Which Religion is better, Mormonism or JW?

[Stitch]

None of them are. I wasted 15 years of my life in the JW religion, because I fell away from the CC in my late teens, and I was easy picking for them. The only good thing about the JW is that I met my wife in that organisation, who was baptised a catholic, and now returning to her real faith. The Mormons? Forget it!

 

[Zooey]

Since neither is Christian, they’re both too bad to compare…

 

[murtad]

I think it depends on the poison.

Which is worse:

To believe that Jesus is God, though a separate being from the Father, or to believe that Jesus is both separate from the Father and not God? The latter seems worse.

Salam

I agree with you that the latter seems worse especially if it was Islam. The Hadith books humilate Christian beliefs by saying Jesus is a mere prophet and that on his second coming as Imam Mahdi, Jesus will “break the cross”. This is why those Christians who lived for 1,000 years under Islamic [Turkish] rule, particularly the Greeks and the Armenians hate Islam so much and have “xenophobia” towards Muslims. I don’t blame Greeks or Armenians for such “racism” towards Muslims as I myself being an ex-Muslim know how those living under Sharia feel.

 

[murtad]

What I read into the OP is the larger question as to competition between the sects and cults. The Mormons and JWs have very little in common theologically, but they are best known as the door-knocking sects, so one can presume that they are locked in door-to-door competition with one another, same as the pesticide company rep who came to my door yesterday is locked in competition with the company I’ve been using for years.

Yes, Mormons and JWs have very little in common theologically but that’s true even for Lutherans and Greek Orthodox all which are known to be in competition among themselves for new recruits That’s what I call free market economics!

I think it is handy from an apologetic point of view to raise this point among the Protestants and sects. To point to the competition between them makes a powerful argument in and of itself without having to introduce complicated mental gymnastics.

In predominantly Atheist Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church faces competition for the souls of ethnic Russians from not only Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons but also Protestants and Muslims. In post-communist society, Atheist souls are in great demand and every religion is trying to get as many adherents as possible. Why? To increase their size!

As far as anyone making a qualitative analysis, someone posted a quote from a Vatican document (yesterday, I think) perhaps in another thread, I can’t remember, that went into quite a lot of detail about Mormon beliefs, and showing why that religion can’t even be considered heretical because it is so far outside of orthodoxy.

I’d like to read that Vatican document. Can you provide me the links? You obviously have a different definition of “heretical” from that of Saint John of Damascus, a Melchite Catholic. This saint called Islam, a religion that’s “so far outside of orthodoxy” a heresy. Since Jehovah’s Witnesses are based on Bible and claim there was time the Son of God did not exist, I’d call them Arianism!

I gather from this that it is at least possible to make such judegements about one sect over another, and to say that this one is closer (better?) to orthodoxy than another. It seems apparent that we do that with the Protestants in general, considering most of them to be Christians, but separated brethren, and depending on the specific theological bent of any particular sect, closer or farther away from unity with Mother Church.

With regards to your use of the Catholic term “seperated brethren”, conservatives and liberals differ in their understanding. Our Bishop told me that it could only refer to schismatics but not heretics. But I consulted another Bishop and he said it could include heretics. You see, the CCC like the Bible can be interpreted by different people differently.

The 2nd Vatican Ecumenical Council uses ambiguous language mainly for the purpose of diplomacy. This holy council does not in any way contradict the ancient Ecumenical Councils that make up 2,000 years of Christian Tradition. When HH Pope Benedict XVI speaks of “dialogue with Muslims” he means evangelism of Muslims. Of course, he uses ambiguous language for the obvious reasons.

 

[Allweather]

Yes, I AM saying all heretics in the Catholic view, are equal.
I am saying that a rejection of one aspect of Christ is to reject him in entirety.

Again, there is a difference between heresy and apostasy. Rejection of Christ and His Church is apostasy, not heresy. At least, that is my layman’s understanding of those names.

