Comments

There Are 62 Responses So Far. »

1. 1 Comment by Clyde Wilson on 6 May 2008:

   Bush’s misappropriation of the Pope’s words about right and wrong and truth and justice for a distorted purpose is an exact example of Straussian textual interpretation.

2. 2 Comment by Allen Wilson on 6 May 2008:

   I had wondered why Mormons were so turned on to genealogical research. Baptism for the dead seems absurd on it’s face. Why in the world would they have come up with such a crazy practice? You would have to be crazy to believe in it. Do they think they are automatically creating legions of new Mormons in the afterlife? Why not just baptise all your descendants that may yet be born until the end of time?

   If I were Catholic, I wouldn’t be too happy with some distant relative who was a mormon convert copying the names of my great-grandparents and ‘baptising’ them in such a manner. At the very least, it shows a warped mindset and disrespect for the dead, and I would want nothing to do with such people.

3. 3 Comment by G.S. on 6 May 2008:

   I think one critical distinction between the anti-relativist neocon notion of truth & that of the Pope is that the former believes (a la Marx) that truth may be embodied absolutely in a this-world political system, and also that the ends justify the means in the propagation of that truth.

4. 4 Comment by G.S. on 6 May 2008:

   Yikes. I wrote, “neocon notion of truth”.

   It’s a wonder my laptop didn’t start laughing at me.

5. 5 Comment by Bill Wilder on 6 May 2008:

   Mr. Wilson @ 2,

   As you can imagine, the Mormons attempted to lure people from other religious affiliations to joint their cult. The baptism for the dead neatly answer the objection “Are you saying Grandma Smith is going to hell?” Why, no, just get baptized for her and she’ll attain to the higher levels of heaven. (Mormons believe most “believers” go to heaven, but Mormons have pride of place, so to speak.)

   A useful recruiting technique.

6. 6 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 May 2008:

   Do they think they are automatically creating legions of new Mormons in the afterlife?

   I find myself in the odd position of explaining Mormon doctrine.

   The process, as they understand it, is not automatic. Mormons believe that man exists as a spirit before being embodied, and that he exists again as a spirit after being embodied, but he can only receive baptism while embodied (since he must be immersed in water). Therefore, if he did not have the opportunity to hear the gospel according to Joseph Smith while alive, he would be out of luck, since Mormons do not believe in baptism of desire.

   So Smith, latching on to Saint Paul’s mention of the practice among those at Corinth who denied the Resurrection, “received the revelation” to “return” the practice of baptism for the dead to the reconstituted church. When a Mormon in good standing receives baptism on behalf of someone who has died, the dead person is given the opportunity, in the spirit world, to accept or reject the gospel according to Joseph Smith. If he accepts it, then he can participate in all of the joys of the Mormon afterlife. If he rejects it, then he’s out of luck.

   That’s why Mormons claim that this doctrine is a “compassionate” one, and that Christians who believe that baptism is for the living are mean-spirited. They’re simply giving all those who have died the opportunity to become Mormons.

   Obviously, from a Christian standpoint, none of this is of any objective concern. Grandma Smith doesn’t suddenly abandon the faith of her fathers in the spirit world and become a Mormon. The problem really is that, in a world where even the most basic of the sacraments is misunderstood (many putatively Christian churches engage in rebaptism as a matter of course not only for converts but for those who fall away and return), any action that can be regarded as cooperation with the erroneous doctrine might well undermine faith in the Christian understanding of baptism.

7. 7 Comment by John Willson on 6 May 2008:

   Scott, you are so generous. Actually, mormons believe that their “baptism” overrides the baptism of mere Christians. Their theology is to Christianity exactly as Christianity is to Judaism; they believe that they complete what was started in Christ. Their “baptism of the dead,” then, is even worse than the anabaptist heresy. I tend not to worry about it, since they are without effect in the Communion of Saints. But truth must be told about their evil doctrine.

8. 8 Comment by Edward on 6 May 2008:

   Didn’t the Church recently deny the validity of the Mormon baptism as well? They do not believe in the traditional Triune God of the Church and, in fact, many of their doctrines are so far deviated from traditional Christianity that they sound like semi-pagan gnosticism. Preexisting spirits, St. Michael also being Adam, and a borderline polytheist interpretation of salvation does not a Christian Church make.

9. 9 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 May 2008:

   John, you flatter me. I’m not particularly generous to the Mormons, and you’re right, of course, about their understanding of their baptism. But all of their public discussion of baptism for the dead indicates that the dead have the choice to accept or reject the baptism by proxy.

   Are you suggesting that they believe that a baptism for the dead is essentially a rebaptism by force? If so, I’d love to find a Mormon source to quote, because that would put the lie to their claim that, if Christians don’t believe that their baptism is valid, we have nothing to complain about when they “rebaptize” our ancestors.

10. 10 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 6 May 2008:

    Edward, you’re right that the Church does not regard Mormon baptism as valid. (I made a reference to this in the post, but since I put the words in the mouth of the “modern American,” the point may not have been clear.)

    Valid baptism requires both water and the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” But it also requires that the person performing the baptism intends to do what the Church does. That is why, in an emergency, a non-believer could actually perform a valid Christian baptism as long as he intends to bring the person being baptized into the fullness of the Church.

    But Mormons do not intend that. And their use of the trinitarian formula is undercut by the fact that they believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods.

11. 11 Comment by Allen Wilson on 6 May 2008:

    Thank you, Mr Richert. I could say some things about the absurdity of the Mormon practice of posthumous baptism, now that I understand it better, but there’s no point. It reminds me of Jehovah’s witnesses, and their teaching that after armageddon, there will be a thousand years wherein everyone will be brought back to life and given the chance to convert, and after that thousand years, everyone who still refuses to convert will be ‘destroyed’, by being made not to exist anymore. Imagine that, a thousand years of being preached at by Jehovies! How many would opt for the easy way out, and choose the oblivion of eternal non-existence instead?

    Besides, you might think that after armageddon, when it would be clear as a bell to everyone which was God’s real church after all, there would be no reason to convince anyone or preach at them. They would all just say, ‘Okay, I get it now, now I’ll be a Jehovie’, and that would be that. No need for a thousand-year long hell of incessant house calls from Jehovah’s witnesses.

