Q for Mormons

[christianley]

I always had the feeling the General Authorities cautioned us against believing they had seen Christ. I never had the feeling when I was an active Mormon that any of them had had a personal visitation from Jesus.

 

[Allweather]

And the problem is this ~ if you truly studied the scriptures with the Holy Spirit and your eyes were truly opened and your mind was truly enlightened, you would never end up as a Mormon.
Melanie

I’m sure we Catholics and Protestants all agree. But we always need to keep in mind that the Mormons don’t see “Scripture” the same way we Christians do. First off, they don’t trust the Bible. They think it has been corrupted. When you get right down to it, they don’t believe in the Bible. They will quote out of it and use it to seemingly bolster their arguments with Christians, but they don’t really believe in it. When a Mormon says “scripture” what he really means primarily is the “modern scripture” which is the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price, and whatnot. Plus, you can probably also throw in there the pronouncements of the Head Prophets, as these are also considered the Word of God.

True, if Mormons had a proper view of Scripture, and IF they read it according to valid interpretations, most of them would cease being Mormons, almost for sure. Another point is the Holy Ghost. It certainly makes no sense that the Holy Ghost would speak different truths to different people, such that a Mormon would get Mormon truth and a Christian would get Christian truth. Some people think that Mormons are tuning in to a pretender spirit, rather than the Holy Spirit of God. That could be one explanation for why they get confirmed in reading their own “modern scriptures.”

 

[Allweather]

I always had the feeling the General Authorities cautioned us against believing they had seen Christ. I never had the feeling when I was an active Mormon that any of them had had a personal visitation from Jesus.

Isn’t this “possiblity” or “probability” (according to Zerinus) one of the supports for the Mormon claim that they still have Apostles? According to the Biblical standard, an Apostle would be someone with an eyeball-to-eyeball encounter with Jesus.

 

[christianley]

Isn’t this “possiblity” or “probability” (according to Zerinus) one of the supports for the Mormon claim that they still have Apostles? According to the Biblical standard, an Apostle would be someone with an eyeball-to-eyeball encounter with Jesus.

No. All Apostle means to a Mormon is a witness for Jesus. The spiritual witness is considered just as good as actually seeing Jesus face to face. The Apostolic office in Mormonism does not require the person to have actually seen Jesus face to face. The Apostolic office is just an office that needs to be filled as a ministry in the church just like a Cardinal or some other authority in the Catholic Church. The Apostle is not called because he has seen Jesus, but because the leader of the Mormon Church is inspired to call that person to the apostolic office.

I’m not sure we can prove the idea that the Biblical standard requires an eyeball-to-eyeball encounter with Jesus in order to be called as an apostle. That seems to me more the Church tradition than something that can absolutely be proved from the Bible. The Church tradition is as valid as the Bible in my mind.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Re: Holy Spirit ~ Maybe I am nitpicking here, but my experience is that Mormons talk a lot about the “Spirit” but not the “Holy Spirit”. So maybe they ARE tuning in to a different entity than we are. Who’s to say? Perhaps Allweather is correct in suggesting a “pretend” Spirit. At the very least, it is absolutely accurate that the SAME Holy Spirit would not give two different messages.

In any event, while some may make valid arguments on an intellectual/scholarly basis for such things as copying errors of the Bible over the centuries, I’ll still take the Bible as we know it over a book supposedly “translated” by looking at “seer stones” in the bottom of a hat! That any reasonably intelligent person could believe that the book created from magic rocks and favor that over the Bible is an utter mystery to me. I’d be interested to see how many willing converts the LDS missionaries would have if they led off with the magic rocks story. But they don’t, do they? In fact, you can probably even be baptized into the church without knowing a thing about the magic rocks!

And then there’s the whole made-up “apostasy” story, for which there is not a shred of evidence. So while the Mormons claim “restoration”, there is nothing to “restore” if their supposed “church” did not actually exist in the past. But you see, as already evidenced in this thread, the emphasis is often NOT on learning, NOT on reason. Instead, for many Mormons much of their understanding flows from their study of the “magic rock scriptures” and how they “feel”.