The Church has spoken about Protestants.
Do not bring Protestants into this mix, the topic is JW and Mormons.

I wish we could all stay on topic here.

I mention the Protestants in order to illustrate the difference between apostasy and heresy. Again, Protestants involve one or more of the various heresies, but they aren’t apostate. They’re Christians, most of them. The Catechism is clear on this point. But you’re using the term “reject Christ” with reference to heretics. That isn’t necessarily the case with heretics. I’ve known an awful lot of Protestant and Mormon heretics, but I can’t remember a single one who had “rejected Christ.” So maybe you need to define that term, exactly what it means, to “reject Christ” in this sense that you’re speaking about. To me, to “reject Christ” means a total repudiation of the Christian religion that Christ established. Maybe you mean something less than that.

With respect to Mormonism in particular, since I don’t know very much about the JWs and have no interest in them, they’re not even heretics. A heretic is by definition a member of the religion, in this case Christianity. Since True Blue Mormons aren’t Christians, they’re not heretics. I realize that individuals within the religion may be Christians, and I’ve known many like that, including my fiance. But many others are not, and the religion itself does not teach Christianity, but another religion altogether. Again, someone posted part or whole of a Vatican document from, I believe, 2002, in another thread, two or three days ago, that specifies the Church’s teaching regarding Mormonism. The document came from Cardinal Ratzinger. If you didn’t see it, or can’t find it, I’ll look for it later for you, since I don’t have time right now. It is specific as to the beliefs of Mormonism that put it outside the Christian faith, as I recall. It doesn’t just say, Mormons aren’t Christian and are equal to the other non-Christian religions. It specifies the nuts and bolts of Mormonism that make it non-Christian. Therefore, there must be among the theologians a method for judging between these non-Christian sects and cults.

 

[Allweather]

I dont understand your contention here. Where did I say or imply it would not be proper to point out the heresies that have been around even PRIOR to the so called “Reformation” (they reformed nothing- they rebelled)
I am wondering what to say about this comment? Please clarify?

OK, here is what you wrote, and to which I responded:

““Can you elaborate on this theory? How this will help apologetics by demonizing one heresy over another? This sounds more JW than Catholic my friend. That is how they publish their propaganda. I vote NO. SHOW what you Believe and why. As Peter told us: be prepared to show the faith you have…
this is not done by demonizing others. This is by telling them about the HOPE you have. No need to bring heresy into the mix.””

First, you seem to be accusing me, or someone else (I’m not sure exactly what you’re claiming, to tell the truth!) of “demonizing” other religions, in this case Mormonism vs JWs, by pointing out that they are deviant, and that their deviations from orthodoxy are different from one another. I assume we agree that Mormonism and JWs are just about as different from each other as apples and organges.

I responded by saying that it isn’t demonizing to draw attention to deviant teachings that lead to disunity, and may in fact lead to Hell. Maybe I’m not understanding your definition of the word “demonize.”

Yesterday, you had a bit of a meltdown over this idea of one cultic religion being worse than another. You seem to disagree that they’re qualitatively different. Fine. You also seem to be in a bit of a minority of one, or maybe two, on that point. Even the ex-Mormons agree that they’re different, and there was an excellent description by one of them as to how Mormonism is qualitatively better than JW religion. So, I don’t know where you’re coming from by arguing this line, except that maybe you feel that all religions are equal, all heresies are equal, all schisms are equal, and we should all just stand around together and sing Kumbaya, which is fine with me, but it is beside the point, I think.

 

[Allweather]

I’d like to read that Vatican document. Can you provide me the links? You obviously have a different definition of “heretical” from that of Saint John of Damascus, a Melchite Catholic. This saint called Islam, a religion that’s “so far outside of orthodoxy” a heresy. Since Jehovah’s Witnesses are based on Bible and claim there was time the Son of God did not exist, I’d call them Arianism!

