What makes Mormonism a cult?

[why_me]

For what it’s worth I believe Opus Dei to be a cult, that said what you are preaching is false ecumenism. Disagreeing with doctrine and quoting previous LDS prophets and church leaders is not a use of anti-mormonism. Debating the validity of a religion is what the board is here for.

Actually it is the tone and the loaded words that a poster may use that would make it antimormon in nature. Dialogue is not enhanced when one calls another’s prophet or pope a fraud. Nor by any other word that may be taken as an insult. It would be nice to be respectful of others beliefs and not hold them up for ridicule and mocking.

This was my point about the antimormon intent. It is in the words and in the use of those words.

 

[Donald45]

Catholicism claims to be Christian

And so it is, in the fullest sense of the term. As already mentioned, Jesus Christ himself founded the Catholic Church upon the “rock” of St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-19).

Catholicism denies the correct (biblical) doctrine of the Trinity—the three divine personages. Mormonism holds to the correct (biblical) doctrine of the Trinity.

In fact, Mormonism does not hold to a “Trinity” at all, but rather affirms a tritheism (“three gods”). Even a brief study of the writings of the early Church Fathers (the earliest leaders and scholars of the Christian Church) demonstrates that the historic Church has always held to a Trinitarian view of God, and has never affirmed a tritheistic view. The Mormon view simply flies in the face of Church history.

Catholicism accepts the Apocrypha as a source of revelation, not accepted by most Christian churches.

Of course it does, and so did Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Christian Church. More specifically, Catholics accept as Scripture seven of the books that Protestants call the Apocrypha (Catholics refer to these particular writings as the Deuterocanonical books). These seven books were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used and quoted by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament. Thus, the “Bible” affirmed as Scripture by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church contained these seven books right along with the rest of the inspired texts. And so, therefore, Catholics accept them as Scripture as well.

Catholicism can be traced to a single dynamic individual—Jesus Christ!

I certainly can’t argue with you there. Of course, this would make Catholicism the historic Christian Church against which all other claimants to the title must be compared.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[zerinus]

And so it is, in the fullest sense of the term. As already mentioned, Jesus Christ himself founded the Catholic Church upon the “rock” of St. Peter (Mt. 16:18-19).

In fact, Mormonism does not hold to a “Trinity” at all, but rather affirms a tritheism (“three gods”). Even a brief study of the writings of the early Church Fathers (the earliest leaders and scholars of the Christian Church) demonstrates that the historic Church has always held to a Trinitarian view of God, and has never affirmed a tritheistic view. The Mormon view simply flies in the face of Church history.

Of course it does, and so did Jesus, the Apostles, and the early Christian Church. More specifically, Catholics accept as Scripture seven of the books that Protestants call the Apocrypha (Catholics refer to these particular writings as the Deuterocanonical books). These seven books were included in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament used and quoted by Jesus and the Apostles in the New Testament. Thus, the “Bible” affirmed as Scripture by Christ, the Apostles, and the early Church contained these seven books right along with the rest of the inspired texts. And so, therefore, Catholics accept them as Scripture as well.

I certainly can’t argue with you there. Of course, this would make Catholicism the historic Christian Church against which all other claimants to the title must be compared.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

It is your opinion against mine. I think that mine is better. We could go on arguing abut this forever. I don’t intend to go down that road.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

It is your opinion against mine. I think that mine is better. We could go on arguing abut this forever. I don’t intend to go down that road.

zerinus

Ah zerinus, 'tis so, 'taint so again?

 

[averheyen]

It is your opinion against mine. I think that mine is better. We could go on arguing abut this forever. I don’t intend to go down that road.

zerinus

At the end of the day, I REALLY don’t think personal opinions make a hill of beans of a difference when it comes to things like this.

Your personal opinions aside, we’re looking for “pathos” here.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Catholicism claims to be Christian.

Catholicism denies the correct (biblical) doctrine of the Trinity—the three divine personages. Mormonism holds to the correct (biblical) doctrine of the Trinity.