Re: Mormon Apostles seeing Jesus ~ I am sure that one of my Mormon friends has reported to me that one of their Prophets, even one of the more modern ones, has seen Jesus. I don’t know which one because I am not familiar with them all, but I know that I was told that one of them had seen Jesus and that their picture on display in many of their church buildings of Jesus wearing a red robe was pronounced to be an accurate rendering of Jesus’ appearance. Now, this friend of mine may be wrong, but that is what I was told.

I continue to pray for Mormons, both those I know as well as those I don’t, that they may truly have the truth revealed to them.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

 

[zerinus]

There’s only one glaring problem with this statement:

“when you study the scriptures by the Spirit, it more than just confirm your conclusions. It actually opens your eyes and enlighten your mind to enable you to comprehend things that you otherwise you would not be able to comprehend”

And the problem is this ~ if you truly studied the scriptures with the Holy Spirit and your eyes were truly opened and your mind was truly enlightened, you would never end up as a Mormon.

That is precisely why I am a Mormon. I would further inform you that if you had the tiniest spark of the Spirit of the Lord within you, you would know that the LDS Church is true.

I have many many Mormon friends and they are very good people, without exception. Kind, giving, moral, every good thing you could possibly hope for. But they follow an invented religion and they have a completely misguided view of the Trinity. And the false practices only begin there.

That is a very hypocritical observation. Every tree brings forth fruit after its own likeness. A good tree brings forth good fruit, and an evil tree bears evil fruit. Mormons are a fruit of Mormonism. If the fruit is good that is because the tree is good. The word of the Lord to the hypocritical Pharisees is applicable here:

Matthew 12:

33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

Luke 6:

43 For a good tree bringeth not forth corrupt fruit; neither doth a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

44 For every tree is known by his own fruit. For of thorns men do not gather figs, nor of a bramble bush gather they grapes.

45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.

As a result, they are a faith that baptizes and calls itself “Christian” where that baptism is not accepted by the Catholic Church, which is exceptional since most Christian baptisms ARE recognized by the Catholic Church. But in view of the totally distorted understanding of the Trinity, a concept Mormons will sometimes refer to but without understanding the true nature of the Trinity, it is understandable why a Mormon baptism cannot be accepted.

For your information the LDS Church did not recognize the baptism of the Catholic Church long before the Catholic Church decided not to acknowledge the baptism of the LDS Church; and they did so as a retaliation to the LDS practice of not acknowledging their baptisms. But the LDS practice was not intended as a snub to the Catholic Church. We do not acknowledge the baptism of any church, because Christianity is apostate, and the divine authority to administer a valid sacrament does not exist in any church other than the LDS Church.

zerinus

 

[MelanieAnne]

Zerinus ~

As I said, I will continue to pray for you and for all Mormons. No Mormon should be personally blamed for the deception created by Joseph Smith and perpetuated for all these years by a succession of church leaders. Again, I invite you to find the REAL truth at your local Catholic church.

And as an intellectual exercise, I cannot help but notice that you decline to address the most substantive issues, the ones that point to the utter fallaciousness of Mormon Doctrine. I find that fascinating. From your silence, I can only conclude that you have no answers.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

 

[zerinus]

1st interview:

*President Gordon B. Hinckley, the current “living prophet” of the Mormon Church, has recently revealed in a newspaper interview that “revelation” does not come in the way most of us were brought up to believe:

"‘Revelation no longer comes by vision,’ Mr. Hinckley said, 'but in the “still, small voice*,” like that heard by Elijah.
“‘We wrestle with a problem, we discuss it, we think about it, we pray about it,’ he said of the First Presidency, made up of Mr. Hinckley and his two counselors. ‘And the answer comes in a remarkable and wonderful way.’” (Washington Times, December 15, 1996, page 26)

2nd interview:

Q: And this belief in contemporary revelation and prophecy? As the prophet, tell us how that works. How do you receive divine revelation? What does it feel like?

