Why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?




Full Question

Why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?

Answer

The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian.

For an in-depth look at this, see the books Inside Mormonism andWhen Mormons Call by Isaiah Bennett, available from Catholic Answers. For a shorter but equally incisive take, see Fr. Brian Harrison’s two-part series on Mormonism in the April and May-June 2003 issues of This Rock.


47 comments

  1. Brian J Reply

    Maybe one ought to read the Book of Mormon and ask for oneself to know if the doctrines are true or not.

    1. Kathy Reply

      I believe Joseph Smith thought he was God in many ways instead of a Prophet because he wrote the doctrines of the LDS alone based on what he thought they should be.

      1. Nona Reply

        This is why there is many misunderstandings. Of the LDS church. People “believe” in their own idea. In all the teachings not once did he say or believe he was God. He had a strong relationship with God jus like most faithful Christians of all religions do.

        Most people who believe they are God have some sort of mental illness. And since they think they are God they do not teach nor follow God.

        If you logically think outside of the box most religions have things that differ from others. Which this is what causes people to not only not understand but as well have miss guided hate about other religions. Many people can bring up many bad things about the Catholic church from past times in the medieval times where they were their strongest. To the present day issues the Cathloic church faces. How the miss use of power caused many people to lose their lives. However I have friends of all religions and we love each other because of our faith in God.

        If people could just accept others not for their religion but their faith alone we would not be teaching wrongs of other churches. Instead of teaching hate people should be teaching of accepting of all Gods children. That is why I love the LDS church. We are taught to respect others beliefs right down to where we learn about differences so we do not have any false beliefs.

        1. sifi Reply

          Nona,,Do you believe Joseph Smith is a true prophet of God???

          1. Nona

            Yes I do. The bible has always had prophets. Also teaches of latter-day prophets. They warn of false as well. I am sure you believed Joseph Smith to be false and that is your angancy to do so. Just as much as it is my agency to believe he was a ture prophet. Furthermore the bible teaches God the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever. So logically thinking He would have latter-day prophets. Do you really think God would forsake us and not leave someone to lead His children.

            People believed the Pope is a prophet though I know that most loyal and faithful Catholics I know do not see Him as a Prophet. He is looked at as a leader of the Catholic Church. Others thinkmBilly Graham is a prophet. Sadly some believe Obama is a prophet of God. It is everyones choice to believe what they want.

            However it says no where in the bible that hate should be taught to miss lead Gods children. With that said again I will stress that if everyone would be welling to accept all Gods children for what ever they believed as Joseph Smith taught “to learn wherever it comes from” as I’m referring to Gods word. I learn about God and Jesus Christ from my Catholic friends and Jehovah Witness friends. Because we accept each other and we talk about our core beliefs as in we are all children of God and He wants is to lobe one another. And to be back with Him someday. Even though all three have huge differences.

            I am blessed that my friends and I can truly love each other as children of God.

          2. sifi

            Ok.Did you believe in his teaching and his revelations???

          3. Nona

            If I belive he was a latter-day prophet it would be evident that yes I do believe in his teachings. Just like I belive in the teachings of all the prophets in the bible. Each prophet has teachings that after their time on earth changes how we are to live. For example the law of Moses what taught to him through God. Since then the profits of the new testament have made changes. God also works through leader of countries to try to better or current world. For example if the law of Moses was in place we would not be having this conversation because women then were only allowed to seek Gods cancel through their husbands. Until King James and Ann Bolyen (King Henry 8th second wife and Katherine his last wife) no one understood the bible or prayers. They were only taught what the Roman church pope and priest would speak other than Latin. Followed by Queen Elizabeth 1 (King Henrys and Anns daughter) carried that on.

            As you can see that it is because of these and others like Lutheran (the founder of the Lutheran church) had also helped bring fourth the teachings in the bible that has helped all Gods children know His gospel. So again here are examples of Gods work through people after the days of new testements time period.

          4. sifi

            Ok. He teach that God himself was once as we are now, an is an exalted man….
            . He was once a man like us,that God Himself, the Father of us all,dwelt on earth,the same as Jesus Himself did…..(CHURCH HISTORY vol 6 p 305-306)…

          5. Nona

            And in the bible it also says Genesis 1:26-27 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
            27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

            So in this scripture God is talking to others. Furthermore say in “our own image” and then furthermore says “So God created man in His own image”. As you can see the bible teaches we are of His image. So if we were created in His image is our image not like His?

