The Truth about the Mormons from a Devout Mormon

[Katholikos]

Jodi:

Turns out that my husbands baptism was done under the trinity formula so the local parish may accept it. That is his baptism before he became lds under a presbertarian preacher.

I have a few questions on how that works. And try and forgive me if it seems like a slanted question since I am working at this from my current frame of reference. Why would his baptism be acceped if it wasn’t performed by an ordained priest? Isn’t the priesthood necissary to perform a baptism? So if a man who has never been ordained does a baptism on an infant with the right formula is it valid? So what is important the formula or the authority?

The Catholic Church does not recognize the LDS priesthood – or any priesthood that cannot be traced in an unbroken continuum back to the Apostles. The Church recognizes priests of the ancient Orthodox Churches, which were part of the Catholic Church for the first thousand years or so of Christian history, as validly ordained, but very few others, and none in the LDS church.

Priests ordained in apostolic succession are the usual ministers of Baptism. However, in emergency situations, any validly baptized Christian may baptize another. The CC does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid. Both the formula and the authority are important. Infant baptism is valid, if the correct Trinitarian formula is used. Presbyterian baptism is accepted as valid, provided that there was a record of it. In the absence of a baptismal record, your husband would be conditionally baptized ("If you are not baptized, I baptize you . . .)

If I need to take this to the appologists side just let me know.

You should always feel free to submit your Q for an authoritative answer from an official apologist for an added measure of confidence.

I have always believed that Gods house is a house of order and that to have the priesthood line is important. Which would rule out all protestant religions because they would have lost that line as they dissented away. I don’t believe it lies with the remnant of the jews because I am a FIRM believe in Chirst. So if I were to become convinced of the errors of my current faith then catholic would be the only alternative from my current frames of reference. Either that or that the true church no longer exists at all which is the scariest idea I can concieve of.

If the True Church does not exist, and if it is not the Catholic Church, then Christianity is not true and our Faith is in vain.

I have discovered that many of the belief’s about what the catholic faith believed are indeed false. So I am trying to learn enough that I can correct any other errors to be found in my understanding and look with new eyes at the church.

Catholic Answers library has the answers to most if not all of your questions. May I recommend that you begin by reading this brief little booklet, Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth, found here:

catholic.com/library/pillar.asp

It is a good springboard into deeper explanations of the teachings of the Catholic church. It’s brief, easy and quick to read and will give you a good overview of the Church.

I have been doing allot of praying and fasting. I freely admit to much confusion being my lot at this time. But I have also felt a great outpouring of my Father in Heavens love for me as I am searching for him. Please do keep me in your prayers as I know that God hears all of our prayers and will bless me for them.

We will pray for you and with you as your husband makes this journey. Perhaps you will share with us sometime how he came to a decision to inquire into the 2.000-year-old Catholic Faith.

Peace be with you, Jay

 

[Katholikos]

amazedGrace:

my understanding is that Joseph Smith was killed in a shoot out. I am suprised a ‘man of God’ let himself be caught up in such an incident

Joseph Smith was killed in a gun battle in the Carthage, Missouri, jail, where he was being held on a charge of Treason. But first, a grand jury in Carthage issued a bill of indictment against him for adultery and polygamy and another for false swearing, charges brought by apostate members of the LDS church. JS won in court arguments against them and ordered the newpaper that had been aligned against him, The Expositor, destroyed by his Nauvoo (Ilinois) Legion. This triggered another newspaper, the Warsaw Signal, to charge Smith with a long list of crimes from hiring a hit man to the seduction of innumerable Mormon women, “deeds at which Heaven weeps and human nature falls back ashamed of her own depravity.” An editorial urged “citizens arise, one and all!!! Can you stand by and suffer such infernal devils?” Soon the streets were swarming with mobs. The Carthage constable ordered Smith and all responsible for the destruction of The Expositor to report for trial. Smith and his brother Hyrum were charged with treason for calling out the Nauvoo Legion. Long story short, Joe and his brother Hyrum went to jail, the others were released, and a lynch mob stormed the jail. Joseph had a six-shooter and Hyrum a single-barrel pistol, which had been smuggled in by friends the previous day. JS fired six shots, wounding three men, one seriously. He gave the Masonic cry of distress before he died.

Reference: No Man Knows My History, The Life of Joseph Smith, Fawn M. Brodie, Second Edition, Alfred A. Knopf, 1979.

This is a very abbreviated account of Joseph Smith’s death in the Carthage, Missouri, jail. He instantly became a “martyr” for the Mormon cause.