I can’t argue about definitions of “heretical” since I don’t have any of my own opinions about such weighty matters. I also don’t have time right now to search for the Vatican doc that I mentioned, and which you’d like to see, but I can locate it for you later, after I get off work. Someone clipped it into a thread, yesterday or the day before, maybe this thread, but I think another. Maybe an easier way to find it would be to go to the Vatican website and conduct a search using Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or perhaps just Mormon, as keywords. That should turn up something fairly quickly. The essential thrust of the document was a question posed as to the validity of Mormon baptism, to which Cardinal Ratzinger replied, negative. And there was also some descriptive matter, either in that same document, or from some other Vatican doc, that laid out some nuts and bolts of Mormon teachings that put it outside of Christian belief.

With regards to your use of the Catholic term “seperated brethren”, conservatives and liberals differ in their understanding. Our Bishop told me that it could only refer to schismatics but not heretics. But I consulted another Bishop and he said it could include heretics. You see, the CCC like the Bible can be interpreted by different people differently.

I’m not sure where you’re going with this, except maybe to suggest that the CCC isn’t reliable because one Bishop says one thing and another has a different inflection. Besides, we aren’t offered exact quotes from you regarding your questions posed to the bishops, nor their responses. Therefore, your statement as to interpretations of the CCC is unreliable at best.

The 2nd Vatican Ecumenical Council uses ambiguous language mainly for the purpose of diplomacy. This holy council does not in any way contradict the ancient Ecumenical Councils that make up 2,000 years of Christian Tradition. When HH Pope Benedict XVI speaks of “dialogue with Muslims” he means evangelism of Muslims. Of course, he uses ambiguous language for the obvious reasons.

You seem to have inside information on the motives of the Holy Father. I wish I had such reliable information as you do. My best guess is, yes, the Holy Father, like all Catholics, wishes and prays for the conversion of Muslims, as well as every other human being on the planet. But I’m pretty sure he’ll be satisfied if we can just figure out ways to keep from killing each other. In other words, is it possible, do you think, that the Holy Father has more than one meaning?

 

[dosdog]

None of the above - If you value your Soul

JW
1984 The Jehovah’s Witnesses made sure, in 1984, that no one else would be able to top their record of most wrong doomsday predictions. The Witnesses’ record currently holds at nine. The years are: 1874, 1878, 1881, 1910, 1914, 1918, 1925, 1975, and 1984.1994 After promising they would not make anymore end time predictions, the Jehovah’s Witnesses fell off the wagon and proclaimed 1994 as the conclusion of an 80-year generation; the year 1914 was the starting point.
raptureready.net/rr-date-setters.html

Mormon
Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet…" (Joseph Smith from the Mormon book, History of the Church Vol. 6, pp. 408-409)

nowscape.com/mormon/mormons4.htm
Plan of Salvation
understandingmormonism.org/subpages/plan_of_salvation.html
Post-Mortal Spirit World

“The postmortal spirit world is an actual place where spirits reside and ‘where they converse together the same as we do on the earth’ (TPJS, p. 353). 'Life and work and activity all continue in the spirit world. Men have the same talents and intelligence there, which they had in this life. They possess the same attitudes, inclinations, and feelings there which they had in this life” (Read more).

The Apostle John is still alive?
Doctrine and Covenants 7:1-3 states,
“AND the Lord said unto me: John, my beloved, what desirest thou? For if you shall ask what you will, it shall be granted unto you. And I said unto him: Lord, give unto me power over death, that I may live and bring souls unto thee. And the Lord said unto me: Verily, verily, I say unto thee, because thou desirest this thou shalt tarry until I come in my glory, and shalt prophesy before nations, kindreds, tongues and people”
Jesus never made such a promise. Clearly such a conclusion is based on a misunderstanding that the Gospel of John corrects in John 21:22, 23
mrm.org/topics/introductory-issues/were-christians-just-you
Clan of Cain
“Clan of Cain” by LDS author Shane Lester. Lester believes that the legendary Bigfoot is in fact Cain, described in the book of Genesis and in LDS scriptures and an experience of early LDS Church member David Patten.
booklocker.com/books/395.html

