with God. However it would be hard to claim that the early Christians had a ceremony analogous to the Endowment, or that they gave each other various signs and tokens, and believed them necessary to enter the highest Heaven, for exaltation. Some do see similarities between the giving of signs and tokens in Freemasonry and that in the LDS Endowment. Catholicism of course rejects involvement with anything associated with Freemasonry. LDS are under no such restriction. Some of the early Mormons were Freemasons, including Joseph Smith. And as stated above, there really isn’t any worship of God occurring in the Endowment, as it is more about making promises to God and receiving these signs and tokens so that one may enter the Celestial Kingdom, necessary for exaltation, or becoming gods.

Here’s a look inside the newest Mormon temples:
youtube.com/watch?v=CO0AJ13mzxY
youtube.com/watch?v=Q3UUNCjvfCU

Compare to our “temples”(admittedly only a physical comparison, as I admit that there are LDS that say they feel the Spirit in the temple. There was an article on Mormon Times that quoted a Catholic priest that went on an open house that said he felt the Spirit in the temple, just like when he visited the Holy Land
mormontimes.com/around_church/temples/?id=7882
):

youtube.com/watch?v=QoM6kNT9-Ys
youtube.com/watch?v=gpx371AbJpE&feature=related
youtube.com/watch?v=pk8NwrhPKxE

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Religio 71 et alia,

You (and some others) have mentioned the King Follet Discourse in a number of postings, which, of course, is a text that is utterly blasphemous and expresses a paganconcept of godhood. This might be a good point to mention, again, that although L.D.S. Mormons believe such tawdry and satanic nonsense as the King Follett Discourse and elsewhere in L.D.S. literature, there are Mormon groups which disavow such texts and their teachings.

The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (a.k.a. Community of Christ) is an interesting, even rather sympathetic such group. It really represented for most of its history what early Mormonism was like, before Joseph Smith Junior got deeply immersed into his polytheistic, polygamous, and Masonically pagan and most gnostic final phase. There are a number of factors to account for this. The “old Mormonism” (my own convenient term) held on and even flourished among several minority Mormon denominations. One factor accounting for this has to do with geographical location. The “old Mormons” were isolated from the L.D.S. Mormons far off in Utah. “Old Mormon” pockets were scattered through the Midwest, as well as Texas and Northern California. The formation of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (and note that they do not use the hyphen in 7th and 8th words of their name) was a coming together of some of these isolated Mormon groups and individuals in the latter part of the 19th century.

Another factor which this “old Mormonism” could use to justify its existence and its beliefs is due to Joseph Smith’s secrecy about some of the radically unchristian teachings which he promoted clandestinely among select initiates amongst his followers (e.g., polygamy being the one that comes up for discussion most often). Smith was so secretive, in fact, that he never presented to his followers at large, i.e. to “the Church” (of his co-religionists) during his actual lifetime, the weird later “revelations”, or, at least, the most bizarre of them, to explain and to promote them publicly to seek the votes of approval that were supposed to seal his teachings as authoritative. Hence, the “old Mormons”, logically enough, rejected those strangest of their founding prophet’s teachings and even denied that many of them ever were Smith’s own as long as they could do so.

Since some of Joseph Smith’s putative “translations” of supposedly newly discovered “scripture”, most notably the Pearl of Great Price, never came publically before “the Church” for official adoption, the “old Mormons” rejected them, also, with contempt. The King Follett Discourse (pronounced by Joseph Smith, Junior, on the occasion of a funeral) was not even an officially promulgated “revelation” of the usual sort, L.D.S. and/or R.L.D.S., quite apart from the absence of the approval mechanisms for giving it official status as originally construed for such a process, so, needless to say, the R.L.D.S. Mormons reject the King Follett Discourse as utterly and completely as one can imagine!

The L.D.S. sect based in Utah came to accept nearly every word that Joseph Smith Junior penned as being of authoritative status. Trash like the Pearl of Great Price and much of the content of the L.D.S. cult’s own edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. Of course, there are parts of even the L.D.S. text of the D&C which are compatible with Christian teaching taken in a large sense, and they are included in the R.L.D.S. edition of that work.

It is such documents (the Pearl of Great Price and others) being accepted by the L.D.S., but rejected by the R.L.D.S., which go far to account for the L.D.S. being polytheistically pagan and for the R.L.D.S. being Trinitarian and Christian; there were initially some slightly peculiar aspects of “old Mormon” trinitarianism, but as time went by the R.L.D.S. sect’s teaching tended to coalesce fully into what typifies the Trinitarianian doctrine that all of the Western religious groups, Catholic, Protestant, and sectarian alike accept.