Catholicism accepts the Apocrypha as a source of revelation, not accepted by most Christian churches.

Catholicism can be traced to a single dynamic individual—Jesus Christ!

zerinus

And here is your proof, why me, as to WHY Catholics must speak out against mormonism.

 

[Donald45]

It is your opinion against mine. I think that mine is better. We could go on arguing abut this forever. I don’t intend to go down that road.

zerinus

I don’t blame you, friend. However, it should be mentioned that----your attempt to sweep these issues under the rug with an indirect sort of relativism aside----truth matters. Ultimately, there are only three possibilities here: (1) Catholicism is true, (2) Mormonism is true, or (3) Both Catholicism and Mormonism are false.

The comments and claims posted on your website demonstrate a profound lack of understandng regarding basic Catholic doctrine and practice, so your statement that “my opinion is better” is essentially meaningless. I recommend a thorough and careful study of what the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes, using primary Catholic sources and materials, starting with The Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can also obtain some good information on this very website.

God bless,

Don
+T+

 

[zerinus]

The comments and claims posted on your website demonstrate a profound lack of understandng regarding basic Catholic doctrine and practice, so your statement that “my opinion is better” is essentially meaningless. I recommend a thorough and careful study of what the Catholic Church actually teaches and believes, using primary Catholic sources and materials, starting with The Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can also obtain some good information on this very website.

I am not sure what you are referring to here. If you are referring to my blog, then you must have misunderstood it. There is not much in that blog that attempts to explain Catholic doctrine. That blog is dedicated to explaining LDS doctrine, not Cathlicism. If Catholic doctrine is also discussed, that was out of necisity, and is incidental to the purpose of the blog.

zerinus

 

[Donald45]

I am not sure what you are referring to here. If you are referring to my blog, then you must have misunderstood it. There is not much in that blog that attempts to explain Catholic doctrine. That blog is dedicated to explaining LDS doctrine, not Cathlicism. If Catholic doctrine is also discussed, that was out of necisity, and is incidental to the purpose of the blog.

zerinus

On the opening page of your blogsite, there are three posts that deal specifically with Catholic doctrine, each of which reflects a significant misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and practice. So, despite the stated purpose of your blog, it nevertheless misrepresents and distorts Catholic beliefs to a high degree. This is known to philosophers as “straw man argumentation,” and is considered an erroneous approach to rational discourse.

I’d be happy to discuss any of these posts with you in greater detail.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[zerinus]

On the opening page of your blogsite, there are three posts that deal specifically with Catholic doctrine, each of which reflects a significant misunderstanding of Catholic teaching and practice. So, despite the stated purpose of your blog, it nevertheless misrepresents and distorts Catholic beliefs to a high degree. This is known to philosophers as “straw man argumentation,” and is considered an erroneous approach to rational discourse.

I’d be happy to discuss any of these posts with you in greater detail.

Feel free to do so. If I have made any genuine mistakes, I would be glad to correct them.

zerinus

 

[pigtown]

Isn’t it about time to let people worship how and where they please? If you don’t agree with the Mormon religion, that’s your choice but no one should bash another religion. Whether one is Catholic, Mormon, Baptist or any other religion, that’s their choice. Let them work it out between themselves and God.

 

[Donald45]

Feel free to do so. If I have made any genuine mistakes, I would be glad to correct them.

zerinus

My question at this point would be: Should whether or not your mistakes are “genuine” be determined by what Catholicism itself actually states as its official beliefs, or by your particular opinion regarding Catholic belief?

Once this is answered, perhaps we can proceed.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

Isn’t it about time to let people worship how and where they please? If you don’t agree with the Mormon religion, that’s your choice but no one should bash another religion. Whether one is Catholic, Mormon, Baptist or any other religion, that’s their choice. Let them work it out between themselves and God.

A couple of observations. Since when does acknowledging that the truth-claims of various belief systems are mutually exclusive (that is, cannot all be true) qualify as “bashing another religion”? Can we not, as the Scriptures say, “speak the truth in love” (Eph. 4:15) without “bashing” others? I think we can, and must.