A Wandering Cain, re-appeared in in Mormon folklore (but not scripture). The last known claim of a sighting of the Wandering Jew appears to have been in the United States in the year 1868, when he was reported to have visited a Mormon named O’Grady (see Desert News, September 23, 1868). Shortly after, another early Mormon - David W. Patten - claimed to have encountered a very tall, hairy, dark-skinned man in Tennessee who said that he was Cain, that he had earnestly sought death but was denied it, and that his mission was to destroy the souls of men. Patten’s story is quoted in Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of according to the earlier Book of Jubilees (chapter 4) Cain settled down, marrying his sister, Awan, resulting in his first son, Enoch (considered to be different to the more famous Enoch), approximately 196 years after the creation of Adam. Cain then established the first city, naming it after his son, built a house, and lived there until it collapsed on him, killing him in the same year that Methuselah died.
tvwiki.tv/wiki/Cain

“Breaking the Mormon Code,” by Matthew Paulson, is a well-written critique of Mormon Scholarship in regard to Christian theology

This book is unlike other apologetics in that Paulson does not set out to prove that Mormonism is theologically incorrect. Instead, he reveals the ways in which Mormon scholars deceive their readers by misquoting, taking out of context, and misapplying the teachings of the Early Christian Church Fathers.

Paulson’s book performs two very valuable services in the academic arena. First of all, he demonstrates conclusively that many LDS scholars have been less than professional in the way that they have selectively quoted-- and sometimes, misquoted – early Christian Fathers and heretic writers of the last 2000 years, with the aim of making it seem that Mormonism restores the original, doctrinally pure Gospel of the first century AD. Paulson’s second contributions are his helpful charts and lists. Especially useful is the comparison of classic Christian creeds with the LDS Articles of Faith–which is, as Paulson shows, indeed itself a creed.
Breaking the Mormon Code: A Critique of Mormon Scholarship (Paperback)

amazon.com/Breaking-Mormon-Code-Critique-Scholarship/dp/1595940677

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Which Religion is more valid, Mormonism or Jehovah’s Witness’s?

Both are anti-Christian, so neither can be described as good in any degree. To be better than something, is to have a greater degree of goodness in comparison with it. That does not apply here. Christ & satan cannot have communion with one another.​

Neither has an Incarnate Saviour-God. Mormonism gives us Christ the Bigamist (maybe Dan Brown got the idea of a married Jesus from Mormonism; so those who wage war against his notions, should be consistent & wage war against those of Mormonism too).

JWS destroy the unity of the existence of the Word, by degrading Him to be the Angel Michael, & making Him a god inferior to the Father. So both destroy the Blessed Trinity - the Mormons by polytheism, JWs by ditheism.

 

[CEM]

Neither. Both of these religions are false in their belief of whom Jesus Christ is. Mormons think Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, - a separate individual person from God. JW’s think Jesus is the archangel Michael.

Both these (and other religions who deny the Trinity) are known as “psuedo-Christian” religions. They use “Christian” terminology yet have a very different (false) teaching and understanding of those Christian words.

Those Protestant religions who hold to the true Doctrine of the Trinity are our Separated brothers and sisters in Christ. They are not the heretics of old. Those who were Catholic, then left the Church to follow some different teachings (false) of Doctrine, are called “heretics” - they are still Christian, but deny some essential Doctrines, such as the Eucharist, the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks “ex-cathedra”, …yet does not deny the One God, three persons Trinity Doctrine.

The “new” religions such JW, Moromonism, and such who do deny this essential Doctrine, and who have never belonged to a true Christian Church, are not heretics, and not our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. They are “pseudo-Christians”. They are still loved by God, because in their hearts, they love God as they have been taught about God, and seek to please God. This desire is good, and there are many good, decent people in these religions, just as there are “bad” people in Christian religions.