          6. sifi

            Ok..So Did God was once a man???

        2. Vanessa Rivera Reply

          I think you have a misconstrued idea of what this site is meant to do. This site is not teaching hate it is answering a question, which originally was “Why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?” And so the answer (whether or not you believe to be correct/incorrect) answers they WHY. As it points out the differences, it is not “teaching hate”. I believe learning about other sects, religions, etc, actually makes people more tolerant of others, it does not make people hate others. You say that what you love about the LDS church is that it teaches the differences so you don’t have any false beliefs, yet you are bashing on a site that talks about questions Catholics and non-Catholics have about others, so that they don’t have false beliefs. In other words, please don’t say we’re spreading hate. Just information.

    2. Joes Reply

      When you read the b o m you will find out that the book has textual errors, factual errors and verses that have been copied directly from the Holy Scriptures and it does not contain the fullness of the everlasting gospel, the bom contains none of the key mormon doctrines and it contradicts what the church teaches.

      How can you call true believers christians in 73-72BC (Alma 46:15) The use of the word christian had to come after Christ death and was first recorded around the year AD 42 in Acts 11:26

      For a start….

  2. Denice Reply

    As a person raised in the Mormon church your interpretation of Mormonism is way off. Take this part of your second paragraph: ‘Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely.’
    Where did you get this little tidbit of information? I never learned that in all the years I attended the Mormon church.

    1. sifi Reply

      That is Joseph Smith teaching,,and even Brigham Young teach that Adam was our God…thats why mormons believe Joseph Smith is a prophet….

      1. Joie Reply

        Not true. Mormons believe Joseph Smith was a prophet because he was CALLED BY GOD. Adam is not God, a God or a god. Your info is biased and from non Mormon teachers/teachings. Joseph Smith has said a lot of stuff and so has Brigham Young however misinterpreting and adding to teaching does not make those false teaching true.
        Also Mormons are not pagan or polytheistic. Mormons believe in the father, Heaven Father; His son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. Three separate being, yes, but they do NOT worship Jesus Christ or the Holy Ghost or any other being. Heavenly Father is the ONLY being Mormons worship. To worship any others is worshiping false gods or idols. That includes worshiping Joseph Smith or any other prophet and Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ saved us all by being crucified for our sins but even he said that the glory is not his but his Father’s. Christ is not God, he is not worshipped but given Thanks to. Sorry to punch holes in your theory but maybe you should consult an actual Mormon next time. Or just leave off the speculation and using erroneous conclusions by people who have not been studying Mormonism by a Mormon for their entire life.
        Badly sourced article!

        1. Nona Reply

          Actually itnwasmthe angel Moroni that appeared to Joseph Smith. Also do to the fact the LDS church is a Christian church there would seem to be similarities to most other religions. However the LDS church is based on the primitive church that Christ Himself put in place during His time here to teach is of His Fathers ways.

          1. AZ Mama

            Who sent Moroni? God did. But Moroni is but an agent of God doing his work. Hence anything Moroni does is by God’s bidding. Both from when he was a prophet in the Book of Mormon and now as an angel. Also remember Heavenly Father and Jesus both showed themselves to Joseph Smith after he prayed for answers. God called Joseph Smith to be the Prophet of the Latter day Church, not Moroni. Moroni does not have the power to call a prophet, that is Heavenly Father’s domain.

          2. Dan

            Nona, I am a Catholic. I’m not a hater at all. I never ever believe it is right to criticize anyone for their religious beliefs. I would like you to know, we differ a little bit theologically, and that’s ok. I think you are well spoken, and even though we may differ, I’ve enjoyed reading your comments. Peace be with you.

        2. sifi Reply

          Well if you believe your prophets are the true prohets of God,,and they speak the words of God ,, so God tell Joseph Smiths He (God) was once a man…and also tell Brigham Young that Adam was your God…so follow your prophets teaching and you won’t go ashtray….