A: Let me say first that we have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received. Now, if a problem should arise on which we don’t have an answer, we pray about it, we may fast about it, and it comes. Quietly. Usually no voice of any kind, but just a perception in the mind." (Interview with President Gordon B. Hinckley, as published on the Web site of the San Francisco Chronicle, April 13, 1997)

Get that?
Revelation comes as a “perception in the mind”. And yet you believe that the apostles have seen Jesus Christ? Why wouldn’t Jesus just tell them his will when he was chillin’ with the apostles?

You have misunderstood Hinckley’s quotes. Firstly, I would take issue with the accuracy of the first quote. That is not a verbatim quote, and I very much doubt (in fact I am certain) that Hinckley did not say, “Revelation no longer comes by vision”. He would never say that. That appears to be the reporter’s addition. It is not a quote from Hinckley. Receiving revelation by the “still small voice” of the Spirit is one of the many ways in which revelation can come; and may even be the commonest way; but it will never be the only way; and Hinckley would never say that it is the only way. Secondly, what Hinckley was referring to was revelation to deal with the day to day affairs of the Church. The General Authorities face many daily issues or challenges that they need to deal with in their day to day running of the Church. Angels are not going to appear and disappear to them every second of the day as they go about dealing with the daily problems of the Church. The Spirit of the Lord whispers to them what is right and what needs to be done. That is why they have the gift of the Holy Ghost. That does not mean that revelations by “visions” or by angelic ministrations etc. are “no longer given”. Those types of revelations are also available to them if need be, and should it be the will of the Lord to give them such manifestations.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus ~

As I said, I will continue to pray for you and for all Mormons. No Mormon should be personally blamed for the deception created by Joseph Smith and perpetuated for all these years by a succession of church leaders. Again, I invite you to find the REAL truth at your local Catholic church.

And as an intellectual exercise, I cannot help but notice that you decline to address the most substantive issues, the ones that point to the utter fallaciousness of Mormon Doctrine. I find that fascinating. From your silence, I can only conclude that you have no answers.

Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen

You pray in vain. Mormonism is true. Your blindness to it does not alter that fact.

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

I always had the feeling the General Authorities cautioned us against believing they had seen Christ. I never had the feeling when I was an active Mormon that any of them had had a personal visitation from Jesus.

Or, they chose publicly not to talk about it.

zerinus

 

[Allweather]

The General Authorities face many daily issues or challenges that they need to deal with in their day to day running of the Church. Angels are not going to appear and disappear to them every second of the day as they go about dealing with the daily problems of the Church. The Spirit of the Lord whispers to them what is right and what needs to be done. That is why they have the gift of the Holy Ghost. That does not mean that revelations by “visions” or by angelic ministrations etc. are “no longer given”. Those types of revelations are also available to them if need be, and should it be the will of the Lord to give them such manifestations.

zerinus

Zerinus, have you ever heard of Mark Hoffman?

Given what you say about the Holy Ghost whispering to the General Authorities, how do you explain the apparent fact that Gordon Hinckley and the other Mormon leaders were duped by this guy, who sold them forged documents with damaging information in them about Mormonism? Apparently he scammed them by playing on their natural instincts to hide damaging information about Mormonism from being made unnecessarily public. Shouldn’t they have been tipped off by the Holy Ghost about the truth of this?

 

[Allweather]

For your information the LDS Church did not recognize the baptism of the Catholic Church long before the Catholic Church decided not to acknowledge the baptism of the LDS Church; and they did so as a retaliation to the LDS practice of not acknowledging their baptisms. zerinus

How does Zerinus come to know this?

Any hard evidence?

Or is this via the Holy Ghost?

 

[zerinus]

Zerinus, have you ever heard of Mark Hoffman?

Given what you say about the Holy Ghost whispering to the General Authorities, how do you explain the apparent fact that Gordon Hinckley and the other Mormon leaders were duped by this guy, who sold them forged documents with damaging information in them about Mormonism? Apparently he scammed them by playing on their natural instincts to hide damaging information about Mormonism from being made unnecessarily public. Shouldn’t they have been tipped off by the Holy Ghost about the truth of this?