I recall that in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ doesn’t tell us that those who go to heaven were the ones who were in the “right” religion, but were those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave drink to the thirsty, and so on…and those who went to “hell” where the ones who did not do those good deeds.

CEM

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Yes, Mormons and JWs have very little in common theologically but that’s true even for Lutherans and Greek Orthodox all which are known to be in competition among themselves for new recruits That’s what I call free market economics!

In predominantly Atheist Russia, the Russian Orthodox Church faces competition for the souls of ethnic Russians from not only Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons but also Protestants and Muslims. In post-communist society, Atheist souls are in great demand and every religion is trying to get as many adherents as possible. Why? To increase their size!

I’d like to read that Vatican document. Can you provide me the links? You obviously have a different definition of “heretical” from that of Saint John of Damascus, a Melchite Catholic. This saint called Islam, a religion that’s “so far outside of orthodoxy” a heresy. Since Jehovah’s Witnesses are based on Bible and claim there was time the Son of God did not exist, I’d call them Arianism!

With regards to your use of the Catholic term “seperated brethren”, conservatives and liberals differ in their understanding. Our Bishop told me that it could only refer to schismatics but not heretics. But I consulted another Bishop and he said it could include heretics. You see, the CCC like the Bible can be interpreted by different people differently.

The 2nd Vatican Ecumenical Council uses ambiguous language mainly for the purpose of diplomacy. This holy council does not in any way contradict the ancient Ecumenical Councils that make up 2,000 years of Christian Tradition. When HH Pope Benedict XVI speaks of “dialogue with Muslims” he means evangelism of Muslims. Of course, he uses ambiguous language for the obvious reasons.

+n (if you see what I mean)

Thank God for the Councils of Trent & Vatican I - with them, one knows where one stands. Blessed Pius IX & St.Pius X did not use ambiguous language; they did not say one thing when they meant something entirely different. By dialogue, Ven. Paul VI meant…dialogue: so the Holy Father is misleading the Church*** if*** by dialogue he means evangelism. Why do the bishops seem to think dialogue is dialogue, & not evangelism ? Here in Britain, they do not equate the two.

The Church is dying of diplomacy & ambiguity - or would, if it were not indwelt by the Spirit of Christ. There are many ways of “carrying around the dying of the Lord Jesus in our bodies” (St. Paul) - & that is a very bad way of so doing.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Neither. Both of these religions are false in their belief of whom Jesus Christ is. Mormons think Jesus is the brother of Lucifer, - a separate individual person from God. JW’s think Jesus is the archangel Michael.

Both these (and other religions who deny the Trinity) are known as “psuedo-Christian” religions. They use “Christian” terminology yet have a very different (false) teaching and understanding of those Christian words.

Those Protestant religions who hold to the true Doctrine of the Trinity are our Separated brothers and sisters in Christ. They are not the heretics of old. Those who were Catholic, then left the Church to follow some different teachings (false) of Doctrine, are called “heretics” - they are still Christian, but deny some essential Doctrines, such as the Eucharist, the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks “ex-cathedra”, …yet does not deny the One God, three persons Trinity Doctrine.

The “new” religions such JW, Moromonism, and such who do deny this essential Doctrine, and who have never belonged to a true Christian Church, are not heretics, and not our separated brothers and sisters in Christ. They are “pseudo-Christians”. They are still loved by God, because in their hearts, they love God as they have been taught about God, and seek to please God. This desire is good, and there are many good, decent people in these religions, just as there are “bad” people in Christian religions.

I recall that in the Gospel of Matthew, Christ doesn’t tell us that those who go to heaven were the ones who were in the “right” religion, but were those who fed the hungry, clothed the naked, gave drink to the thirsty, and so on…and those who went to “hell” where the ones who did not do those good deeds.