Anyway, the R.L.D.S., a.k.a. Community of Christ, has drifted into a mild form of prevailing liberalism, bit still holds to its body of accepted “scripture” and, curiously, adds more of its leaders’ more frequent putative revelations to the R.L.D.S. edition of the Doctrine and Covenants than the L.D.S. cult has added to its own. The Community of Christ is a very dynamic group, even if much smaller than the L.D.S. cult. It has become considered to be one of the groups of denominations and sects which are called by ecumenists “the Peace Churches”. Its folk tend to be well educated, artistic, and progressive in thought, but they are not among the real “lunatics” of radicalism. The R.L.D.S. musical heritage is as rich as that of the famously musical L.D.S. cult. In a way, one cannot help but to hope the best for the R.L.D.S. people, although, of course, it would be marvellous if they would meld into the One Holy Roman and Catholic Church!

The mostly pan-evangelical “orthodoxy”, relatively speaking, that characterises R.L.D.S. Mormonism’s founding formulation, is, essentially, a blend of Methodism, Campbellism (e.g., the teaching of the Disciples of Christ denomination in its early days), and of the Baptists, but with a burden of inauthentic non-biblical pseudo-scriptures (which only partly coincide with those of the L.D.S. pagan Mormons) added on. Of course, the members of the R.L.D.S. Community of Christ have as much of a spiritual duty to convert to the Catholic faith as any other non-Catholic Christians have such a duty. There is no good excuse, ultimately, to holding to any form of Mormonism, which is tainted at its very source, by Joseph Smith’s pretentions, deep personal sinfulness, and egotism. However, do bear in mind that R.L.D.S. Mormons really are Christians of a sort rather than direly lost polytheistic pagans, as the L.D.S. Mormons are.

Jerry Parker

 

[ParkerD]

To all readers:

I apologize to others who may follow other threads, that this will be redundant, but here goes:

I don’t think of God the Father as a “perfected man.” I think He was always perfect, but did indeed live on an earth and became a resurrected Being. The following quote is from the transcript of a talk given by Joseph Smith at a funeral in 1844, called the King Follett Discourse:

"God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, and I will show it from the Bible.

I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, “As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power.” To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious–in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again."
…
“Here, then, is eternal life–to know the only wise and true God. And you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves–to be kings and priests to God, the same as all Gods have done–by going from a small degree to another, from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you are able to sit in glory as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
…
“How consoling to the mourner when he is called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that although the earthly tabernacle shall be dissolved that dear one shall rise in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more but shall be God’s heirs and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? It is to inherit the same glory, the same power, and the same exaltation until you ascend the throne of eternal power the same as those who are gone before. What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before.”
…
“We say that God himself is a self-existing God. Who told you so? It is correct enough, but how did it get into your heads?”
…
"The mind of man is as immortal as God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their friends and relatives are separated from their bodies for only a short season; their spirits existed coequal (i.e. coeternal, because they always existed) with God, and they now exist in a place where they converse together, the same as we do on the earth. Is it logic to say that a spirit is immortal and yet has a beginning? Because if a spirit has a beginning, it will have an end. That is good logic. I want to reason further on the spirit of man, for I am dwelling on the spirit and body of man–on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man, the immortal spirit, because it has no beginning. Suppose I cut it in two; as the Lord lives, because it has a beginning, it would have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation who say that man had a beginning prove that he must have an end. If that were so, the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. Moreover, all the spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible to enlargement.

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God found himself in the midst of spirits and glory, and because he was greater, he saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have the privilege of advancing like himself–that they might have one glory upon another and all the knowledge, power, and glory necessary…"

 

[ParkerD]

Also pertinent to this discussion, I feel as I also read the Lectures on Faith which Joseph Smith used as a teaching resource, that God the Father is and has always been the Supreme Ruler of this Universe. If there was a previous distinct universe (apart from this universe) where God the Father lived, then I have to assume from the teaching of the Bible and Joseph Smith’s insights, that God the Father lived a sinless life there just as Jesus did here, and was resurrected with a Perfect Eternal body and that as far as this universe where we are living is concerned, He is God the Eternal Father and the Supreme Ruler of the universe from all eternity backwards in time to all eternity forwards in time.

So whether He was Self-existent as God or “had a God before Him”, I just don’t know nor do I think it is pertinent to my salvation or growth.

As for the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost, the LDS belief is that He is a personage of spirit, and has never had a body therefore never been a “man”. To my knowledge, Joseph Smith never talked about how this third member of the Godhead received His attributes of perfection and omniscience, but I would assume that He has always had those qualities since He was first “created” (organized and brought into the progressed state of being a spirit) as a spirit from having previously been an “intelligence”, a less progressed entity in eternal states of being. (We have all existed as intelligences eons of time backwards into the eternal past.)