12. 12 Comment by Allen Wilson on 6 May 2008:

    Perhaps the concept of ‘enabling’ should also be considered here. By providing church records to these Mormon converts, we aid and abet a heresy by enabling it’s converts in it’s practise. By withholding those records, if we dont discourage the person in their heresy, at least we dont aid them in the practise of it. Does not a heresy endanger a person’s soul?

    Yes, the Church made the right decision. Christians must not do anything that aids or abets the spread or practise of a real heresy, even on a minor issue such as this.

13. 13 Comment by Frank on 7 May 2008:

    Excellent piece. It amazes me each time a major institution stands up to universalist social pressures.

14. 14 Comment by John Rutowicz on 7 May 2008:

    Thank you Mr. Richert for emphasizing the importance of doctrine, and the importance of appling it consistently.

15. 15 Comment by Harry Wisniewski on 7 May 2008:

    Mr. Richert,

    I always enjoy your writing here and in Chronicles. Any chance you will be writing a book? I think we would all benefit and joy reading your work.

16. 16 Comment by John Willson on 7 May 2008:

    Scott,
    The LDS sources all claim the voluntary nature of rebaptism, but the claim is false. Why baptize a dead Catholic who was perfectly aware of his choice for LDS while alive? I once put a version of this question to the President of an LDS Stake who admitted to me that what they are really trying to do is to override the incomplete baptisms of misguided Christians who, presumably, after death have discovered that the Mormons were right after all. I guess, technically, this is a choice. When I came into the Catholic Church (marrying a cradle Catholic in 1961) Fr. Simpson insisted upon baptizing me, despite the fact that I had been a faithful Episcopalian (Episcopalians believed in God back then) and my grandfather, an Episcopal priest, had baptized me. My mother was not amused, but I accepted Fr. Simpson’s decision because he explained to me that it was conditional and in no way was to be interpreted as overriding what my grandfather had already done. The LDS, however, do nothing conditionally, and their “revelations” about baptism have changed many times since 1840. This “choice” explanation is merely current to our “choice” times. They really believe they are picking off restless souls.

17. 17 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 7 May 2008:

    John, that’s good to know. I know that LDS do not accept Christian baptisms as valid (and, indeed, according to their theology they should not, for the very reason that the Catholic Church does not accept their baptism as valid–we intend something different).

    The explanation given by the president of the LDS stake does seem to confirm what you wrote earlier. If you’ve died and now know the Mormon truth, and some Mormon baptizes you by proxy, well, you’re not very likely to reject the offer, are you? So, in fact, the Mormons performing such baptisms for the dead can’t really think that the dead have much choice in the matter.

    I’d still like to find something in writing that indicates this, because it would be useful in debating LDS members. This points me in the right direction, and I thank you for that.

18. 18 Comment by NGPM on 7 May 2008:

    “If Faith Fitzpatrick knows that Father Mulroney is letting Joe Smith photocopy the parish records so that he can rebaptize all of her ancestors, she may not necessarily come to doubt the Christian teaching on baptism, but she might well begin to think that it is relatively unimportant.”

    This then begs the question as to whether Fr. Mulroney really thought baptism or any sacrament was all that important to begin with. My experience suggests that a high percentage of American–and an even higher, perhaps even a majority, of French–clergy do not.

19. 19 Comment by A Mormon on 7 May 2008:

    Mr. Richert

    You have a pretty good understanding of the Mormon doctrine of baptism for the dead. We believe it to be the way to reconcile the Lord’s decree that lest one be born of water and the spirit, one cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven, with the fact that a large percentage of God’s children do not have this opportunity in mortality.

    Baptism though, cannot override free will. Baptism is the requisite physical token of an abiding faith in Jesus Christ along with the repentance which results from that faith. No ordinance can ever be efficacious without faith. In other words many baptized Mormons will receive a lesser state of glory than many who were never Mormons.

    Of course we believe that our baptism is the only recognized by God at this time. If there were others recognized by God, there is no reason for Joseph Smith to organize a church–he could have just joined one and been baptized.

    Yes, Paul’s reference in Corinthians is part of the justification we use for the ordinance. 1 Peter 3:17-22 is another. The fact that only apostate groups are said to have practiced this ordinance is of no great concern. We believe that Church exists because Christianity went apostate after the apostles, and many true doctrines were abandoned, changed, or replaced by the doctrines of men.

    Speaking of free will. What of infant baptism? Is this not an attempt to use an ordinance to protect one who has not the capacity to have faith and repent?

    Concerning premortal life. What did the Lord mean when he said the man born blind, nor his parents sinned, in that he was born blind?

    Also to speak of a Mormon baptism in the afterlife is not really accurate. We baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. Truth will prevail. Either it will be the baptism of Christ or not.

20. 20 Comment by The Western Confucian on 8 May 2008:

    Excellent explanation of Catholic doctrine, especially compared to what Bishop John Wester of Utah had to say, from Utah’s Catholic bishop clarifies Vatican’s restriction on records:

    “‘This is not in any way an attack against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ Bishop Wester said. He sees the letter as administrative, underscoring the need to protect sensitive information.

    “‘In a baptismal record, for example, there could be a whole list of maiden names that somebody might want to use for not-so-good purposes, to break into a computer and get that like a password. Maybe somebody was adopted and the natural parents are not known, that kind of thing,’ Bishop Wester said.”

21. 21 Comment by Ronduck on 8 May 2008:

    But, the modern American says, what’s the big deal? After all, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that Mormon baptism of the living, much less of the dead, is valid, so no harm, no foul, right? And besides, the Mormon doctrine has such useful results—namely, the Mormon genealogical database, which all are free to use. This just proves that the Catholic Church is mean-spirited. Perhaps all those nasty things people said about Pope Benedict before he came to the United States and seemed all friendly and cuddly were true after all.

    Actually, many Evangelicals do believe that Mormonism is a big deal, that is why the Mormons end up being ostracized inside the Republican Party.

    As for the Roman church, it conducts masses for the dead, so going one step further and baptizing for them is just an extension of Catholic practice.