CEM

​

 

[Allweather]

OK, found it. This is specifically for hellisreal and murtad:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSE TO A ‘DUBIUM’
on the validity of baptism conferred by
«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,

called «Mormons»

Question: Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

• Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
  Prefect
• Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
  Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
  Secretary

---

And from a commentary by Fr. Luis Ladaria, SJ, secretary of the International Theological Commission:

""The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI,Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). . . .

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix.""

Sorry it took me so long. I was looking thru recent threads with the keyword Mormon in the title. This was buried in the thread “Catholic Channel Contradicting The Church” which was started a few days ago by Traditionalgal.

I was able to find the first document at the Vatican website, but not the second. Not that it isn’t necessarily there, but I just didn’t have time to search for it thoroughly.

 

[PaulDupre]

In his book A History of Christianity, Professor K.*S.*Latourette writes: “One of the issues on which the early Christians were at variance with the Græco-Roman world was participation in war. For the first three centuries no Christian writing which has survived to our time condoned Christian participation in war.” Edward Gibbon’s work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire states: “It was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”

Jehovah’s Witnesses similarly adopt a position of strict neutrality and follow the Bible principles outlined at Isaiah 2:2-4 and Matthew 26:52.

Here’s what Jesus counseled on serving in the military:

Then some soldiers asked him, “And what should we do?”
He replied, “Don’t extort money and don’t accuse people falsely—be content with your pay.” - Luke 3:14

Note that Jesus did not tell the soldiers to stop being soldiers. He told them to be honest and upright soldiers. Being a follower of Jesus does not depend on our occupation. It depends on how we live the life we have. It is a fact of life that every nation needs a military in order to protect itself from other nations which may try to attack it. The military needs good and moral men of integrity to serve in that capacity. Any religion that denies the need for a military is a childish fantasy and not the truth.

You and the witnesses are taking Matt 26:52 way out of context. Jesus said these words to his disciples in the garden of Gethsemane when the soldiers were taking Jesus into custody in order to try and execute Him. It was not a general pronouncement on the morality of serving in the military (Luke 3:14 served that purpose), but rather a directive to his apostles at that moment. One of the ways to spot a cult is that they proof-text - they take one passage out of context and try to use it to justify their man-made doctrines.

God love you,
Paul

 

[Hellisreal]

OK, found it. **This is specifically for hellisreal **and murtad:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

RESPONSE TO A ‘DUBIUM’
on the validity of baptism conferred by
«The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints»,

called «Mormons»

Question: Whether the baptism conferred by the community «The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints», called «Mormons» in the vernacular, is valid.

Response: Negative.

The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, in the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Response, decided in the Sessione Ordinaria of this Congregation, and ordered it published.

From the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 5 June 2001.

• Joseph Cardinal RATZINGER
  Prefect
• Tarcisio BERTONE, S.D.B.
  Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli
  Secretary

---

And from a commentary by Fr. Luis Ladaria, SJ, secretary of the International Theological Commission:

""The formula used by the Mormons might seem at first sight to be a Trinitarian formula. The text states: “Being commissioned by Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (cf. D&C 20:73). The similarities with the formula used by the Catholic Church are at first sight obvious, but in reality they are only apparent. There is not in fact a fundamental doctrinal agreement. There is not a true invocation of the Trinity because the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, are not the three persons in which subsists the one Godhead, but three gods who form one divinity. One is different from the other, even though they exist in perfect harmony (Joseph F. Smith, ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith [TPJSI,Salt Lake City: Desert Book, 1976, p. 372). The very word divinity has only a functional, not a substantial content, because the divinity originates when the three gods decided to unite and form the divinity to bring about human salvation (Encyclopaedia of Mormonism [EM], New York: Macmillan, 1992, cf. Vol. 2, p. 552). . . .