Your judgement is very much in error, as usual. The Hoffman purchases were made by the Historical Department of the Church. The General Authorities were not directly involved in the purchase of these documents. The LDS Church maintains a large and well staffed Historical Department that houses a collection of all published materials relating to the church. It has the largest archive of Church related materials (including anti-Mormon literature) anywhere. It was established by the commandment of the Lord, and it has a divine mandate to purchase or acquire copies or originals of all historical documents relating to the Church. It also carries out and publishes historical research relating to the Church. It is very well staffed, and it has experts whose job is to acquire historical documents relating to the Church. The archives of the Historical Department are open to researches and historians who interested in doing serious research to the Church and its history. Documents are not purchased for a cover-up. They are acquired to maintain the archive, and to facilitate research into the Church and its history. As for the role of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is not a fortune teller. The documents were acquired in good faith by the staff of the Historical Department with the belief that they were authentic. Gordon B Hinckley (not President of the Church at that time), who was partially involved in the acquisition of a couple of those documents, stated at that time (long before the forgery and murder scandal broke out) that it was not known whether the documents were authentic. For further information I refer you to study the following article:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1987.htm/ensign%20october%201987.htm/recent%20events%20involving%20church%20history%20and%20forged%20documents.htm

zerinus

 

[zerinus]

How does Zerinus come to know this?

Must be inspiration!

Any hard evidence?

You bet!

Or is this via the Holy Ghost?

Couldn’t be anything else!

Have you heard of “reading between the lines”? Have you heard of “circumstantial evidence”? Well, the evidences are overwhelming. First of all, the Catholic Church accepts baptism by just about anyone in an emergency. Any Tom, Dick, and Harry can perform a Catholic baptism in an emergence. A Buddhist monk, a Shinto priest, a Moslem Ayatollah, a witch, a Freemason, a Satanist can perform a valid Catholic baptism in an emergency. If somebody is about to die, and he has no recourse to a Catholic Priest, he can ask any of those kinds of people to perform the baptism for him, and the Catholic Church acknowledges that to be a valid baptism. The Catholic Church also accepts baptisms by all other churches that have broken away, descanted, or apostatized form it, and call it all kinds of names such as “Whore of Babylon” and “church of the devil,” and consider the Pope to be the promised anti-Christ! So it is very odd that they should single out the LDS Church for exclusion from this general rule, which is, after all, a Christ-centered Church, and uses the Trinitarian formula in its baptisms.

Secondly, if the reasons given by the Catholic Church for not acknowledging LDS baptisms are valid, why did they have to wait for such a long time to come to that momentous realization? This decision by the Catholic Church is very recent. It was made only a few years ago. The LDS Church has been around for 180 years. What took them so long to come to that realization? Smell a rat? I do! The real explanation is of course that it has nothing to do with the reasons that the Catholic Church has given. The real reason is that the LDS Church does not acknowledge Catholic baptism; and if the Catholic Church were to acknowledge LDS baptism, that would amount to a tacit acknowledging the authenticity of LDS baptism, which in turn would amount to acknowledging the LDS justification for not accepting Catholic baptism. It would be like the Catholic Church voting against itself! If the LDS baptism is valid, that means that the Catholic one is not! because that is the theological basis of the LDS baptism. So if the Catholic Church acknowledged that LDS baptism is valid, that would be like admitting that its own is not! The theological basis of LDS baptism would necessitate that. It is either Catholic baptism or the LDS one. It can’t be both. The Catholic Church was faced with the problem of either acknowledging the authority of LDS Baptism and thereby denying its own; or else to reject the authenticity of LDS baptism in order retain its own. Which one do you think they would choose?

The Catholic Church, however, can’t get away from her predicament so easy. Their problem is that their position is not consistent. The LDS position is very consistent. It has never accepted the validity of any baptism except its own. That is a perfectly consistent position to hold. But the Catholic position is far from consistent. They have traditionally accepted baptism by anybody who has pants on them. So now they are in a quandary. If they reject LDS baptism, that goes against their long held practice of accepting baptism from anybody who passes by! If they were to accept LDS baptism, that would be tantamount to negating their own! So they have had to figure out some other justification for their decision; and their explanation is far from convincing.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

first of all the LDs baptism wasn’t all that significant because there are so few LDs. Secondly, the CAtholic church didn’t initially understand that the LDs trinitarian formual was invalid because while, the words were right, their meaing was not. it took along time to conclude that LDs mean something completely different by the terms “the father” (elohim the exalted man who was once a sinner like us), the son (our literal brother and literal offspring of the father from one of his wives) and the holy spirit ( initially proclaime din LDs scripture as a non-personage which is the shared mind of the father and son, later defined as another literal sibling ofours who somehow,like christ, was deified prior to receiving a physical body even though that is required for salvation and exaltation) you can see from this as well that the LDs position has NOT been consistent on the nature of God and that with an open canon there is an implicit allowance for further change.