          1. Mike

            Where do you get this stuff?
            First: We believe the Prophets of The Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints are true Prophets and tent do speak the word of God. God said he was once as we are, does that mean human, a man? Or fallible, learning and choosing how to live due to the free agency we have? I decline to assume what God meant exactly by that statement as I am not Him or privy to His mind.
            Second: Since your grammar, spelling and sentence structure leave a lot to be desired I will have to extrapolate what your meaning actually was in this part. Taking the pseudo sentence at face value “…and also tell Brigham Young that Adam was your God…” Huh? No, I will not tell him that Adam was our God. He was a Prophet while here on Earth so I am betting he knows the gospel better than me so I would never be so presumptuous to “tell” him anything regarding our religion. If you meant that Brigham Young told us that Adam was God, you are mistaken. Adam is not God.
            Third: Once again I must try to decipher your statement. I believe you meant to say “So follow your Prophet’s teachings and you won’t go astray” Thank You, I do and I will continue to do so. Even when uninformed people try to tell me what I believe because they read an Anti-Mormon book or were taught hate sentiments by their church to scare their parishioners into not reading the Book of Mormon, praying truly from their hearts with true intent or thinking for themselves.

        3. Maureen Reply

          This is truly a question because I do not understand the Mormon teaching. Is Jesus Christ God or is he not? I am often told by Mormons that Jesus is God, just like I believe, but usually won’t refer to him as such – they say he is the Savior. (A difference in my mind because someone can save us without being God – Moses for example.) If I understand your comment, Jesus is not God, although the church is ‘of Jesus Christ’. If this article is true, and you baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit/Ghost, what does that mean? Again, I really would like an understanding because there is so much conflicting information. (I will not go to the Book of Mormon to find these answers, I don’t have the time or energy to devote to it – the passages that I have seen would require me to attend a whole study on it to try to interpret/understand)

  3. msmith Reply

    because the mormons do not send money to the catholic church.

  4. hotlipsofny Reply

    The truth is that all of this doesn’t matter. There are Catholics who aren’t Christians and there are Mormons who aren’t Christians. Christians have fought amongst themselves since the time of Christ. If we hadn’t been fighting with each other we could have converted the world. Instead, we are now in a life and death struggle with Islam. We have done ourselves no favors with our infighting. Instead of pulling together, we now face annihilation. And, yet, your comments show that we’re still fighting each other. The ship is sinking and we’re fighting about what wood makes the best oars. Stop with the “I’m right, you’re wrong” nonsense and pull together on what we commonly believe so that we can win the battle over Radical Islam.

  5. Nona Reply

    It is a common miss understanding that people who do not take the time to be tolerant of anothers beliefs. I know that this arrival is only based on what has been said and not proven. We are Christian just like Catholic, Baptist, most nondenominational churches. As we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as taught in the bible. One thing I am most thankful for in the church (Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints) we are taught to be tolerant and respectful of others beliefs. We even hold meeting to better understand other religions so that we may not offend them. Instead of the hate most churches teach. All churches have differences but should never teach hate and wrong information.

    Christ came here to redeem our souls so that we can return to heaven. Isn’t that what teaching religion truly about.

    1. sifi Reply

      You are misunderstanding..What you been taught today is different from the beginning,your church history you been told today is different from the beginning,your church history and teaching has changed every time even the book of Mormon you have it now is different from the first version JS translations…

      1. Matt Reply

        If you want to talk about books that have undergone changes over the years, let’s talk about the Bible…

        1. Nona Reply

          People want to believe that the bible has gone unchanged. People did not know about Apocrypha (means hiden) until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

          The following books were removed Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes even though they had fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. We can see wht they were removed.

          Also Pseudepigraphal books are known as “false writings.” They are a collection of early Jewish and “Christian” writings composed around 200 BC. Gospel of Mary Magdalene not in the bible we have today but many say is false writings. But really why wouldn’t she have written about her accounts with Christ. Wouldn’t any account of Christ especially hers be just as important?

          The dead sea scrolls are evidence that not all writings are into the “current” bible. No book goes unchanged by man. Even writers like William Shakespeare and Edmund Spencer books have been changed from original writings.

          I am not going to say the teaching I learn in my church haven’t changed as we are always evolving to be better as time changes. How ever the basics of the teachings never change. We follow the teaching of Christ just like all Christian faiths do. Every religion from old testament to new have changed the bible. That is a fact that no one can deny.

          Nor can the Catholic church deny that they kept their followers in the dark by only teaching in Latin and only through preaching. They didn’t allow the bible to be written so the common follower could read for themselves. They also believed one could only pray at church. So no one can say that the Catholic church too hasn’t changed over time.

