What Joseph Smith got right...

[Rascalking]

I am so glad you have had that experience with them. Not everyone has.

Yes, it is complicated. They are pro-life (in most cases) and pro-family, however it is because they are providing mortal bodies for the spirits floating around waiting to come to earth to earn their stripes. It is not the same way at looking life and family…therefore it is very complicated indeed.

I don’t know too many here in Utah that would say the Mormons would give you the shirt off their back…

Let us not forget our differences. You (LDS) want everyone to believe that the CC is wrong and that my friend, is a fact. And, it is not okay to brush over this in order to try and win converts.

Jesus Christ established His Church 2,000 years ago and the Mormons should not try to tear it down and say that It did not survive. That is wrong, Wrong, WRONG.

Thanks for at least admitting that it’s complicated. I have many mormon friends and I have experienced nothing but the best from them.

I’m not LDS, by the way. I’m Catholic, and my religious description in my profile is simply meant to be taken as jest.

 

[wisdomseeker]

I believe my counsel applies to all; most of all to myself. I could not care less what a Mormon leader says, or an Anglican priest, or anyone else that has no ecclesiastical authority over me. The actions of others does not affect my faith in God and his Church.

I do find it odd that you would go back to a document printed in 1854 to condemn Mormons. Have you done any historical research and read some of the documents printed by the Holy Catholic Church? Again, every time one condemns another religion thinking themselves superior, they will find out their own faith has done much worse.

What I consistently try to encourage is to let the Spirit of Christ speak! We have no need to condemn because they condemn themselves. Our need is to something different. I am fatigued by each of those few participants that cannot let it go, seem committed to follow another Master or at least confused to the point they don’t know what their Master would have them do. I bleed that Mother Church must continue to endure our poor examples and I am so very grateful that Christ has paid for all our sins.

I will seek out truth where ever it lies and praise God that he is the Father of all truth. Why is that such an onerous thing?

I agree with you on how to approach non Catholics. but it is also true that mormons have not changed their views about the CC. just yesterday, i had two of them knocking on my door. i was polite of course and i let them talk. they said the same thing that when the apostles died, the Chruch ceased to exist. i asked them, and what happened to those whom the Apostles converted? she said they were killed. i asked, all of them were killed?

any religion who keeps others from the Truth must not be treated lightly.
they are enemies of the Truth.
how should we treat the enemies of the Truth?

 

[lax16]

Thanks for at least admitting that it’s complicated. I have many mormon friends and I have experienced nothing but the best from them.

I’m not LDS, by the way. I’m Catholic, and my religious description in my profile is simply meant to be taken as jest.

A non-Catholic is a Catholic?

Why mix the two names together? A non-Catholic = not Catholic
A Catholic Mormon = Mormon

 

[SnakeMauler]

Maybe you don’t have the need to condemn other faiths, but this Mormons prophet/seer/revelator didn’t see it that way:

LDS Church Publication “The Seer,” January, 1854. No. 1., Page 204-206

DOCTRINE QUESTIONS

Q. Have the Roman Catholics authority to baptize?
A. No: for they have no inspired Apostles and Prophets among them: neither have they any new revelations, and without these things no one ever was or ever can be called to the ministry?

Q. Is the Roman Catholic Church the Church of Christ?
A. No: for she has no inspired priesthood or officers, without which the Church of Christ never did nor never can exist.

Q. How long since the Roman Catholic Church lost the authority and ceased to be the Church of Christ?
A. She never had authority, and never was the Church of Christ; and consequently she could not lose that which she never was in possession of.

Q. If the Roman Catholics are not the Church of Christ, where has the Church of Christ existed since inspired men ceased from the earth:
A. She has existed in heaven where the gates of hell never can prevail against her, because she is built upon the rock; and the inspired Apostles are in heaven with her whom the Saviour promised to be with always, even unto the end of the world.

Q. What has become of the Apostles’ successors?
A. The Apostles had no successors after those died off who were called by inspiration and new revelation.

Q. After the Church of Christ fled from earth to heaven, what was left?
A. A set of wicked Apostates, murderers, and idolaters, who, after having made war with the saints, and overcome them, and destroyed them out of the earth, were left to follow the wicked imaginations of their own corrupt hearts, and to build up churches by human authority, and to follow after the cunning craftiness of uninspired men; having no Apostle, Prophet, or Revelator to inquire of God for them: and thus, because of wickedness, the Church, and Priesthood, and gifts, and ordinances and blessings of the everlasting Gospel, were taken from the earth, and reserved in heaven until the fulness of times, when it was predicted that they should again be restored among men to continue until the end should come.

Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?
A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates, who subverted the whole order of God by denying immediate revelation, and substituting in the place thereof, tradition and ancient revelations as a sufficient rule of faith and practice.

Q. Did the great Protestant Reformers restore the Church of Christ to the earth?
A. No: for they had no inspired Apostles, Prophets, or Revelators among them, without which the Church could not be restored.

Q. But did not any of the Protestant Reformers have authority to Baptize and Confirm?
A. Not any of them: for they pretended that ancient revelation was a sufficient rule of faith; and, therefore, that no new revelation was needed: and without new revelation no man could be called and authorized to administer Gospel ordinances.

Q. But did not the first Protestant Reformers receive their ordination and authority from the Catholics?
A. Yes: and in this manner they received all the authority that their mother church was in possession of; and the mother having derived her authority from the Devil, could only impart that which his Satanic majesty was pleased to bestow upon her. If thorns could bear figs–if a bitter fountain could send forth sweet water–or a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit, then the whore of Babylon could confer divine authority upon her harlot daughters. But whatever authority the mother might have pretended to confer upon the daughters, she afterwards was very careful to take from them by excommunication. Therefore, unless the Reformers received fresh authority from heaven by new revelation, they had no authority at all.

Q. Are all the Baptisms administered by the Catholics and Protestants, and the different sects which have, from time to time, dissented from them, illegal, because the ministers were not authorized?
A. They are, every one of them, illegal, and null, and void, and without effect; and will not be considered baptism in the day of judgment any more than the acts of unauthorized men in human governments are considered legal.

Q. Was not the Protestant Reformation a great benefit to the world?
A. Yes: it served to weaken the power of the mother church, and produced a great division in Satan’s kingdom–the mother being opposed to her harlot daughters, and the daughters against their most abominable mother: and in this family war, the harlot daughters became also sorely displeased with each other. And in the midst of the contending elements, wise men became convinced that the civil government could not safely be entrusted with any of the contending parties: hence arose governments supporting religious freedom: whereas, if it had not been for the divisions in Satan’s kingdom, freedom of conscience would have been wholly unknown in the nineteenth century. The iron yoke of Romanism would have sorely galled the necks of all nations upon whom she had power to place it. It was to weaken this corrupt, soul-destroying power; and to stir up contention, division, and war in all her borders, preparatory to the establishment of religious liberty, that God moved upon the hearts of the great Protestant Reformers of the sixteenth century.

How can faithful Mormons today honestly claim that their church and God not not have issues with the Catholic church?!

“Roman” Catholics don’t have it…so do Eastern Catholics?

 

[flyonthewall]

First, the earliest accounts (found in various journals and the 1833 Book of Commandments) make no mention of angels or resurrected first century apostles. The earliest accounts state that the Holy Spirit led Joseph Smith to baptize and bless Oliver Cowdery, who then returned the favor. **This was the source of the apostolic and priesthood blessings – not angels or resurrected apostles. One of the three witnesses, David Whitmer, later said that it wasn’t until 1834 or 1835 that he first heard the story **include any mention of angelic visitation. Grant H. Palmer, a BYU graduate and three-time director of the LDS Institutes of Religion in California and Utah, confirms that the earliest accounts are devoid of any mention of angelic visitation. His theory? “It may be more than a coincidence that in February 1835 when the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles was organized, the detail regarding Peter, James, and John was added to the revelations. It was sometime between January and May 1835 that Peter, James, and John were first mentioned as the restorers of apostolic keys to Joseph and Oliver. This new link of succession undoubtedly bolstered President Smith’s and Assistant President Cowdery’s authority in the eyes of the new Quorum of the Twelve and the church.”[1]

Here is a review of Grant Palmer’s work:
No, Grant, that’s not history–and it was certainly not written with "…balanced scholarship and academic integrity."1
“The evidence indicates Palmer turned from his faith based on a Mark Hofmann forgery and E.T.A. Hoffman’s fairy tale, and then wrote this book to justify his new found beliefs. Palmer wrote his book with the goal of publishing it even as he maintained the fiction of being a believer in order to maintain his employment with the Church. He waited until he had retired to bring the book forward for publication. How can this be considered the work of a faithful “insider” in the Church?”