22. 22 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 8 May 2008:

    As for the Roman church, it conducts masses for the dead, so going one step further and baptizing for them is just an extension of Catholic practice.

    I can’t tell whether this is a poor attempt at humor by someone who doesn’t believe in Purgatory (but understands it) or a genuine expression of a lack of understanding.

23. 23 Comment by Mike Ezzo on 9 May 2008:

    Scott, I always enjoy your writing, and look forward to more. I have learned a *lot* from it. Regarding baptism — I once had a pamphlet that contained prayers for aborted babies and for those who are involved with the hideous practice of such. I remember there was a section which contained some kind of “spiritual baptism” for the aborted; a long list of prayers and procedures. If it had an imprimitur I can’t say, but I wonder if something like this would be considered heretical. I realize this is skating away from the topic, but it puzzles me how heretics believe they will benefit from propagating heresies. Why not just honestly abandon Christianity altogether? Was Arius honestly mistaken? Or deviously plotting to ruin people’s faith in a completely deliberate, albeit roundabout, manner? Because let’s face it : once you accept homoiousious, it’s a slippery and certain slope towards perfidy. Maybe it’s spiritual pride insofar as they truly think they are right and everyone else is wrong.

24. 24 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 9 May 2008:

    Mike, thanks for the kind words.

    I recall seeing, years ago, something similar to the pamphlet that you mention. My thought was that those who produced the pamphlet were well meaning but confused; they obviously did not understand the Christian teaching on baptism, and they were horrified by the idea that an innocent child, destroyed in his mother’s womb, would not enter into Heaven. (Thus, Limbo, for instance, was simply not an option, as far as they were concerned.)

    Of course, the doctrine of Original Sin means that no child is completely innocent; he is innocent of personal sin, but baptism is required to remove the stain of Original Sin. When discussing abortion, though, even people who understand this doctrine fully often get upset when someone explains what it means for aborted children, as I found out when, about four years ago, I wrote a column on our local abortuary.

    Our limited understanding of God’s justice should, in fact, arouse in us an even greater horror at the abortionist’s actions (since he deprives the child of the possibility of baptism). That horror, however, cannot justify us in creating “spiritual baptisms” or other novel ideas that do not reflect Catholic doctrine. In the light of Catholic teaching, all we can do for the aborted child is trust in the mercy of God.

25. 25 Comment by Kirt Higdon on 9 May 2008:

    I remember when “baptism of the unborn” was first introduced in pro-life circles where I was active. It bothered me, but I went along for awhile, figuring “what harm can it do?” Finally, I asked my pastor and he pointed out the harm which could arise in people’s thinking about the sacrament when they were deviating from Church practice. I then was able to persuade my pro-life friends to cease from these prayers and ceremonies. I have the impression that this is pretty much what happened throughout the country – people did it until priests or well-informed laymen pointed out the fallacies.

26. 26 Comment by Ronduck on 9 May 2008:

    22Scott P. Richert
    I can’t tell whether this is a poor attempt at humor by someone who doesn’t believe in Purgatory (but understands it) or a genuine expression of a lack of understanding.

    It was not meant as an attempt at humor. My understanding is that most Catholics view purgatory as a place of purification after death before entering heaven. I also believe that a minority wrongly view it as a place where people can have another chance at heaven.

    The majority view lends itself to giving prayers for the dead to hasten the purification of the soul, implying that a persons future can be influenced after they are dead.

    My personal belief is that a person’s fate is fixed upon death and cannot be changed or influenced, therefore offering prayers for the dead or attempting to have them baptized posthumously are both futile efforts. I feel that if the Roman church is acting as if it can influence the course of a persons soul after death, then it is wrong for it to condemn others who extend its’ practice further.

27. 27 Comment by G.S. on 10 May 2008:

    @ Mr. Duck:

    “therefore offering prayers for the dead or attempting to have them baptized posthumously are both futile efforts.”

    That’s fine — I don’t feel particularly inclined to get into another debate about Catholic dogma.

    I would note, rather, that there’s a difference between regarding two practices as errors, and regarding the two practices as *equivalent* errors.

    An analogy would be if I were to claim that the Protestant teaching of sola scriptura is equivalent to the Muslim teaching that Jesus was a mere prophet, rather than God incarnate.

    I regard both doctrines as errors, but I would regard them as errors that are different in kind, not just degree.

    In these Protestant v. Catholic v. Orthodox arguments I sometimes get the sense that each representative of each group is of the opinion that if you are not on the doctrinal bull’s-eye of being Protestant (or Catholic, or Orthodox, as the case may be) then you might as well be a Satanist.

    The Mormon practice of after-death baptism suggests that someone’s *ultimate destiny* can be changed after death; the Catholic doctrine of purgatory does not.

28. 28 Comment by A Mormon on 10 May 2008:

    G.S.

    I’m not seeing the difference. If I understand correctly, purgatory is for those who are not completely prepared at their death to dwell with God. Baptism for the dead serves the same purpose. It gives something necessary for salvation to one who lacks it.

29. 29 Comment by Mike Ezzo on 10 May 2008:

    The person’s salvation is already guaranteed actually.
    Purgatory removes, by temporal punishment, debts for penance for forgiven mortal sins
    that the person hadn’t sufficiently paid in his temporal existence;
    or attachment to venial sins, since nothing defiled
    can enter heaven. Here is an explanation that can do it better justice
    than I can : http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

    Thanks, gentlemen, for clearing up my concerns about the
    content of that pamphlet. My gut feeling at the time
    told me it wasn’t right, but I wasn’t sure, due to my
    D.I.Y. catechism.

30. 30 Comment by Ronduck on 11 May 2008:

    A Mormon

    Purgatory is for Catholics that are already saved but need some purification before entering heaven. What Mormon’s believe is that a person can be saved after death by having someone else baptized in their stead.

    I believe that both views are wrong, but GS is right in stating that baptism for the dead is a greater error. How far back can you reach in your family tree for unsaved relatives? What about the ones that are too far back, do they not get a second chance? We only have this time on Earth and no more, once we are dead we no longer have the chance to be saved.