          1. Vanessa Rivera

            Thank you for once again trying to seem as if you know what you’re talking about with all the history and facts and blah.
            The Catholic Church did not “keep their followers in the dark by only teaching in Latin”. The Second Vatican Council decided that Mass (key word Mass) was no longer to be obligated to be celebrated in Latin, but it would be celebrated in local vernacular (i.e. whatever language people speak in that area). If this is what you are referring to, you have been taught wrong. The way Mass is celebrated is very different from Catechism.

          2. Bob

            Nona, You are wrong. The Catholic Church was the first to translate the Bible into the local languages of people precisely so that they could learn about it and not be in the dark.
            Just a few examples:

            400 A.D. MOST OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES TRANSLATED: In Syriac, Coptic, Ethhiopic, Georgian Languages. Across the Rhine and Danube from the Roman Empire A Gothic version was translated by the Gothic Bishop Ulfilas (318-388), who after devising an alphabet, produced a version of the Scriptures from the Septuagint Old Testament and from the Greek.

            406 A.D. THE ARMENIAN TRANSLATION: In 406 the Armenian alphabet was invented by Mesrob, who five years later completed a translation of the Old and New Testament from the Syriac version into Armenian.

            405 A.D. THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE COMPLETE BIBLE IN THE COMMON LANGUAGE: Latin Vulgate, from the Latin editio vulgata: “common version”, the Bible still used by the Roman Catholic Church, was translated by St. Jerome (Whom the translators of the 1611 Authorized Version in their original preface called ” a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him”). In 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of his day, to produce an acceptable Latin version of the Bible from the various translations then being used. His revised Latin translation of the Gospels appeared about 383. Using the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament, of which he produced a new Latin translation, a process that he completed about 405. It is as a translator of Scripture that Jerome is best know. His Vulgate was made at the right moment and by the right man. The Latin language was still living, although Latin civilization was dying; and Jerome was a master of it.

            450-550 A.D THE BEZAE CANTABRIGIENSIS (ALSO CALLED CODEX BEZAE): This is the oldest existing bilingual manuscript, with Greek on the left page, and Latin on the right. Bezae Cantabrigiensis was a western text copied c. 450-550 A.D. It has preserved most of the four Gospels, parts of Acts.

            7TH CENTURY THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO FRENCH LANGUAGE: French Versions of the Psalms and the Apocalypse, and a metrical rendering of the Book of Kings, appeared as early as the seventh century. In 1223 (A. D.) a complete translation was made under the Catholic King Louis the Pious. This was 320 years before the first Protestant French version. Up to the fourteenth century, many Bible histories were produced.

            7TH CENTURY, THE FIRST GERMAN VERSION: The history of Biblical research in Germany shows that of the numerous partial versions in the vernacular some go back to the seventh and eighth centuries. It also establishes the certainty of such versions on a considerable scale in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and points to a complete Bible of the fifteenth in general use before the invention of printing.

            7TH CENTURY, SPACES PLACED BETWEEN THE WORDS: In the seventh Century, Irish and English monks began to leave space between the words as they copied the biblical texts by hand, before this all the letters ran together making a entire book look like one giant word.

            8TH CENTURY,THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE: By Aldhelm, the Bishop of Sherborne, and Bede. A 9th century translation of the Bible in to English (Anglo-Saxon the dialect of its time) was made by Alfred. A tenth century translation in to English was made by Aelfric.(7) , By 1361 a translation of most of Scripture in the English dialect (Anglo-Norman) of its time had been executed.(3) This was twenty years before Wycliffe’s 1381 translation.

            8TH – 9TH CENTURY, THE USE OF THE FORM OF WRITING CALLED “MINUSCULE”: As the breakdown of Oriental commerce took papyrus out of the western market in compelled to use of parchment, the factor of economy became increasingly potent. To get more words on page, the scribe had two use smaller letters and squeeze them close together. Some, to preserve their distinct shapes, were extended above the line, some below. The ultimate result was a form of writing called “Minuscule”— little letters, with capitals inserted for emphasis. It is this system which is still use today. This grammatically was a major change from the “Majuscule”— which consisted of only large letters as used by the Greeks, Romans, and Jews.

            9TH CENTURY, THE FIRST SLAVIC TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE: The Catholic Saints Cyril and Methodius preached the Gospel to the Slavs in the second half of the ninth century, and St. Cyril, having formed an alphabet, made for them, in Old Ecclesiastical Slavic, or Bulgarian, a translation of the Bible from the Greek. Toward the close of the tenth century this version found its way into Russia with Christianity, and after the twelfth century it underwent many linguistic and textual changes. A complete Slav Bible after an ancient codex of the time of Waldimir (d. 1008) was published at Ostrog in 1581.