Also, you’ve listed “Catholic,” “Mormon,” and “Baptist” together, as though all of these were equally “Christian.” But this is the very point at issue in this thread. No one is suggesting that Mormons are not very nice, family-oriented people. However, this does not necessarily make Mormonism a “Christian” group, any more than Hindus, Muslims, or Buddhists----though quite moral individuals----may properly be considered “Christians.” Whether or not a particular group is genuinely “Christian” must be determined on a strictly doctrinal basis, and on no other. Doctrinally speaking, Mormonism is clearly and manifestly a non-Christian belief system. Now, as you write, Mormons are certainly free to believe what they like. However, when they apply to this belief system the label of “Christian,” then the highly dubious nature of such a claim can, and must, be made clear.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[zerinus]

My question at this point would be: Should whether or not your mistakes are “genuine” be determined by what Catholicism itself actually states as its official beliefs, or by your particular opinion regarding Catholic belief?

Once this is answered, perhaps we can proceed.

Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. I am willing to let every religion define its own theology. However, what if Catholic teaching is self contradictory? What if it is unbiblical? What if it has changed over the years? What if it is different from what the early church believed and practised? So, let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.

zerinus

 

[lukewarm]

Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. I am willing to let every religion define its own theology. However, what if Catholic teaching is self contradictory? What if it is unbiblical? What if it has changed over the years? What if it is different from what the early church believed and practised? So, let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.

zerinus

It doesn’t seem to bother you as a mormon…

 

[Donald45]

Let’s cross that bridge when we come to it. I am willing to let every religion define its own theology. However, what if Catholic teaching is self contradictory? What if it is unbiblical? What if it has changed over the years? What if it is different from what the early church believed and practised? So, let’s cross that bridge when we come to it.

zerinus

Fair enough. Of course, these criteria must also be applied to Mormonism as well. This is taking the thread a bit off-topic, but maybe it would be fruitful to pursue it briefly. There are several claims from your blog that I could mention (“Catholics worship Mary,” etc.), but I’ll comment on this one:

Matthew 16:18 “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” They say that that means that God would not allow the church to apostatize!
But that scripture is misunderstood. If it is analyzed a bit more carefully, it will be seen that it doesn’t mean what they assume it means. The first thing to note is that God did not build His Church on Peter. God does not build His church on a mortal man. If the Church had been built on Peter, then when Peter died the church must have died with him, because there has been no Peter on earth for the past nearly 2,000 years for him to be the rock on which the church is built. If the church was built on Peter, then where there is no Peter, there could be no church. So the first thing to understand is what the Lord meant when He told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church”.
The Lord made that comment to Peter after He had asked His disciples the question, “Who do you think I am” (Matthew 16:15); to which Peter had replied, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16). In other words, he bore his testimony that he knew that Jesus was the Son of God. This is confirmed by the fact that Jesus afterwards told him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). In other words, he had gained a testimony of the Holy Ghost that Jesus was the Son of God. When the Lord told Peter, “Upon this rock I will build my church,” the “rock” He was referring to was the rock of testimony, meaning the testimony of the Holy Ghost, which is a personal revelation that Jesus is the Christ. The Lord was saying to Peter that He would build His church on the solid rock of personal revelation—the testimony of the Holy Ghost…

Since Catholicism is the only religious tradition that claims St. Peter as its original earthly head (though Christ is certainly the Church’s spiritual, heavenly Head), your comments seem to call for a Catholic response. The idea that the “rock” of Mt. 16:18 is not Peter himself, but is merely Peter’s testimony of Christ, is simply contrary to the stated beliefs of the early Christian Church, as a reading of the Church Fathers clearly demonstrates:

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
catholicconvert.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=%7e%2fPortals%2f0%2fDocuments%2fRockPeterOrConfession.doc&tabid=83&mid=371

Your claim is also contrary to Scripture, since the grammatical structure of the passage itself plainly indicates that the “rock” of whom Jesus is speaking is Peter himself.