JMJ Jay

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I was on a Mormon page last night and I saw the statues of JS and BY infront of the jail. Do the Mormons own it or something?

 

[Jodi]

Yes, the lds church aquired the property some time ago. It has been restored an daily tours are given by missionaries. I have never been there to take the tour myself. The church has been buying many of the old sites back over time. The most notable hold out would be the original temple in kirkland which is still owned by the RLDS group. The church recently finished rebuilding the Navoo temple on the original site it was located.

Okay so here is my follow up question. Is the priesthood necissary for baptism? How does the catholic church make sure that baptisms that are performed by protestant groups still have that direct priesthood line? Why wouldn’t their priesthood be invalid since they desented from the catholic church?

I still think that having a prisoner in a jail killed by an outside mob is not something I would like to see repeated no matter who was inside the jail. We must be bound by the rule of law and when those laws no longer hold the people bad things happen for all of us.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Dear Jodi

We also have an RCIA class in Utah. We have one who has been LDS all of his life. He began looking into the faith as he was taking a theology class AT Utah State. He is now going through the RCIA Program. His wife is a really good person and is having a hard time with this as well. I understand this!

He knows much more about the Catholic faith than us Catholics. It’s pretty neat. He has decided to be baptized this Easter. Today he is in Salt Lake City meeting with the Bishop along with many others around the State. What happens there is truly amazing for us who went through this process. Here we are in a small town in Utah. We have been studying this faith with a few others for about 7 months. Then we go to Salt Lake, the Cathedral and we see hundreds of others from throughout the State, all on the same journey. It is a good time, a real eye opener. A very beautiful time. Last year one in our group started to have doubts a few days before this right of Acceptance. When she entered the Cathedral of the Madelen God truly spoke to her. My yoke is easy and my burden is light. She now teaches others in the RCIA. I have to say that it is amazing when someone comes to want to know more about this faith, especially with all the bad things that have happened as of late. I sometimes wonder how I happened to end up here as well. I can’t say that it was luck, miracle maybe, not luck. I can only say that it was because of God. I myself would have never looked into it.

 

[Katholikos]

Jodi:

Okay so here is my follow up question. Is the priesthood necissary for baptism? How does the catholic church make sure that baptisms that are performed by protestant groups still have that direct priesthood line? Why wouldn’t their priesthood be invalid since they desented from the catholic church?

]“Who is the ordinary minister of Baptism? The ordinary minister of Baptism is a priest, but anyone may baptize in case of necessity.” This is the Faith, Canon Francis Ripley, p. 225.

"Catechism of the Catholic Church 1284 In case of necessity, any person can baptize provided that he have the intention of doing that which the Church does and provided that he pours water on the candidate’s head while saying, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Protestant denominations, with the exception of the Episcopalians, do not have priests. The Catholic Church has ruled that Episcopal/Anglican “priests” [with rare exceptions] do not have valid holy orders; i.e., they are not ordained in succession to the apostles.

I still think that having a prisoner in a jail killed by an outside mob is not something I would like to see repeated no matter who was inside the jail. We must be bound by the rule of law and when those laws no longer hold the people bad things happen for all of us.

I certainly agree that lynch mobs are not good for society. Feelings against the Mormons were high in Missouri and elsewhere in the mid-1800s because of their practice of polygyny – one man, more than one wife (erroneously called polygamy). But the vigilante mentality was strong. History records many assaults on jails and many lynchings of blacks in the Southern states also during that era as well. Fortunately, we’re past that now and are more patient about letting the law run its course.

It was not becoming of Joseph Smith to have engaged in a gunfight with a weapon that was smuggled into him by his followers; he nearly killed a man. It just doesn’t seem like the conduct of a “prophet,” nor does polygamy. Smith practiced both polygyny and polyandry – some of his many wives had other husbands.

If you have more questions, please feel free to ask them.

Peace be with you and with all who post at Catholic Answers.

JMJ Jay

 

[mormon_fool]

Katholikos:

It was not becoming of Joseph Smith to have engaged in a gunfight with a weapon that was smuggled into him by his followers; he nearly killed a man.

I enjoyed your otherwise very fair post, especially your helpfulness in answering questions. I am a little disturbed on why you think it is not all right that a prophet engage in self-defense or defend his comrades. It comes to my mind a few Biblical prophets engaged in such practices.

Everything about Joseph Smiths death leads me to the conclusion that he was concerned about the safety of his fellow prisoners and visitors, even more than his own self preservation. He turned himself in, when he could have escaped. He knew that he was “going as a lamb to the slaughter”. He begged his brother Hyrum not to go with him.