            1170 A.D. THE FIRST PARALLEL ENGLISH LANGUAGE BIBLE: Eadwine’s Psalterium triplex, which contained the Latin version accompanied by Anglo-Norman and Anglo-Saxon renderings, appeared it became the basis of all subsequent Anglo-Norman versions.

            THIRTEENTH CENTURY, THE FIRST DIVISION OF CHAPTERS: It was the British Catholic Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, St. Stephen Langton (died 1228), was first to tabulate scripture into Chapters, and we follow his arrangement to this day: some 1,163 chapters in the Old Testament, and only 260 in the New Testament.”

            THIRTEENTH CENTURY, THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO SPANISH LANGUAGE: Under King Alfonso V of Spain.

            1230 A.D. THE FIRST CONCORDANCE: A concordance of the Latin Vulgate Bible was compiled by the Dominican Friar Hugo of Saint Cher.

            1300 A.D. THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO NORWEGIAN LANGUAGE: The earliest and most celebrated is that of Genesis-Kings in the so-called Stjórn (“Guidance”; i.e., of God) manuscript in the Old Norwegian language, probably to be dated about 1300. Swedish versions of the Pentateuch and of Acts have survived from the fourteenth century and a manuscript of Joshua-Judges by Nicholaus Ragnvaldi of Vadstena from c. 1500. The oldest Danish version covering Genesis-Kings derives from 1470.

            1454 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED BIBLE: A Catholic named Gutenberg caused great excitement when in the fall of that year he exhibited sample pages at the Frankfurt trade fair. Gutenberg quickly sold out all of the 180 copies of his Latin Vulgate Bible even before the printing was finished.

            1470 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED BIBLE DICTIONARY WAS PRINTED: It was written by Johannes Marchesinus ( a Franciscan friar). It was a guide to understanding the text of the Bible explains the grammatical constructs and etymology of difficult words in the Scriptures. Printed only 15 years after the First Book ever printed in the world, the Gutenberg Bible

            1466 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED GERMAN BIBLE: This was fifty eight years before Luther made his German Translation in 1524. In that fifty eight years the Catholics printed 30 different German editions of the Bible.

            1470 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED SCANDINAVIAN BIBLE: In the fourteenth century, versions of the Sunday Epistles and Gospels were made for popular use in Denmark. Large portions of the Bible, if not an entire version, were published about 1470.

            1471 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED ITALIAN BIBLE: In the years before Luther’s Bible was published (Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522), the Catholics printed 20 different Italian editions of the Bible.

            1475 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED DUTCH BIBLE: The first Bible in Dutch was printed by Catholics in Holland at Delft in 1475. Among several issued from the press of Jacob van Leisveldt at Antwerp.

            1478 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED SPANISH BIBLE: In the years before Luther’s Bible was published (Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522) the Catholics printed 2 different Spanish editions of the Bible.

            1466 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED FRENCH BIBLE: In the years before Luther’s Bible was published (Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522), the Catholics printed 26 different French editions of the Bible.

            1516 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED GREEK NEW TESTAMENT: A Catholic named Erasmus first printed his Greek New Testament. In the years before Luther’s Bible was published (Luther’s Biblical translations, begun in 1522), the Catholics printed 22 different Greek editions of the Bible.

            1534 A.D. THE FIRST USE OF ITALICS TO INDICATE WORDS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL: A Catholic named Munster was the first to use italics to indicate words not in the original Greek or Hebrew texts, in his version of the Latin Vulgate.

            1535 The First Bible Concordance Ever Printed: Done in Latin, and extensively accented in red ink, this is the very first concordance to the Bible ever printed.

            1548 A.D. THE FIRST CHINESE VERSIONS: Among earlier translations is a version of St. Matthew by Anger, a Japanese Catholic (Goa, 1548). The Jesuit Father de Mailla wrote an explanation of the Gospels for Sundays and feasts in 1740.

            1551 A.D. THE FIRST DIVISION OF VERSES: The first division of the Bible into its present verses is found for the first time in an edition of the Greek New Testament published in Paris by the Catholic Robert Stephens.