31. 31 Comment by A Mormon on 11 May 2008:

    Ronduck,

    Not really a difference. Those that would be affected by baptism for the dead could be considered already saved. What they lack is the baptism. This gets to the crux of the whole issue. Can baptism in and of itself save an individual? We say no.

    Baptism is the necessary ordinance that is the manifestation of one’s faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It comes only after the repentance that this faith brings. If this faith or repentance were never present or does not endure, the baptism is of no worth. On the other hand if the faith and repentance are there but the baptism isn’t, we believe that the Lord has provided a way for that person to receive baptism and be saved. Even if this ordinance were to be received by proxy.

    As for putting limits on those who might be saved. We believe that all who are prepared and need baptism will have the opportunity. The Lord knows each of us and none will be deprived salvation due to our limitations in finding their names. We are commanded to do our part to seek them out, but those who we can’t find will be given to us in the Lord’s time. We believe this work to be the fulfillment of part of the book of Malachi. That Elijah will be sent to turn the hearts of the children to their fathers and vice versa.

32. 32 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 12 May 2008:

    “A Mormon” wrote (in 19), responding at least in part to my exchange with John Willson:

    Baptism though, cannot override free will. Baptism is the requisite physical token of an abiding faith in Jesus Christ along with the repentance which results from that faith. No ordinance can ever be efficacious without faith.

    Then, in 28, he wrote:

    If I understand correctly, purgatory is for those who are not completely prepared at their death to dwell with God. Baptism for the dead serves the same purpose. It gives something necessary for salvation to one who lacks it.

    And now, in 31:

    Those that would be affected by baptism for the dead could be considered already saved. What they lack is the baptism. . . . Baptism is the necessary ordinance that is the manifestation of one’s faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. It comes only after the repentance that this faith brings. If this faith or repentance were never present or does not endure, the baptism is of no worth. On the other hand if the faith and repentance are there but the baptism isn’t, we believe that the Lord has provided a way for that person to receive baptism and be saved. Even if this ordinance were to be received by proxy.

    In other words, John Willson is right (according to the testimony of “A Mormon”), and all the Mormon claims about how those in the “spirit world” can choose to accept or reject the baptism by proxy are simply a smokescreen.

    The “decision” was made during physical life; “What they lack is the baptism.” By comparing the Mormon doctrine to the Catholic understanding of prayers and Masses for the dead in Purgatory, “A Mormon” confirms that the person being baptized by proxy no longer has any say in the matter (the person in Purgatory cannot choose to go to Hell, nor even to remain in Purgatory–his soul has already been judged, and his ultimate fate determined).

    Again, since Catholics and all other true Christians understand that Mormon baptism is not valid, this does not present a problem theologically, but it does give the lie to those Mormons who argue that non-Mormons should not be upset when Mormons “baptize” their dead relatives by proxy, since it “cannot override free will.”

    I thank “A Mormon” for admitting the truth, even if he did so in a very roundabout way.

33. 33 Comment by A Mormon on 12 May 2008:

    Mr. Richert

    Some clarifications are necessary. Salvation is obviously a topic far beyond a few short exchanges on a blog. In trying to find common ground we risk some imprecision.

    By comparing baptism of the dead to Purgatory I was making the point that Catholics believe that something could happen after mortal life ended that would allow one, who at death was not able to obtain salvation, to achieve it later. This was my only point of comparison. I was not implying that because one’s destiny is beyond one’s will in Purgatory that it is the same with baptism for the dead.

    The baptism of the dead would have no effect whatsoever on one who did not desire it nor believe in it. That being said, I’m not unsympathetic to those who have doubts about this practice concerning their kin. The fate of our souls is about the only real concern we have as children of God. It ought to be taken seriously.

    Our doctrine is consistent. In mortality, a baptism without faith and repentance is of no worth (in fact it would work towards one’s condemnation). So it is after we die. A necessary ordinance for one who desires it.

    In trying to avoid an explanation that would be far too long for this space, I used the term “decision.” What I meant by this would be broadly, a person who met the Catholic criteria for Purgatory. A person who in mortality led a good life but was not entirely prepared for salvation. The “decision” being that the person had tried to lead a good life. This was meant to prevent any misconception that baptism for the dead could somehow override a life of unrepentant sin. I apologize for the imprecision.

    Now, If all is entirely fixed at the time of death, what was Peter referring to when he wrote that Christ preached unto the spirits in prison? (1 Peter 3:18-20) What good could preaching do if all was determined?

34. 34 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 12 May 2008:

    By comparing baptism of the dead to Purgatory I was making the point that Catholics believe that something could happen after mortal life ended that would allow one, who at death was not able to obtain salvation, to achieve it later.

    Yet that’s not what Catholics believe at all. At the time of your death, the question of your salvation is decided. No one who winds up in Purgatory is going anywhere other than Heaven. Period. Purgatory is simply for the working off of the temporal punishment that results from sin.

35. 35 Comment by A Mormon on 12 May 2008:

    One further clarification. I see that I didn’t use the term “decision.” How I would better state it is that a person’s mortal life did not disqualify him from salvation. The person would be capable of obtaining salvation, but is lacking something that must be obtained after mortality i.e. baptism. Some in this situation will obtain it, some won’t, but it will be based on their choices. Again a baptism for the dead would be of no consequence if not desired and accepted by the recipient.

36. 36 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 12 May 2008:

    Now, If all is entirely fixed at the time of death, what was Peter referring to when he wrote that Christ preached unto the spirits in prison? (1 Peter 3:18-20) What good could preaching do if all was determined?

    We tend to think of “preaching” today in the sense of trying to convince someone of something, but it simply means proclaiming the truth. The traditional interpretation (going back to at least Clement of Alexandria, and expounded by, among others, Saint Augustine) is that Christ proclaimed the truth to those just who, having died before Christ’s Death, could not enter into Heaven. The proclamation, then, is part and parcel of Christ releasing the souls from what various Fathers called Limbo, the Bosom of Abraham, or the Hell of the Just.