Joseph’s defence saved the lives of two mormon visitors, Williard Richards and John Taylor. He jumped out a window to draw away fire. Seeing him dead, the mob’s apetite for blood was appeased.

My conclusions are that Joseph was not as meek as Jesus and some Christian martyrs that we read about, but the actions in the jail were completely honorable. Joseph Smith was a martyr for his religion and people.

Just my sentiments,
fool

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Katholikos:

I certainly agree that lynch mobs are not good for society. Feelings against the Mormons were high in Missouri and elsewhere in the mid-1800s because of their practice of polygyny – one man, more than one wife (erroneously called polygamy). But the vigilante mentality was strong. History records many assaults on jails and many lynchings of blacks in the Southern states also during that era as well. Fortunately, we’re past that now and are more patient about letting the law run its course.

It was not becoming of Joseph Smith to have engaged in a gunfight with a weapon that was smuggled into him by his followers; he nearly killed a man. It just doesn’t seem like the conduct of a “prophet,” nor does polygamy. Smith practiced both polygyny and polyandry – some of his many wives had other husbands.

If you have more questions, please feel free to ask them.

Peace be with you and with all who post at Catholic Answers.

JMJ Jay

Jay,
Would you want Joseph to have died without trying to defend himself? Would you choose to die without a fight, if a mob broke in to kill you and you had a gun to defend yourself?

Jodi’s question remains unanswered.
We know that baptism MUST be performed by one who holds the priesthood and has direct authority from God to perform the baptism. Catholics claim to have an unbroken priesthood line from the time of Jesus, so we agree that they must have the authority. But, Protestant religions broke off from Catholic and have been separate entities for hundreds of years. Why would the Catholic church then accept the baptism of a person baptized by someone(a protestant minister)who has no authority to baptize? That does not make sense at all to me.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

I missed the part where you said the Catechism teaches that anyone who pours water on someones head and says the proper words has the authority to baptize. Apparently in the Catholic church baptism does not have anything to do with priesthood authority. Thank you for clarifying that for us. Sorry to question you when you had already answered so clearly.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

This gunfight stuff brings up a question, what did the mob want in the first place? how did he get in jail? If it was about multiple wives I read on that www that they would give it up if the law did not allow it, i.e. temporarily suspend it.

I would use a gun to defend myself, but I am no where near the level of saint. I dont really think of martyr of “defending” himself. Every case I see/hear the martyr basically said “I am in God’s hands,” no thoughts of trying to survie. Does this make sense?

I know there have been people who have defended the Church using weapons, but were they ever called “martyrs”?

 

[catholic-rcia]

Does anyone else have a short story about one who gave up his or her life for Christ?

Rusticus told Jusitn and thre others that if they did not worship him they would all be beheaded.

When Rusticus asked what doctrines St. Justin believed, Justin told him that he had learned all the doctrines available during his quest but finally submitted to the true doctrines of the Christians, even though they didn’t please others. (An understatement when he was under danger of death!)
When Rusticus asked where the Christians gathered, Justin gave a response that gives us insight into Christian community and worship of the time: “Where each one chooses and can: for do you fancy that we all meet in the very same place? Not so; because the God of the Christians is not circumscribed by place; but being invisible, fills heaven and earth, and everywhere is worshipped and glorified by the faithful.”

When Rusticus asked each of them if they were a Christian, they all responded the same way: “Yes, I am a Christian.” When Rusticus tried to put responsibility for this on Justin, they responded that God had made them Christians.

Just before Rusticus sentenced them he asked Justin, “If you are killed do you suppose you will go to heaven?” Justin said, “I do not suppose it, but I know and am fully persuaded of it.”

Justin and his fellow martyrs each walked up proclaiming Christ and were beheaded in the year 165 and went to be with the Truth Justin had longed for all his life. He is often known as Justin Martyr and his works are still available.

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

I know there have been people who have defended the Church using weapons, but were they ever called “martyrs”?

The site you have been looking at answers this question.

lightplanet.com/mormons/response/qa/martyr_joseph.htm

later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

Catholic Dude:

This gunfight stuff brings up a question, what did the mob want in the first place? how did he get in jail? If it was about multiple wives I read on that www that they would give it up if the law did not allow it, i.e. temporarily suspend it.

See the following for the historical back drop:

library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1994.htm/ensign%20june%201994.htm/martyrdom%20at%20carthage.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

 

[Katholikos]

BJ Colbert:

Jay, Would you want Joseph to have died without trying to defend himself? Would you choose to die without a fight, if a mob broke in to kill you and you had a gun to defend yourself?