In addition, your argument that “if Peter is the rock, then when Peter died, the church would die” is completely erroneous, since it ignores the Catholic doctrine of Papal Succession, also taught and believed by the early Church:

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/biblical-evidence-for-papal-and-church.html
cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=202
catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0000.htm

These are just a few points of dispute that could be raised concerning the claims on your blog but, in the interest of brevity, I’ll stop here.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[zerinus]

Since Catholicism is the only religious tradition that claims St. Peter as its original earthly head (though Christ is certainly the Church’s spiritual, heavenly Head), your comments seem to call for a Catholic response. The idea that the “rock” of Mt. 16:18 is not Peter himself, but is merely Peter’s testimony of Christ, is simply contrary to the stated beliefs of the early Christian Church, as a reading of the Church Fathers clearly demonstrates:

catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
catholicconvert.com/LinkClick.aspx?link=%7e%2fPortals%2f0%2fDocuments%2fRockPeterOrConfession.doc&tabid=83&mid=371

That may be so, but bear in mind that I don’t have to agree with them. You should also bear in mind that these are quite a lot of links, and material to read; and I cannot really debate with a whole bunch of links. If you believe that those links contain material that make a good case against my thesis, you should summarise it, or extract the best that you can find from it, and then bring it here so we can discuss it. Otherwise the answer to a link is another link! I am sure if I searched the Internet, I could also find a whole bunch of links that disagree with your links. So our debate will consist of trading links! I don’t think that that would be a very instructive debate, either for us, or for those who are reading these posts, and hoping to learn something from them.

Your claim is also contrary to Scripture, since the grammatical structure of the passage itself plainly indicates that the “rock” of whom Jesus is speaking is Peter himself.

I discussed this very subject with another poster about a year ago. You can read my reply to him here.

In addition, your argument that “if Peter is the rock, then when Peter died, the church would die” is completely erroneous, since it ignores the Catholic doctrine of Papal Succession, also taught and believed by the early Church:

catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/05/biblical-evidence-for-papal-and-church.html
cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=202
catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0000.htm

This question was also brought up by another poster a couple of months ago. You can read my reply to it here. Again, I must here add that these are an awful lot of links. I cannot debate with your links. I can only debate with you. The answer to a link is another link. So if you are expecting us to have a meaningful discussion, you have to bring arguments, not links.

zerinus

 

[Donald45]

That may be so, but bear in mind that I don’t have to agree with them.

That’s certainly true. Indeed, you don’t have to agree with anything in particular. However, we’ve both acknowledged that present beliefs should be consistent with what the early Church believed and, if they aren’t, then those present beliefs may well be nothing more than novel theological inventions. Therefore, before one dismisses or rejects a particular teaching of the early Church Fathers, he’d better have an awfully good reason for doing so. I must ask, then: What is your reason for denying the consistent teaching of the early Christian Church regarding the “rock” of Mt. 16:18?

You should also bear in mind that these are quite a lot of links, and material to read; and I cannot really debate with a whole bunch of links.

Actually, that was only three brief summary articles. I posted them for your benefit, as well as for that of any readers who might be interested in further information.

I discussed this very subject with another poster about a year ago. You can read my reply to him here

.

This question was also brought up by another poster a couple of months ago. You can read my reply to it here.
Hmmm… Since this has already been discussed here, maybe we should choose a different topic. It seems superfluous to rehash something that’s already been gone over on other threads.

Perhaps we should focus on something more appropriate to this particular thread, a doctrine which, in the perspective of Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) sets Mormonism apart as a non-Christian group. One such central idea would certainly be the doctrine of the Trinity, as opposed to the Mormon view of God as an exalted man, of Jesus Christ as a mere creature, and the proposition that there are an infinite number of gods.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[zerinus]

That’s certainly true. Indeed, you don’t have to agree with anything in particular. However, we’ve both acknowledged that present beliefs should be consistent with what the early Church believed and, if they aren’t, then those present beliefs may well be nothing more than novel theological inventions. Therefore, before one dismisses or rejects a particular teaching of the early Church Fathers, he’d better have an awfully good reason for doing so. I must ask, then: What is your reason for denying the consistent teaching of the early Christian Church regarding the “rock” of Mt. 16:18?