            1555 A.D. THE FIRST PRINTED COMPLETE BIBLE WITH CHAPTERS AND VERSES: The first division of the Bible into its present chapters and verses is found for the first time in an edition of the Vulgate published in Paris by the Catholic Robert Stephens.

            1561 A.D. THE FIRST COMPLETE POLISH BIBLE: Was printed at Cracow in 1561, 1574, and 1577. Jacob Wujek, S.J., undertook a new translation from the Vulgate (Cracow, 1593), which was praised by Clement VIII, and reprinted frequently.

            1579 A.D. THE FIRST MEXICAN VERSION: The first known Biblical undertaking in Mexico was a version of the Gospels and Epistles in 1579 by Didacus de S. Maria, O.P., and the Book of Proverbs by Louis Rodríguez, O.S.F. A version of the New Testament was made in 1829, but only the Gospel of St. Luke was printed.

            1836 A.D. THE FIRST TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IN TO THE JAPANESE LANGUAGE: A version of St. John’s Gospel and of the Acts was edited in katakana (square type) at Singapore (1836) by Charles Gutzlaff.

    2. Teresa Reply

      I’m genuinely curious here, and don’t know a lot about the church of LDS, but it was my understanding that the church recognizes a book other than the Bible as sacred scripture, is that correct? The Pearl of Great Price or the Book of Mormon or something?
      As an Anglican Christian, my understanding of the church of LDS is that while they accept many Christian teachings, there are also teachings that go above and beyond and are inconsistent with mainline Christianity in such a way that while they are a legitimate religion, they are not a Christian denomination but rather a distinct religion (much as Christians cannot claim to be Jews even though we share the sacred scripture of the Torah).

      1. Nona Reply

        The LDS church dose use both the Bible and Book of Mormon as many other religions have other books they use. Even the Catholic bible has more books in their bible than the King James version used by most Christian religions. Does not mean Catholics aren’t ture Christians because their book differe from others. It is their basic beliefs in Christ that makes them Christian. The meaning of a Christian is one who follows the teaching of Jesus Christ. As a member of the LDS church here are a few of the basics we believe.

        We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.

        We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

        We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

        We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

        We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

        We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.

        As you can see our beliefes are Christan and the very foundation of our faith is Our first principal is faith in Jesus Christ. That is the meaning of a Christian.

        1. William Reply

          Nona, I admit my ignorance of much of what Mormons teach and believe, but you say that you adhere to the original structure of the Church Christ founded in the upper room. How are your leaders selected? I know that in the Catholic Church, our Bishops (the descendants of the Apostles) are chosen from among the faithful, by election from other Bishops, and anointed by Christ’s emissary on earth, the Bishop of Rome, the descendant and heir of Simon Peter. To whom Christ gave the keys to Heaven and Hell. If what you say is true, why then are Mormons not Catholic?

      2. Joes Reply

        No alcohol, is one that is an interesting teaching, and some other protestant denomination do this, but No where in the bible does it say do note drink alcohol. Drinking to the excess of getting drunk is mentioned numerous times and is a sin against God, and I agree with that! But alcohol has been around for since the beginning, Drink and be Merry! Cheer!!! 🙂

    3. Joes Reply

      Nona
      Please answer my questions and I will answer your as well, Thank you.

      Why did you say “Christ came here to redeem our souls so that we can return to heaven” ? LDS believe that their are three heavens. The idea of three heavens didn’t come around until smith came up with this. The early Jews taught one heaven and it has continued to be taught until Jesus will come again. Explain to me, why did Jesus sacrifice himself to then make us separated from God the Father and himself again?

      You mention that your church is taught to tolerant and respect others religions, but you come on here and you try to tell us the Catholic Church’s are wrong. If your church was truly teaching the correct teaching of the Catholic Church, more mormons would be converting into the Catholic Church because they would come to know the truth of the One True Church. What you have said about the Catholic Church is wrong, you have been wrong by your church leaders.

      The christian church is: One, Holy, Catholic (universal) and Apostolic………
      This was the foundation of Early (primitive) Church and is this now, do you agree with this?

      If a prophet teaches and preaches a revelation and the revelation does not become true, would you continue to follow this prophet?

      Looking forward to dialogue with you and anyone else

      1. Nona Reply

        In Geneses 2, Durteronomy, Judges 5, Kings 1 and many more books use the terms “heavens” is mentioned many times. So, long before our founder founded the church many in old testament and new testament times believed in more than one heaven based on teachings at the time.