THAT is why LDS baptisms are invalid.

 

[kellie]

As for the role of the Holy Ghost, the Holy Ghost is not a fortune teller. The documents were acquired in good faith by the staff of the Historical Department with the belief that they were authentic. Gordon B Hinckley (not President of the Church at that time), who was partially involved in the acquisition of a couple of those documents, stated at that time (long before the forgery and murder scandal broke out) that it was not known whether the documents were authentic.

zerinus

Isn’t the Holy Ghost God? Doesn’t God know everything?

This is where the Catholic Church shows Her Truth, as we have the Pope guided by the Holy Spirit in any doctrinal matters creating infallibility.

Shouldn’t the leaders of the LDS be guided the same way as they claim to be true?

 

[Allweather]

Must be inspiration!

I don’t doubt for a moment that Zerinus gets a lot of “inspiration” though we’re not sure the sources.

You bet!

So, having said “you bet” to my question, “is there any hard evidence” to the inspired assertion of Zerinus that the Catholic Church denies the validity of Mormon baptism merely in retaliation against the LDS denial of Catholic baptism, he yet is unable to provide any. All we really have is his “reading between the lines” “circumstantial” “inspired” ruminations.

Couldn’t be anything else!

If it is truly spiritually sourced, it could be MANY other things than the Holy Ghost. How do you perform your authentication?

Have you heard of “reading between the lines”? Have you heard of “circumstantial evidence”? Well, the evidences are overwhelming. First of all, the Catholic Church accepts baptism by just about anyone in an emergency. Any Tom, Dick, and Harry can perform a Catholic baptism in an emergence. A Buddhist monk, a Shinto priest, a Moslem Ayatollah, a witch, a Freemason, a Satanist can perform a valid Catholic baptism in an emergency. If somebody is about to die, and he has no recourse to a Catholic Priest, he can ask any of those kinds of people to perform the baptism for him, and the Catholic Church acknowledges that to be a valid baptism. The Catholic Church also accepts baptisms by all other churches that have broken away, descanted, or apostatized form it, and call it all kinds of names such as “Whore of Babylon” and “church of the devil,” and consider the Pope to be the promised anti-Christ! So it is very odd that they should single out the LDS Church for exclusion from this general rule, which is, after all, a Christ-centered Church, and uses the Trinitarian formula in its baptisms.

I don’t know for a fact that what you’ve stated above about emergency situations is entirely accurate. I would have to get that from a Catholic source to know for sure. It seems about right, so accepting it at face value, I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the operative words in your quote above. We shouldn’t have any problem distinguishing between an EMERGENCY situation, and ROUTINE religious practice, should we? Besides, Zerinus claiming Mormonism to be “Christ-centered” doesn’t make it so. And using a “Trinitarian formula” doesn’t mean a handful of words as if they were a magic spell. The formula means having the proper view and beliefs of what the Trinity actually is, and this is an area in which Mormons specifically teach error.

Secondly, if the reasons given by the Catholic Church for not acknowledging LDS baptisms are valid, why did they have to wait for such a long time to come to that momentous realization? This decision by the Catholic Church is very recent. It was made only a few years ago. The LDS Church has been around for 180 years. What took them so long to come to that realization? Smell a rat? I do! zerinus

Nothing odd about this at all. I think Mormons way, way overestimate their significance in the world. They must imagine the Holy Father is sitting over there in Rome consumed by worry about the Mormons. With a maximum of 12 million adherents, maybe half of those active, the Mormons just barely appear on the radar screen above the ground clutter of sects and cults, and this only in the past few decades. Moreover, the Catholic Church moves slowly. It often takes many decades for things like this to be defined. Given the theological flux that has characterized the evolution of Mormonism, it isn’t surprising that Rome would take its time analyzing the errors.