As is easily seen, to the similarity of titles there does not correspond in any way a doctrinal content which can lead to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. The words Father, Son and Holy Spirit, have for the Mormons a meaning totally different from the Christian meaning. The differences are so great that one cannot even consider that this doctrine is a heresy which emerged out of a false understanding of the Christian doctrine. The teaching of the Mormons has a completely different matrix.""

Sorry it took me so long. I was looking thru recent threads with the keyword Mormon in the title. This was buried in the thread “Catholic Channel Contradicting The Church” which was started a few days ago by Traditionalgal.

I was able to find the first document at the Vatican website, but not the second. Not that it isn’t necessarily there, but I just didn’t have time to search for it thoroughly.

Why is this something you feel I am unaware of?

Are you saying JW’s have a higher weight in the eyes of the Church by producing this?

I hope you can explain.

 

[Allweather]

Why is this something you feel I am unaware of?

Are you saying JW’s have a higher weight in the eyes of the Church by producing this?

I hope you can explain.

Whew. This is like eating soup with a fork.

Let me recap from dim memory. First, you got mad because Manny used the word ignorant in reference to an ignorant person, as if to understand the word ignorant as insulting, which it shouldn’t be, if it correctly describes the condition, which it did. Then, you got mad because it had been said here that there is a distinguishment between heresies, that not all of them are equal. You also got mad because of a confusion (on your part) between heresy and apostasy. You said we shouldn’t hold one heresy to be “better” or “worse” than another heresy, that a little “rejection of Christ” is as bad as a lot. You seemed to object to the thrust of this thread, which, you say, tries to “demonize” one heresy at the expense of another. I pointed out that heretics don’t necessarily “reject Christ” but that they have erroneous concepts of Christ. I mentioned in passing that, to illustrate my point about the distinguishment between heretical groups, someone had clipped a document or two into another thread. That is what the quote, above, is… my providing it for you. It isn’t meant to prove or disprove anything, or to elevate JWs above Mormons, but only to show that the Church at the theologian level analyzes each heresy on its own merits and calls them what they are, rather than just branding them a “rejection of Christ.” More evidence of this is the Protestants, many of whom are heretics of various sorts. Yet, they haven’t rejected Christ, are still Christians, and we even carry on dialog with some of them at various levels.

I hope I got that right. I’m working from cloudy memory at six in the morning before the coffee kicks in. But, I feel like we’re arguing over pretty much nothing. I’m sure we don’t really have an argument worth arguing. And I have to go to work now…

 

[ABostonCatholic]

I hope I got that right. I’m working from cloudy memory at six in the morning before the coffee kicks in. But, I feel like we’re arguing over pretty much nothing. I’m sure we don’t really have an argument worth arguing. And I have to go to work now…

After I read that I imagined two people trying to spit at each other while standing back to back.

 

[Geocacher]

Having been Mormon since 1971, and trying out the JW’s, I find that the Mormon faith is a better one. Through many years of Near Death Experience studies, is that the Mormon church may have had many of it’s influences based on a few NDE’s people had back in the early Mormon Church times. One of the things that I have seen in over 20 years studying NDE’s, is that some of them talk about a pre-existance, like what the Mormons preach. What is funny about it, is that I have heard a few people in the past get up in the LDS testimony meetings to talk about an NDE they have had.

 

[jmichael]

Which Religion is better, Mormonism or JW?
Im not sure I undrer stand the qustion,better then what?
Both hold high values and morals both belive to be the truth.But ultimatly both deny the truth as Jesus Christ only son of the Father,second person of the Trinity,and God.Wrong cant be right in any form.They both may have admiral qualities and good intentions but nether is what they truly claim to be,Christian,the Apostles creed clearly points out what a Christian belives.And has been used as the mesuring stick for centuries.

 

[AveVerumCorpus]

I guess it depends on what you mean by valid. If by *valid *you mean true, then any good Catholic has to answer “neither”: “…we belive in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church…”