        Furthermore, in the new testament in Matthew all the way to regulations you can read Christ words about the “restored gospel” near the second coming of Christ. Now, that could be the Catholic church just as much as it can be the LDS church.

        Just so you know our church does not teach these things. I learned those things from religious and history classes during college. As well as Catholic church history during, through documentaries, and other educational forms. If you would take the time to just research how much the Catholic church and all churches change over time. Here is one example you would learn that the excommunication of King Henry VII lead to Act of First Fruits and Tenths transferred the taxes. With these changes along with friend and advisor Thomas Moore, and his new queen Queen Ann and her religious advisor. Along side the enemy of England and then known as a free radical Lutheran the founder of the Lutheran church fought for the Bible to be written so everyone can have it. Also, they all help teach that prayer could be done anywhere at anytime. Even out side of the church or in private home alters because at the time the Roman Catholic church taught that prayer could only take place in such places. The church has since changed that practice. Like all churches change over time.

        I was using that as an example as how time and religion very time to time. As then to today Heavenly Father has not change. It is man who changes things. You believe your church is the one true church just as I believe my church is the one true church. We have free agency to believe we are right the other is wrong.

        1. Joes Reply

          If you wanted to use a book from the bible to help your prove your point, can we use chapter and verse? I can tell you that the use of the word “heavens” for the Jews was the universe, (sky and stars) which was true in their day. So to better answer your questions let us both use chapter and verse.
          I never did get an explanation for why Jesus sacrifice himself to then make us separated from God the Father and himself again?

          Why is there a need for a restored gospel? There isn’t a need if you follow the true lineage of the apostolic church, the true presence in the bread and cup of his church, celebrated daily in Mass, and the persecuted church, mocked and killed? Now to say that that could be the Catholic Church or the LDS can not be true, free agency is just that free will to choose or you can use faith and reason. Think about using faith and reason, I can share with you how to use it you would like.

          You say that you learned Catholic Church history, did you learn this through the Catholic Church? Learning through secular means can distort what you learned, especially about Catholic Church History. If you want truths for the Catholic Church and her history, Catholic Answers has great information about the true history of the Catholic History, you can read the Early Church Fathers or read Thomas Aquinas.

          You know why King Henry VII was excommunicated, because he wouldn’t hold true to the Sacrament of Matrimony (6 Marriages) and that why he separated himself from the Catholic Church and because of his advisers. As far as Thomas More, you have the wrong guy! Thomas More was put to death by Henry VII in 1535 beside he sided with the Catholic Church on the Sacrament of Marriage. You might be thinking of Thomas Cromwell or Cranmer who helped split England from Rome during the reformation and told the Henry VII that it was okay to divorce.

          (Your Secular Catholic teachings)-> People did not know about Apocrypha (means hidden) until the Council of Trent (1546 AD)

          Martin Luther coined the word Apocrypha. The Council of Trent made the Catholic Canon Dogmatic, Dogmatic is the key word. Because Luther removed the 7 books of the Old Testament the Catholic Church came together at the Council of Trent to let it be know that the 72 book in the Catholic Bible were the correct book in the bible, the Word of God and would not be changed. It was set in 397 AD in Carthage, and the same Canon with all 72 books was confirmed in 419 AD in Carthage.

          You when around my question about revelation (If a prophet teaches and preaches a revelation and the revelation does not become true, would you continue to follow this prophet?)

          Practices (Disciples) and Doctrine and Dogma

          Dogma, The Church’s magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these. (CCC 88) Dogma can not be changed.
          Mary is the Mother of God- Mary is truly the Mother of God.

          Doctrine, on the other hand, is the teaching of the Church on matters of faith and morals. All such teaching—or at least the basis for it—was handed down to the Church by Jesus and the apostles prior to the death of the last apostle. Scripture refers to doctrine as “the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). As mentioned before, doctrine can develop over time as the Church comes to understand it better—but it cannot change. No one—not even the pope—has the authority to change doctrine.
          Woman cannot become priest- The nature of the priesthood is male.

          Discipline, then, is man-made and can be changed as often as the Church desires. This is not to say that the authority to enact discipline is man-made. In fact, Scripture itself records the Church’s God-given authority to enact discipline: “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 18:18; see also 16:19). Now, this power to bind and to loose extends beyond discipline, but it certainly includes the authority to enact discipline as well.
          Priestly celibacy is a case for discipline – The Church has determined that celibacy is a helpful rule of life for priests

          Where does your church sit when it comes to revelations from Joseph Smith, are they doctrines or practices (disciplines)? You can use your own words but it will mostly fall within the 3 above.