The truth is that Mormons as a group have a persecution complex. They always have.

 

[Allweather]

Your judgement is very much in error, as usual. The Hoffman purchases were made by the Historical Department of the Church…zerinus

Thank you for the response. The first time I asked you about the Hoffman episode, many weeks ago, you ignored me, so it appears we are enjoying a more forthcoming Zerinus nowadays.

Gordon Hinckley, in 1985, was second counselor to LDS president Spencer W. Kimball, is that correct? Isn’t that a pretty high office? Wouldn’t one expect Dr. Hinckley to have at LEAST the same spiritual cognizance that a Zerinus has?

After all, Zerinus is able to “read between the lines” and conclude that the Catholic Church is merely retaliating against Mormons over the baptism thing. Why couldn’t Gordon Hinckley, second counselor to the Mormon Prophet, who undoubtedly consulted with the Prophet prior to spending some $45k of the tithers’ money on scam documents, be able to divine via the Holy Ghost that there was a scam going on? Zerinus quotes Rev. Hinckley as saying that he wasn’t sure the documents were authentic. Is that why he spend the $45k on them? Man, that’s a lot of money to spend on counterfeit paper, especially when it is money that comes from little people scraping to buy food for their children.

 

[Allweather]

Again, I would inform you that he received it by revelation. Here is another quote: zerinus

(snipped for brevity)

We may be splitting hairs, but it seems important for some reason that I can’t put my elderly finger on.

None of the NT verses you provide exclude the likelihood that Paul, during his 17 or so years out of NT view, was doing what Paul was commonly prone to do, which was to read, talk, and think, and especially to argue. Paul was an urbane man of letters. You may imagine he spent 17 years sitting out in the desert, silent and still, but that isn’t likely.

I am not claiming that Paul received a mighty and divine revelation from Jesus Himself. That is clear from the Bible I am not denying that the exegesis which Paul accomplished apart from the other disciples and Apostles, was virtually identical because of the Holy Ghost who was keeping him out of error. This probably is one of many proofs that the Holy Ghost is protecting the Church from error, and undoubtedly also explains how Catholic bishops, separated by so much geography, have managed for 2k years, most of which didn’t have electronic communications, to remain orthodox and united in doctrine and practice.

The Gospel, however, is big. It flows out of the OT. Jesus is incomprehensible as Messiah unless the gospel flows out of the OT. Paul was book-taught and tutored by Hebrew masters on OT. Therefore, it is a combination of revelation, and book-learning.

 

[zerinus]

I don’t doubt for a moment that Zerinus gets a lot of “inspiration” though we’re not sure the sources.

I don’t doubt that you are not acquainted with that source.

I don’t know for a fact that what you’ve stated above about emergency situations is entirely accurate. I would have to get that from a Catholic source to know for sure. It seems about right, so accepting it at face value, I’ve taken the liberty of highlighting the operative words in your quote above. We shouldn’t have any problem distinguishing between an EMERGENCY situation, and ROUTINE religious practice, should we? . . .

That only serves to explain why Catholic doctrine is in shambles—and apostate. A sacrament is something that requires divine authority. Without divine authority a valid sacrament cannot be performed—emergency or not.

Nothing odd about this at all. I think Mormons way, way overestimate their significance in the world. They must imagine the Holy Father is sitting over there in Rome consumed by worry about the Mormons. With a maximum of 12 million adherents, maybe half of those active, the Mormons just barely appear on the radar screen above the ground clutter of sects and cults, and this only in the past few decades. Moreover, the Catholic Church moves slowly. It often takes many decades for things like this to be defined. Given the theological flux that has characterized the evolution of Mormonism, it isn’t surprising that Rome would take its time analyzing the errors.

Mormonism is that small “stone cut out of the mountain without hands” that Daniel saw in his vision when interpreting King Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Daniel 2:45), which grew to become a big mountain, and destroyed all other kingdoms (including churches), and itself stood forever. It is very much on course to accomplish that.

zerinus