Sorry, but martyrs don’t defend themselves with illegal, smuggled guns. Joseph Smith died in a common gun battle, like the shoot-out at the OK Corral. Joseph ordered his militia to destroy a newspaper office. For that – for calling out his militia – he was charged with treason, but earlier he was brought up on charges of polygamy by apostate Mormons. The citizens of Carthage were very, very upset about the destruction of the newspaper office and the polygamy. I don’t approve of mobs breaking into jails. But Joseph Smith should not have had a gun, nor should he have used it if he were truly God’s prophet. He acted more like Wyatt Earp.

Jodi’s question remains unanswered.
We know that baptism MUST be performed by one who holds the priesthood and has direct authority from God to perform the baptism.

That’s Mormon doctrine, but not Catholic doctrine. The Church founded by Jesus Christ for the salvation of the world does not recognize LDS “priesthood” since it doesn’t derive from Jesus and His authority vested in the Apostles. The Catholic Church says anyone can baptize in an emergency; but normally, Baptism is administered by a duly ordained priest or deacon who stands in an unbroken line of succession back to the Apostles.

Baptism and marriage are two of the seven Sacraments that do not mandate that a priest must perform them. In addition to Protestant baptism, the Church also recognizes the validity of Protestant marriages – provided her other requirements are met (e.g., both spouses are validly baptized, no previous marriages, etc.).

Catholics claim to have an unbroken priesthood line from the time of Jesus, so we agree that they must have the authority. But, Protestant religions broke off from Catholic and have been separate entities for hundreds of years. Why would the Catholic church then accept the baptism of a person baptized by someone(a protestant minister)who has no authority to baptize? That does not make sense at all to me.

BJ, you accept Mormon priesthood as the authority. But the Catholic Church does not. And the Catholic Church teaches that in an emergency, anyone can baptize. So the baptism of many Protestants is valid, since they did not have a duly ordained priest available, and provided it was administered with the proper matter (water) and intent and with and the Trinitarian formula. By “Trinity” the Church means Three Divine Persons in One God, not three separate gods, as in Mormonism. That’s why Mormon baptism is not valid. Mormonism is polytheistic (or, if you prefer, henotheistic); Christianity – and Judaism from which it sprang – are monotheistic.

Peace be with you, Jay

 

[Katholikos]

Catholic Dude:

This gunfight stuff brings up a question, what did the mob want in the first place? how did he get in jail? If it was about multiple wives I read on that www that they would give it up if the law did not allow it, i.e. temporarily suspend it.

Mormonism mandates the practice of polygyny (one man, two or more wives). It is a requirement for ‘exaltation’ – for a Mormon male’s progression into a god where he will rule over his own planet and beget spirit children with his goddess-wives. Polygyny was illegal when Joseph Smith started it in 1839 and it’s still illegal today. The Mormons moved to Utah so they could continue practicing “the principle” and they gave it up only under the coercion of the U.S. government as the price for statehood.

Joseph Smith himself practiced polygyny (one husband, two or more wives) and polyandry (one wife, two or more husbands), since several of his many wives had living husbands.

Since it’s required for "exaltation,’ what is forbidden on earth is now practiced in the Mormon heaven forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=24862&highlight=mormon+polygamy

And it’s also openly practiced in Utah, Arizona, Texas, Canada, and perhaps in other states.

JMJ Jay

 

[mormon_fool]

Katholikos:

Mormonism mandates the practice of polygyny (one man, two or more wives). It is a requirement for ‘exaltation’

[snip speculation presented as doctrine and faulty historical analysis]

A few things in this post stand in need of correction. First mormons are not now required to practice polygamy to enter into exaltation. As one writer suggests:

“the Lord desires us to accept the doctrine of plural marriage, he does not always desire his people to actually practice it. For example, the Book of Mormon peoples were specifically forbidden to practice plural marriage. (Jacob 2). Therefore, we know that plural marriage is not an ordinance like baptism that must be practiced in mortality to be saved. However, it is a celestial doctrine, and those whose hearts are not pure enough to accept the doctrine are not pure enough to dwell in the celestial kingdom as an exalted being.”

lightplanet.com/mormons/daily/history/plural_marriage/necessary.htm

And it’s also openly practiced in Utah, Arizona, Texas, Canada, and perhaps in other states.

By non-LDS.