Thanks. Firstly, I am not entirely sure that that was the “consistent teaching of the early Christian church”. I am not that knowledgeable about the writings of the Early Church Fathers to be able to know if there were any who had different views—and I don’t intend to get a PhD in their writings to determine that! However, assuming that you are right, and that that was the “consistent teaching” of them, you ask: “[you] he’d better have an awfully good reason for doing so”. I agree. I think I do! My reasons are based on the witness I have of the Restoration of the gospel in the latter days. As I explained in one of my blog articles, I don’t believe in Mormonism because of the Apostasy; I believe in the Apostasy because I believe in Mormonism. I believe in Mormonism because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true. Having determined independently that the LDS Church is true, I am led to the inevitable conclusion that an apostasy must have taken place in the early church to make the restoration necessary. Therefore the argument that the God promised to build His church on Peter, . . . and therefore it could not have apostatized” cannot be true. There must be a catch. The fact that the majority of the Early Church Fathers accepted that does not necessarily make it true.

Perhaps we should focus on something more appropriate to this particular thread, a doctrine which, in the perspective of Christians (both Catholic and Protestant) sets Mormonism apart as a non-Christian group. One such central idea would certainly be the doctrine of the Trinity, as opposed to the Mormon view of God as an exalted man, of Jesus Christ as a mere creature, and the proposition that there are an infinite number of gods.

I question your last assertion, that Mormonism teaches that there are “an infinite number of gods”. Such a doctrine is not found in LDS scripture. But on the subject of the Trinity, the plurality of gods, and the deification of man; this is another one of those questions that are frequently asked of LDS. I have had to respond to this, or other related questions on this board, as well as on other boards hundreds of times. I have condensed the result my long experience of discussing this subject with Protestants and Catholics in these two post:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/deification-of-man-and-plurality-of.html
zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-deification-in-early.html

If you disagree with what I have said in them, bring it up and we will talk about it.

zerinus

 

[hosemonkey]

Thanks. Firstly, I am not entirely sure that that was the “consistent teaching of the early Christian church”. I am not that knowledgeable about the writings of the Early Church Fathers to be able to know if there were any who had different views—and I don’t intend to get a PhD in their writings to determine that! However, assuming that you are right, and that that was the “consistent teaching” of them, you ask: “[you] he’d better have an awfully good reason for doing so”. I agree. I think I do! My reasons are based on the witness I have of the Restoration of the gospel in the latter days. As I explained in one of my blog articles, I don’t believe in Mormonism because of the Apostasy; I believe in the Apostasy because I believe in Mormonism. I believe in Mormonism because the Spirit of the Lord witnesses to me that it is true. Having determined independently that the LDS Church is true, I am led to the inevitable conclusion that an apostasy must have taken place in the early church to make the restoration necessary. Therefore the argument that the God promised to build His church on Peter, . . . and therefore it could not have apostatized” cannot be true. There must be a catch. The fact that the majority of the Early Church Fathers accepted that does not necessarily make it true.

I question your last assertion, that Mormonism teaches that there are “an infinite number of gods”. Such a doctrine is not found in LDS scripture. But on the subject of the Trinity, the plurality of gods, and the deification of man; this is another one of those questions that are frequently asked of LDS. I have had to respond to this, or other related questions on this board, as well as on other boards hundreds of times. I have condensed the result my long experience of discussing this subject with Protestants and Catholics in these two post:

zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/deification-of-man-and-plurality-of.html
zerinus.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-on-deification-in-early.html

If you disagree with what I have said in them, bring it up and we will talk about it.

zerinus

Zerinus,
You believe in mormonism because you are extremely gullible. You believe in mormonism because you have built your life on a lie and cannot gracefully admit your error, even though you are constantly hit between the eyes with trurh and logic. You are the poorest of men, one who is blind and even though offered the gift of sight, chooses to remain in darkness. Too bad.