37. 37 Comment by PcH on 12 May 2008:

    A Mormon-

    Nothing in your mortal life will get you salvation. There is nothing you can do. There is no way you can earn it. No matter how “good” any mortal thinks he is, all his works that are apart from God are evil. Only Satan teaches that a mortal man will ever become God or a god and baptism is no magic trick to help get you into heaven – whether alive or dead.

    Salvation is only through faith in Jesus Christ as a Person of the one and only God that exists.

    After death there is no conversion from Christianity to Mormonism and no conversion from Mormonism to salvation. Any talk (or controversy) surrounding purgatory, etc. applies to persons already Christian, not to Mormons. If you die a Mormon, you are going to hell forever. There is no way out.

38. 38 Comment by A Mormon on 12 May 2008:

    PCH

    If you had read my earlier posts you would have known that I stated that baptism is a physical token of one’s faith in Jesus Christ, and that without faith it is worthless.

    I must say your concept of salvation is quite tragic. That a vast majority of God’s children would struggle through mortality only to be damned to an eternal Hell puts limits on the atonement of Jesus Christ that the scriptures do not seem to warrant.

39. 39 Comment by A Mormon on 12 May 2008:

    Mr. Richert

    “Yet that’s not what Catholics believe at all. At the time of your death, the question of your salvation is decided. No one who winds up in Purgatory is going anywhere other than Heaven. Period. Purgatory is simply for the working off of the temporal punishment that results from sin.”

    That then seems to be the difference. Mormon doctrine allows for the just who have not had the opportunity to receive the gospel and be baptized in mortality to do this after death before the final judgement. They will also, along with all others who die with unrepented sin, as you stated “work off of the temporal punishment that results from sin.”

    Concerning the Hell of the just, under what conditions were they able to obtain their salvation? Did they know of Christ in mortality and were just waiting for Christ to atone for our sins and resurrect? Were they unaware of Christ and were taught of him in prison?
    Although there surely were many just men in this situation, it seems Peter is referring to the wicked who rejected Noah’s call to repentance. What would their situation be?

40. 40 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 13 May 2008:

    Concerning the Hell of the just, under what conditions were they able to obtain their salvation? Did they know of Christ in mortality and were just waiting for Christ to atone for our sins and resurrect?

    In essence, yes. St. Augustine, in his Epistle 164 (in which he addresses the passage from 1 Peter 3), explains that the “flood was a type both of baptism to believers and of destruction to unbelievers.” The “prison” has at least two meanings, including the “imprisonment” of the soul in the body, and thus the just heard the message of Christ when they were alive even before He walked the earth.

    1 Peter 3 and Augustine’s explication of it are fascinating, because, on the one hand, they argue strongly against universalism (that all will be saved); on the other, they set the stage for baptism of desire, which is the doctrine that Mormonism ignores in claiming that the Christian rejection of the novel idea of baptism for the dead “puts limits on the atonement of Jesus Christ.”

41. 41 Comment by A Mormon on 13 May 2008:

    Mr. Richert

    Thank you for the reply. Not that many Catholics want to hear this, but Catholic doctrine and Mormon doctrine have much in common, in that both see the need to address many of the same issues. Yes, the doctrines are different, but it seems that more often than not, both are seeking rational answers to the same problems. This is less true of Protestantism.

    This is the case with 1 Peter here. No doubt, something very important there, but Mormon doctrine begins with slightly different premises, leading to a similar yet different conclusion.

    We believe that there is both an unconditional and a conditional aspect to salvation. We believe that we are only responsible for our own sins and not for Adam’s trangression. Thus, though born with original sin, Christ atoned for it and we are all free from its penalty. (This is why we don’t baptize infants) The other premise is that there are many degrees of glory in the afterlife.

    In this way the just will not receive the same reward as the unjust, yet they will not suffer eternally in Hell either. We believe in Purgatory in the sense that all unrepentant sin will be paid for by the individual after death. We believe in a baptism of desire in the sense that those who would have received the gospel but had not the chance will not be damned, yet we believe that baptism for the dead is necessary to fulfill the law.

    Concerning 1 Peter 3: We believe that before the resurrection of Jesus Christ there were two areas that could be termed prison. The area of the just where they awaited the coming of the Savior to “proclaim liberty to the captives” and the area of the wicked where darkness still reigned.
    There, they could not receive the presence of the Lord but would receive the message from other spirits that the Lord organized.

    Interesting to me are the two diametrically opposed postions on corporeality. While Augustine views the soul being imprisoned in the body, Mormon doctrine teaches the opposite–that the spirits in afterlife considered their separation from their bodies as a prison and anxiously awaited the resurrection and their spirits and body being united once more. Corporeality seems to be the point on which the early church had its greatest points of contention. How could the corporeal so loathed by the philosophers be so vital a part of the Gospel?

    Here are some excerpts from Joseph F. Smith’s revelation on this matter the full version is here
    http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/138

    12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the just, who had been faithful in the testimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;
    13 And who had offered sacrifice in the similitude of the great sacrifice of the Son of God, and had suffered tribulation in their Redeemer’s name.
    14 All these had departed the mortal life, firm in the hope of a glorious resurrection, through the grace of God the Father and his Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
    15 I beheld that they were filled with joy and gladness, and were rejoicing together because the day of their deliverance was at hand.
    16 They were assembled awaiting the advent of the Son of God into the spirit world, to declare their redemption from the bands of death.
    17 Their sleeping dust was to be restored unto its perfect frame, bone to his bone, and the sinews and the flesh upon them, the spirit and the body to be united never again to be divided, that they might receive a fulness of joy.
    18 While this vast multitude waited and conversed, rejoicing in the hour of their deliverance from the chains of death, the Son of God appeared, declaring liberty to the captives who had been faithful;
    19 And there he preached to them the everlasting gospel, the doctrine of the resurrection and the redemption of mankind from the fall, and from individual sins on conditions of repentance.
    20 But unto the wicked he did not go, and among the ungodly and the unrepentant who had defiled themselves while in the flesh, his voice was not raised;
    21 Neither did the rebellious who rejected the testimonies and the warnings of the ancient prophets behold his presence, nor look upon his face.
    22 Where these were, darkness reigned, but among the righteous there was peace;

42. 42 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 13 May 2008:

    While Augustine views the soul being imprisoned in the body, Mormon doctrine teaches the opposite–that the spirits in afterlife considered their separation from their bodies as a prison and anxiously awaited the resurrection and their spirits and body being united once more.