Later,
fool

 

[mormon_fool]

mormon fool:

A few things in this post stand in need of correction. First mormons are not now required to practice polygamy to enter into exaltation. As one writer suggests:

Another writer, Bruce R. McConkie wrote this:

“Plural marriage is not essential to salvation or exaltation. Nephi and his people were denied the power to have more than one wife and yet they could gain every blessing in eternity that the Lord ever offered to any people. In our day, the Lord summarized by revelation the whole doctrine of exaltation and predicated it upon the marriage of one man to one woman. (D. & C. 132:1-28.) Thereafter he added the principles relative to plurality of wives with the express stipulation that any such marriages would be valid only if authorized by the President of the Church. (D. & C. 132:7, 29-66.)”

 

[Jodi]

Not trying to be redundant but from what I understand of your kind answers is that the priesthood is not absolutely necessary in the case of the ordinances of baptism and marriage. That through Jesus his grace is sufficiant to cover all those who recieve these ordinances through other sources. I am not sure how I feel about this and will pray about it. Here are some more follow up questions and observations. Thanks in advance for being so helpful. I am going to call my local RCIA priest and he should be taking some of the burden of answering my questions of of this boards shoulders soon.

So why then did Jesus seek baptism from John the Baptist who was of the levite line and a holder of that priesthood? Although he may have not needed to have the priesthood present but to fulfill the prophesy. And to be the Savior he did need to fulfill all the prophesies about his comming.

It was not becoming of Joseph Smith to have engaged in a gunfight with a weapon that was smuggled into him by his followers; he nearly killed a man. It just doesn’t seem like the conduct of a “prophet,”

I am still a total defender of fighting to the death. God doesn’t ask us to lay down our lives to murderers and law breakers without fighting to maintain it. When the mob of people attacked a jail to kill its inhabitants they crossed the line. And for the man he nearly killed I say good thing I wasn’t there because I am a much better shot and it wouldn’t have been nearly. But I tend to be a bit on the blood thirsty side. People in prison have the right to protection from mindless mobs. Anger over the crime does not justify breaking the law and becoming a murderer. Dying while preserving your life is no stain. Now if he had the option of avoiding the fight by fleeing and instead chose to remain you may have a point. I know of people who offered up their lives rather than take that of another. I respect and honor that desision. I also respect and honor those who defend their God given right to life and liberty with force of arms.

 

[TOmNossor]

Jodi:

Not trying to be redundant but from what I understand of your kind answers is that the priesthood is not absolutely necessary in the case of the ordinances of baptism and marriage. That through Jesus his grace is sufficiant to cover all those who recieve these ordinances through other sources. I am not sure how I feel about this and will pray about it. Here are some more follow up questions and observations. Thanks in advance for being so helpful. I am going to call my local RCIA priest and he should be taking some of the burden of answering my questions of of this boards shoulders soon.

So why then did Jesus seek baptism from John the Baptist who was of the levite line and a holder of that priesthood? Although he may have not needed to have the priesthood present but to fulfill the prophesy. And to be the Savior he did need to fulfill all the prophesies about his comming.

St. Cyprian and two African councils (not Ecumenical Councils) affirmed the position that the baptism of heretics would not be acceptable. Pope St. Stephen entered this debate utilizing as one of his arguments that heretics do not rebaptize the orthodox. Ultimately it was Pope St. Stephens position that prevailed. The position put forth by St. Cyprian before this has become unorthodox.

Charity, TOm

 

[mormon_fool]

where he will rule over his own planet and beget spirit children with his goddess-wives.

This is unsupported speculation.

Polygyny was illegal when Joseph Smith started it in 1839 and it’s still illegal today.

I would say Joseph Smith started it into 1833 or 1835, when he was sealed to Fanny Alger. But he really didn’t start it, becuase it was obviously practiced in ancient times. Joseph was not in violation of any bigamy laws, to be so he would have had to have been legally married to more than one wife.

The Mormons moved to Utah so they could continue practicing “the principle”

This was not the only reason they moved to Utah. Persecution by mobs was another criteria.

and they gave it up only under the coercion of the U.S. government as the price for statehood.

This portrayal makes it seem that the mormons easily gave up on the practice. More than just the statehood carrot affected the decision to quit the practice. The Edmonds-Tucker act disenfranchised the LDS church: sacred buildings were being confiscated, members not allowed vote, and husbands lived as fugitives. The LDS held out for decades against persecution while waiting on courts to rule on Constitutionality of the Tucker Act. The 1890 revelation showed that the church would not survive if they did not cease the non-essential practice.

Joseph Smith himself practiced polygyny (one husband, two or more wives) and polyandry (one wife, two or more husbands), since several of his many wives had living husbands.

He should be commended for practicing such an unpleasant and faith challenging principle, solely because of his desire to follow a commandment.

later,
fool