          You said Heavenly Father does not change, so why did your church doctrines change if they were given to JS and they came from Heavenly Father? Polygamy and the priest to name a couple? They came straight from Heavenly Father who doesn’t change, why would he then change his mind after the government stepped in and the NAACP?

          What about prophecies from JS, a temple would be built in Missouri during his Generation? The US Government would be overthrown and the coming of the Lord?

          But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Galatians 1:8

  6. Templar Reply

    does anyone else find it a bit of a coincidence that the angel gabriel appeared to joseph smith the same way he appeared to mohameed and both of these prophets founded a religion that borrowed on the teachings of the church?

    1. Uti Makasini Reply

      I think you are confused with the Angel Moroni. Cause I don’t ever recalling Gabriel s appearance to JS at any time.

  7. sifi Reply

    Did you believe that??

  8. Arc Ordanza Reply

    Cyprian of Carthage

    “They alone have remained outside [the Church] who, were they within, would have to be ejected.
    . . . There [in John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest, and the flock clinging to their shepherd in the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishops; and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priest of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and catholic, is not split or divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere to one another” (Letters 66[67]:8 [A.D. 253]).

    Ignatius of Antioch

    “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a presbyter]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).

    The Apostles’ Creed

    “I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen” (Apostles’ Creed [A.D. 360 version, the first to include the term “Catholic”]).

    Is it men or God?

    “As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.” (Galatians 1:9-10)

    Which one bible or church?

    The Holy Bible it comes from Catholic Church not the Church comes from the Bible. “One Lord, one Faith, one baptism” Ephesians 4:5

  9. Arc Ordanza Reply

    Who are the first true Christian? Catholic was…. “And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians”. (Acts 1126)

  10. Arc Ordanza Reply

    Who are the first true Christian? Catholic was…. “And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians". (Acts 11:26)

  11. Lorraine Parker Reply

    At the end of the day, Jesus made the catholic church over 2,000 years ago. We don’t really need other churches but people love to think they know best and that Jesus Christ didn’t. This is how we got the church of England because a King wanted to have as many wives as he wanted and so made a different church. As him head of it why because men and women think they know best. So its nothing to do with hate but Gods children that wont take discipline. This is why we have gone away from what God the Father sent Jesus to build his church and baptism the truth and in the catholic church is all truth, for any one searching for the truth and Jesus the Son of God. 30/12/2015 Caroline Regina Cywinski Harlow England.

  12. Kingsley Nonso Reply

    Catholic Church is the church that teaches about our Lord Jesus very well, i am a Nigerian, the Catholic Church often my language to say mass and preach the word of God. I believe in one occurred in Catholic Church. we believe in the Resurrection of Jesus and his come. the book Matthew has said it all.

  13. Tosha Reply

    Are any of you actually mormon? I was raised mormon and i know a few things. One thats not mormons view on god at all. (Important fact though. There is more than one type of mormon. The one i was raised as doesnt believe in having more than one wife and god created all living things and his son jesus died for our sins) so im going to assume the description in this article about god is a different type…. if not wrong. Also mary gave birth to jesus so how can god and jesus be the same person anyway? That in general doesnt make any sense…..

  14. MTNCATH Reply

    Well semantic theological arguments aside, Mormonism is just (i dare not say “deficient”) …not for me. As a First Nations person, the Mormon application to First Nations / Aboriginals / Natives is just pure benevolent racism. In its crudest summary, First Nations are considered the lost tribe of Israel and were cursed by God – hence our *red skin*. Thus Mormonism puts a lot of energy into converting First Nations *back* to the White God. I recall hearing about a poster plastered around Montana that asks for Mormons to hang around Natives because that will change our DNA back. I have also noticed how Mormonism will “indianize” myths and legends for easier conversion. My culture has well known creation legends and I have heard the mormon versions taught by mormon converts. I wish Mormons well on their…journey… even though they really treat First Nations poorly.

  15. whatsaboveusblog Reply

    So the power to have a valid baptism does not depend on authority? It only depends on what the person believed when they were baptized? That brings up another question is it based on the belief of the person being baptized or the people who are performing it?

Leave a Reply

  1. most read post
  2. Most Commented
  3. Choose Categories