There’s another problem with this scenario, aside from the later addition of the official account. The LDS Church is adamant that the true church would have the structure of the original church, at least with regards to having twelve apostles (we’ll ignore the fact that the first century church has no first presidency, Quorum of the Seventy, or stake presidencies). The tenth Mormon Prophet, Joseph Fielding Smith, wrote: “Christ chose twelve men and conferred upon them the apostleship, and these twelve men constituted the only Council of Apostles in the Church in that day, and there is but one Council of Apostles in the Church today. These twelve men are endowed with the power and responsibility to serve as the special witnesses for Christ” (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 3, p. 146). However, through a mistaken interpretation of John 21:22 (and a complete ignorance of verse 23), Joseph Smith wrote Doctrine and Covenants section 7, which states that the Lord Jesus Christ told John the Beloved explicitly that he would “tarry” until Jesus returns again. If D&C 7 is true, then the Apostle John is still on the scene. If the LDS Church is true, and D&C 7 is true, then that puts the apostle count at thirteen! The situation gets worse though. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus promises three Nephite apostles that they too will tarry until Jesus returns (3 Nephi 28). This passage states that these Nephite apostles were “translated” but continue to “minister” among men. If we add these three into the pot of Apostles, we find the count has risen to sixteen! This is a far cry from the twelve apostles in whom the LDS Church takes such pride.

While I understand you did not come up with this on your own, anyone that knew anything about our structure would know that Quorum of the Twelve is always 12 and serve as special witnesses of Christ. The President and his councilors are not part of the Quorum of the 12 but work in conjunciton with them to lead and guide the church under the direction of Jesus Christ.

In the times of Jesus, Jesus was the Prophet, and Head of the church under the direction of the Father, and had His 12 Apostles that He assigned to administer in it. Now, we have the Prophet, who is the head of the church under the direction of Jesus Christ, and there is still the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.

So Joseph Smith didn’t get it right. Unless, Oliver Cowdery is really John the Baptist. Oh, heck, don’t pay attention to the details, it takes all the fun out of it!

I understand why come to the conclusions you do, but if the whole truth were actually considered, a different conclusion may be arrived at.

 

[flyonthewall]

Maybe you don’t have the need to condemn other faiths, but this Mormons prophet/seer/revelator didn’t see it that way:

LDS Church Publication “The Seer,” January, 1854. No. 1., Page 204-206

DOCTRINE QUESTIONS

How can faithful Mormons today honestly claim that their church and God not not have issues with the Catholic church?!

fairlds.org/Misc/Is_The%20Seer_a_Reliable_Source.html
‘The Seer:’ Reliable Source?

Many anti-Mormons make extensive use of this publication in framing their accusations against the Church. Many members of the Church have not even heard of this publication, much less are familiar with its origins. The Seer was published in Washington, DC, by Orson Pratt, and he used the publication to provide a printed pulpit for his own ideas and pet speculations. It was never considered official LDS doctrine, nor was it ever published by or endorsed by the Church. Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work–the Seer–together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: "But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."1

 

[Rascalking]

A non-Catholic is a Catholic?

Why mix the two names together? A non-Catholic = not Catholic
A Catholic Mormon = Mormon

Lighten up.

 

[lax16]

Lighten up.

No thanks.

 

[Rascalking]

No thanks.

Than watch your blood pressure.

 

[benidict]

Thanks for at least admitting that it’s complicated. I have many mormon friends and I have experienced nothing but the best from them.

I’m not LDS, by the way. I’m Catholic, and my religious description in my profile is simply meant to be taken as jest.

i for one will take it as such. it is entertaining. we could have some fun with it. a noncatholic catholic mormon who is a mormon catholic catholic, who equals a non mormon morman catholic…no wonder i failed algebra! i got a soft spot for Mormons as well. God bless you and yours. Peace

 

[Rascalking]

i for one will take it as such. it is entertaining. we could have some fun with it. a noncatholic catholic mormon who is a mormon catholic catholic, who equals a non mormon morman catholic…no wonder i failed algebra! i got a soft spot for Mormons as well. God bless you and yours. Peace

Thank you my friend!

( I didn’t do well in Algebra either! )

 

[lax16]

Than watch your blood pressure.

Your concern for me is quite odd. It is also very sarcastic and most uncharitable.

My blood pressure is on the low side actually. But when it comes to defending the Catholic faith against those who want to tear it down, I can be quite tenacious.

As a Catholic, you should understand that, no?

 

[Rascalking]

Your concern for me is quite odd. It is also very sarcastic and most uncharitable.

My blood pressure is on the low side actually. But when it comes to defending the Catholic faith against those who want to tear it down, I can be quite tenacious.

As a Catholic, you should understand that, no?

Having fun, joking around and trying to lighten things up isn’t sarcastic or uncharitable.

It wasn’t mean spirited in the least. Again, take a deep breath and relax.

 

[Janet1983]

Thanks for at least admitting that it’s complicated. I have many mormon friends and I have experienced nothing but the best from them.

I’m not LDS, by the way. I’m Catholic, and my religious description in my profile is simply meant to be taken as jest.