    I’m afraid that, looking back at what I wrote, I did Augustine an injustice, for what he really means by the prison that the soul is in is the “darkness of ignorance” or the “shadow of death” that the soul is under while in the body. I was sloppy with my language, which is inexcusable, since Augustine, having once fallen prey to Manicheeism, was careful after his conversion to avoid the idea that the soul was imprisoned in the body (at least in the sense of suffering that imprisonment as punishment). The prison of which he speaks is related to the body–to our life on earth–but it isn’t the body itself.

    Augustine, like all of the Fathers, did “expect the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come,” which is the life in which soul and body are reunited.

43. 43 Comment by Edward on 13 May 2008:

    Isn’t the more fundamental problem here that Mormons simply do not draw from what other Christians consider proper tradition. This is to say that they do not need to justify their ‘baptism of the dead’ to Catholics or any other Christians because we do not stand on the same ground. Mormons believe that the Church became apostate and that only Joseph Smith brought the Church back to where God truly intended it to be. Along with this comes a multitude of doctrines that are simply not found within 2000 years of Church history, including ‘baptism of the dead.’ But if Mormons consider themselves privy to ‘extra’ revelation, as it were, how can common ground ever be reached between the doctrines of Mormonism and those of Catholicism or any other Christianity that values the historical traditions of the Church. It seems as if, in this regard, Mormonism has more in common with Islam than with Christianity. Both Islam and Mormonism see themselves as the ‘pure’ versions of once true but now corrupted faiths and thus are constantly seeking to legitimize themselves as part of the history of Christianity and Judaism. It seems, though, as if it is quite a stretch for both of them to do so.

44. 44 Comment by PcH on 14 May 2008:

    The problem is that Mormonism is not only that it is not related to Christianity, but Mormons misrepresent what it is for public relations’ sake. Historically, Mormonism began by committing grand larceny, murder, fraud, and burning whole towns down! – they fled West to avoid prosecution and execution – they misrepresent that. I have had a chance to get to know a number of Mormons closely over the years, and they whom I have come to know well will stop at nothing to get a fast buck and destroy their “enemies;” they misrepresent that, too, and hide their greed behind a squeaky clean facade to stay in business. Mormons use each other as a network for business connections, but that doesn’t mean they are particularly loyal to each other; I have seen Mormons utterly destroy each other when there was financial gain to be had.

    Mormons misrepresent Mormon doctrine, so any discussion about it is fruitless. Mormons believe that they can by their own efforts become gods of their own planets and that Jesus was just some enlightened being who by his own good works became a god. This is as different and opposed to Christianity as can be. There is no common ground between the two religions, not even in morality, because the Mormon is compelled by his religion to behave in ways that will benefit himself (in order to become a god), and thus his moral system is not moral at all. And then there is the little problem of consistently misrepresenting everything about Mormonism which the Christian is “not ready” to know about.

    Like all fallen humanity, the “just” Mormon is just only in his own mind. The Mormon is not atoned by Christ, because he does not believe in Christ except as a man who became a god. Besides which, there is no atonement for the Mormon because he believes he can become a god by his own works, so he doesn’t need Christ anyway. But a just God will send unjust humanity – including every last Mormon – to the place of eternal justice.

    Men here can and do work with other branches of the one Christian faith. They even can and do work with agnostics who have proven to be trustworthy. However, no one can be worked with who operates under the notion as an article of religion that he must get as much for himself, consistently misrepresents that religion, and comes here to see what he can get from the guileless generosity of genuine Christians.

    Despite Mormonism’s best efforts to get a crisp haircut and put on a white shirt, Mormonism and Christianity are sundered by an unbridgeable gulf. Socrates, arguing about piety in Euthrypro noted that differences lie in the particulars; we can pretend to agree to abstractions, that “unjust” living is bad and “atonement” is good, but in actual fact Mormonism and Christianity, hell and heaven, are mutually exclusive.

    Don’t hie to Kolob.

45. 45 Comment by A Mormon on 14 May 2008:

    Edward

    It’s not impossible. The common ground is the Bible. We believe that Jesus organized his Church and that he gave authority to the Apostles to preside over it. Shortly after they passed, many fundamental changes are found in the doctrines and ordinances of the Church. We believe these to be of man and not of God. We believe that the Lord’s church was not on Earth for many years.

    The “multitude” of doctrines in Mormonism that are not part of tradition are to be found in the Bible. In fact the closer one gets to the time of the Apostles, the closer the doctrines become. Yes, we do believe in modern day revelation. We believe that no church can be the Church of Christ without it.

    The parallels drawn with Islam seem to me rather stretched. We accept the New Testament and Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. We also accept the Old Testament and the Jewish prophets. All modern scripture we have is supported by the Bible.
    They are not mutually exclusive.

46. 46 Comment by A Mormon on 14 May 2008:

    PCH

    You left out the part about the horns.

    We always misrepresent our doctrine yet you seem to be convinced that you know the true doctrine. You knew a couple of Mormon’s once and now you know the evils that lurk in all our hearts.

    “because the Mormon is compelled by his religion to behave in ways that will benefit himself (in order to become a god), and thus his moral system is not moral at all.” So, to become a God a Mormon wants to become wealthy? Because we’re going to take our earthly wealth with us? This is idiotic even for you.

    As to not believing in Christ, this is one of hundreds of published citations I could give, but it should suffice.

    The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms her possession of divine authority for the use of the sacred name, Jesus Christ, as the essential part of her distinctive designation. In view of this exalted claim, it is pertinent to inquire as to what special or particular message the Church has to give to the world concerning the Redeemer and Savior of the race, and as to what she has to say in justification of her solemn affirmation, or in vindication of her exclusive name and title. As we proceed with our study, we shall find that among the specific teachings of the Church respecting the Christ are these:(1) The unity and continuity of His mission in all ages—this of necessity involving the verity of His preexistence and foreordination. (2) The fact of His antemortal Godship. (3) The actuality of His birth in the flesh as the natural issue of divine and mortal parentage. (4) The reality of His death and physical resurrection, as a result of which the power of death shall be eventually overcome. (5) The literalness of the atonement wrought by Him, including the absolute requirement of individual compliance with the laws and ordinances of His gospel as the means by which salvation may be attained. (6) The restoration of His Priesthood and the reestablishment of His Church in the current age, which is verily the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. (7) The certainty of His return to earth in the near future, with power and great glory, to reign in Person and bodily presence as Lord and King.