I had been wondering about that. Thank you for clearing that up…

 

[Rascalking]

I had been wondering about that. Thank you for clearing that up…

You could have just asked. I’m not that mean or scary.

 

[Janet1983]

You could have just asked. I’m not that mean or scary.

Well you know… I just looked, wondered… and got distracted.

ADOS… Attention Deficit… Oh Shiny!

 

[lax16]

“Roman” Catholics don’t have it…so do Eastern Catholics?

I am not sure why you are asking this? Mormons believe that all churches, except theirs, is an abomination and apostate.
Some of the Eastern churches are still in communion with Rome…again, I don’t understand the question.

 

[Janet1983]

“Roman” Catholics don’t have it…so do Eastern Catholics?

Smith condemned all other churches, denominations, religions to be fatally wrong. He declared all sacraments and all ordinances to be null and void. Do you really think he made an exception there?

Mormons believe that all churches, except theirs, is an abomination and apostate.
Some of the Eastern churches are still in communion with Rome…

Exactly.

 

[lax16]

Here is a review of Grant Palmer’s work:
No, Grant, that’s not history–and it was certainly not written with "…balanced scholarship and academic integrity."1
“The evidence indicates Palmer turned from his faith based on a Mark Hofmann forgery and E.T.A. Hoffman’s fairy tale, and then wrote this book to justify his new found beliefs. Palmer wrote his book with the goal of publishing it even as he maintained the fiction of being a believer in order to maintain his employment with the Church. He waited until he had retired to bring the book forward for publication. How can this be considered the work of a faithful “insider” in the Church?”

But there are nine versions of Joseph Smith’s vision and these are available to read at pro-mormon websites. There is still the question about conflicting information and dates.

While I understand you did not come up with this on your own, anyone that knew anything about our structure would know that Quorum of the Twelve is always 12 and serve as special witnesses of Christ. The President and his councilors are not part of the Quorum of the 12 but work in conjunciton with them to lead and guide the church under the direction of Jesus Christ.

In the times of Jesus, Jesus was the Prophet, and Head of the church under the direction of the Father, and had His 12 Apostles that He assigned to administer in it. Now, we have the Prophet, who is the head of the church under the direction of Jesus Christ, and there is still the Quorum of the 12 Apostles.

I understand why come to the conclusions you do, but if the whole truth were actually considered, a different conclusion may be arrived at.

Jesus promised to be with us until the end and that the Holy Spirit would guide His Church. If the Holy Spirit ceased to guide the Church and it fell into complete apostasy then when did the Holy Spirit return to guide the Mormons?
Why would the Holy Spirit be trusted this time to get it right?
You say that Jesus Christ assigned his 12 Apostles to administer it under the direction of the Father - then what happened to it? God was wrong - Jesus couldn’t “keep his church together” (in the words of Joseph Smith)?
Why couldn’t Jesus keep His Church together with the 12 He chose and with the gifts given them by the Holy Spirit?

 

[lax16]

fairlds.org/Misc/Is_The%20Seer_a_Reliable_Source.html
‘The Seer:’ Reliable Source?

Many anti-Mormons make extensive use of this publication in framing their accusations against the Church. Many members of the Church have not even heard of this publication, much less are familiar with its origins. The Seer was published in Washington, DC, by Orson Pratt, and he used the publication to provide a printed pulpit for his own ideas and pet speculations. It was never considered official LDS doctrine, nor was it ever published by or endorsed by the Church. Elder B.H. Roberts wrote the following in response to those in his day who were heralding the writings of The Seer as representative of official LDS doctrine:

The Seer, by formal action of the First Presidency and Twelve Apostles of the Church was repudiated, and Elder Orson Pratt himself sanctioned the repudiation. There was a long article published in the Deseret News on the 23rd of August, 1865, over the signatures of the First Presidency and Twelve setting forth that this work–the Seer–together with some other writings of Elder Pratt, were inaccurate. In the course of that document, after praising, as well they might, the great bulk of the work of this noted apostle, they say: "But the Seer, the Great First Cause, the article in the Millennial Star, of Oct. 15, and Nov. 1, 1850 contains doctrine which we cannot sanction and which we have felt to disown, so that the Saints who now live, and who may live hereafter, may not be misled by our silence, or be left to misinterpret it. Where these objectionable works or harts of works are bound in volumes, or otherwise, they should be cut out and destroyed."1

I have read this rebuttal before and I understand the point. However, he was appointed by a prophet/seer/revelator - one would think the prophet would not have made an error in selecting Orson Pratt to publish the church’s work.

Really, anyone can decide after the fact that the prophet’s choice was a mistake. Prophets shouldn’t make mistakes such as these if they are truly led by God.