    This is from the book “Jesus the Christ” by James Talmage an Apostle in the early 20th century.

47. 47 Comment by Ralston Anderson on 14 May 2008:

    Mr. Richert,

    Before I chime in, let me say sincerely that your erudition and intellectual prowess are appreciated. You are far above the likes of me. I see myself as a mere pilgrim and humble seeker of Truth, even as I enter the autumn years of life – an ordinary guy with no special abilities or insights. I am neither Catholic nor Mormon. If it matters, I shall add that I was raised in the largest Methodist Church of a Midwest city of medium size and educated – indoctrinated, perhaps I should say – in the local government school system.

    What perturbed me about your otherwise commendable rhetoric regarding relativism was your attitude. To borrow a phrase from another responder to your thoughts on a subsequent thread, it did “set me off,” and I was unable to say exactly why. Bear with me as I make my rough attempt to do so.

    As I understand the issue, “boiled down to its essence,” it has to do with correct Baptismal practice. The Catholic practice is spiritually correct. The Mormon practice is incorrect and therefore ineffectual. The Mormon practice does no good, and it renders no harm. Our ancestors are safe from any adverse effects. Next, we acknowledge that many people of many backgrounds have derived meaningful benefits from the genealogical records that the Mormons have gathered from the Catholics and then shared with those who ask. However, Catholics must now refuse to provide Mormons information of this kind, beneficial though it may be in ways unrelated to Baptism, lest the Church be party to the enabling of an incorrect practice by non-Catholic Christians. Indeed, because of their incorrect practices, we should not even characterize Mormons as Christians. Catholics and those who observe them might become confused about the importance of matters Absolute and interpret this sharing, not as an act of charity or good will, but as a sanctioning of false doctrine and a discounting of Truth.

    My take is that no one of us, whether a prophet, monk, saint, angel, or the purest of devotees, not even any who heard the Master’s words directly – is immune to error, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation. Yes, Truth is absolute. Yes, it matters more than we can possibly know. However, if it is right to say that a total comprehension of Divine Truth exceeds the range of human capacity, it seems to me that we humans tread dangerous ground when one group of us proclaims its knowledge of Truth – or the written and oral sources from which they obtained their knowledge – to be infallible and superior to that of all others. Yet, it is my observation that both Mormons and Catholics, just as earnestly as Jews, Protestants, and Muslims, have made this claim, and it is my firm contention that this kind of thinking is the sufficient precursor to tyranny and abuse of our fellows.

    If I may be so presumptuous as to divine the Lord’s position on this issue of Baptism and genealogical records, I wonder whether the God of our unfathomable universe – the Father of Christ Jesus – would care one whit for such uncharitable legalism. Withholding the records is certainly no crime, and I do not suggest that it necessarily arises from a mean spirit, but it does seem downright petty. I suppose I fall into the unredeemed category of modern Americans who would ask why not share the records, if no harm accrues, but certain benefits do. (For today’s discussion, let’s forego the practical question of how the parish priest is supposed to verify religious affiliations and actual intentions of everyone who requests the records, and the possibility that these records are retrievable elsewhere, albeit at greater inconvenience.)

    So long as we cause no harm to others, can we not worship our Creator God as taught us by our respective parents and in accordance with the tradition of our respective ancestors, or, after further meditation and deeper humility, as we individually choose, even when our choices may be “erroneous”? And can we not do so without condemning one another as heretics or Satanists?

    Thanks for letting me have my say.

48. 48 Comment by Scott P. Richert on 15 May 2008:

    Ralston Anderson (@47), thank you for your thoughtful comment. You write:

    I suppose I fall into the unredeemed category of modern Americans who would ask why not share the records, if no harm accrues, but certain benefits do. . . . So long as we cause no harm to others, can we not worship our Creator God as taught us by our respective parents and in accordance with the tradition of our respective ancestors, or, after further meditation and deeper humility, as we individually choose, even when our choices may be “erroneous”? And can we not do so without condemning one another as heretics or Satanists?

    Yet that is precisely the question raised by the Congregation for the Clergy: Is no harm being done? On balance, the Congregation decided that harm is being done, and so the action was necessary. You may argue that, in your view, no harm was being done; that, for instance, questions over the nature of baptism are all “uncharitable legalism.” But you must surely concede that others might disagree.

    In fact, I’ve found it fascinating that, on this thread and in other discussions of this on the internet, many Mormons have made an argument similar to yours (about “uncharitable legalism”), while, in the same breath, going on at length about why the Mormon understanding of baptism is correct and the Catholic (and broadly Christian) one is wrong.

    If no harm is done by such “error, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation,” why insist on orthodoxy at all? On this, at least my Mormon interlocutors (while, I would argue, engaging in some rhetorical sleight of hand to make the Catholic position look like mere “uncharitable legalism”) show themselves to understand the importance of orthodoxy. They’re simply mistaken about what orthodoxy entails.

49. 49 Comment by TJF on 16 May 2008:

    I have never understood why, apart from the advantages it brings, Mormon want to be known as Christians. They have their own book and their own set of beliefs, and they reject virtually every item of the Creeds and of basic Christian theology–including Creatio ex nihilo. Indeed, they are right to want to distance themselves from Muslims: Muslims are closer to Christianity in many respects than Mormons are. They want to say, at the same time, that they have a further revelation that supersedes traditional Christianity and yet, while calling us Gentiles, pretend to be Christians. I know that many Mormons must be sincere in adopting this point of view, but it is inherently dishonest. In this, they are like the Muslims who insist that they honor Christ and the Scriptures. What they neglect to say is that they also believe that our Scriptures have been doctored and that the true meaning of Scriptures and of of Jesus the next-to-last prophet are found in the Koran and Islamic traditions. We Christians don’t pretend to be Jews (unless we are a certain strange kind of Judaizing Protestant) or Muslims, so why do they have to pretend to be Christians?

50. 50 Comment by Edward on 16 May 2008:

    Many Christians who study Mormonism come to the conclusion that it cannot properly be called Christianity in any sincere and meaningful way. The millions of Christians (and for that matter other people) who have not simply assume that it is another version of Protestant Christianity. I can recall Sean Hannity on his radio show saying “Of course they’re Christian. The name of their church is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Jesus is in the name so they are obviously Christian.” This is exactly what the title ‘Christianity’ grants, a lack of critical thought and theological truthfulness.

    I could be wrong, but couldn’t Mormons just point at the other faiths (Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy) and say that they all disagree on critical things and therefore cannot all equally be identified with the singular term ‘Christianity.’ If there is no standard, no straight line with which to measure, then how can we say that any particular line is crooked?

51. 51 Comment by A Mormon on 17 May 2008:

    Dr. Fleming

    Here is a simple reason that Mormons desire to be called Christians—We believe in Jesus Christ. We believe in the Old and New Testaments. We believe that the Apostles had the priesthood authority to preside over the Lord’s Church after His ascension. We believe that as the Apostles taught, and as their actions demonstrated, they did not expect the Church to survive. We believe that with the passing of the Apostles, the protection they had provided against false doctrines passed also. They had been instructed directly by the Lord. When they were gone we see the wolves step in and false doctrine flourish. The Apostles had nothing good to say of the future of the Church. The early Fathers admitted that they knew far less than the Apostles, and yet, out of the chaos, we are only to be counted Christian if we believe in the changes that were made hundreds of years later by those that followed?

    Creation ex nihilo is a perfect example. It is not the teaching of the Old or New Testament—admittedly it isn’t clearly ruled out either. It wasn’t considered an essential doctrine for Origen, Justin, Clement of Alexandria. As a refutation of the Gnostic belief of the evil of matter Irenaeus makes it doctrine. Augustine furthers it. Rejecting creation ex nihilo isn’t rejecting Christ, His Apostles, or the scriptures. This same pattern is found concerning many primary doctrines of the Church. It is entirely possible to reject the doctrines that came hundreds of years later without rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    Concerning our other books. They all support the Bible. They are not replacements for the Old or New Testament. Concerning our own set of beliefs. They are pretty much all found in the scriptures or the earliest writings we have of the Church. This baptism for the dead was mentioned by Paul and discussed by many early writers. It is not outside of the Gospel, just outside of what was later made doctrine. If these things were not considered anathema when the Apostles guided the church, how can they be rejected out of hand now?

    A question is Vergil’s fate in Dante’s work Catholic doctrine? Can those who were born before the coming of the Lord receive salvation?

52. 52 Comment by JLFuller on 17 May 2008:

    The bottom line is the LDS Church does not recognize the traditional Christian church’s authority to baptize. LDS theology holds that there was a great apostasy as spoken about in the NT. After the last apostle died, the priesthood (authority to act in God’s name) was taken from the earth. Everything thereafter was a man made creation and had no effect. It wasn’t until the original church, as established by Christ, was restored through Joseph Smith that anyone had authority to baptize or perform any of the church ordinances. (Marriage for time only is an earthly ordinance.) Smith got his authority to act, aka priesthood, by Peter James and John. They, as heavenly beings, returned as part of the restoration to re-instate the priesthood as it was at Christ’s time. Therefore, everyone baptized by an unauthorized person is null and void.

    This worldwide genealogical work is to identify every human being who has ever been born or will be born and provide vicarious baptism for them by an authorized priesthood holder. During the millennial reign of Christ, the heavens will be more accessible. At that time the names of the dead who were not recorded on earth will be made available for this and other ordinances. The dead are currently being taught the gospel by authorized missionaries on the other side of the veil.

    It should be understood that this vicarious ordinance does not obligate anyone who is dead. It is an offering which they can decline if they choose. Mormons hold that there is only one church on the earth with authority to offer eternal ordinances.

    Also, there are no permanent religious divisions amongst the dead. That means there are no Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Buddhists, Moslems or Hindus on the other side. There is just one religion and that is the one which has existed for eternity. The denominations exist only until the all dead can be taught and given an opportunity to accept or reject the message. Following the resurrection, every person will be judged according to his works on the earth and assigned to one of three degrees of glory. Satan and his angels, and a select number who lived on the earth, will be cast into outer darkness for eternity. Christ’s atonement allows every human being to be resurrected. Without it we all would be consigned to outer darkness.

53. 53 Comment by JLFuller on 17 May 2008:

    There seems to be some misunderstanding as to how Mormons perceive other denominations. They sometimes ask whether we believe Catholicism is the “Whore of Babylon” or consider all other denominations as abominations before God. First, separate the doctrines of other denominations from the body of believers and the work they do. We do not believe Catholicism is inherently evil although certainly evil deeds have been committed by evil men. But individuals or subordinate groups within an institution do not always represent the institution as a whole. We do not believe Catholicism is inherently evil. To the contrary; Catholicism has kept Christ alive in countless millions of lives in an otherwise pagan world and been instrumental in founding priceless institutions we rely on.

    When we speak of abominations in other dominations’ we mean doctrines which divide God’s children and separate them from Him or deny God his literal fatherhood and Christ his sonship. We hold the Nicene Creed and those like it to be such doctrines. We believe these to be traditions of men and are not supported in the NT. They are an outgrowth of despot’s need to consolidate power in a crumbling Roman empire and are an amalgam of Christianity and paganism. These are pretty strong words and seem to attack the fundamental beliefs of millions of good and decent people. For some, nothing will salve what they consider an assault. We understand that. It is not intended to be a rebuke or to be harsh. But we also believe it can be put to the test.

54. 54 Comment by JLFuller on 17 May 2008:

    Hopefully I can explain “Whore of Babylon” so as not to inflame anyone’s senses. We believe this statement and “the great and abominable church” and “the church of Babylon” to mean worldliness. It does not refer to any denomination or religious belief system. It refers to replacing God with hedonism and worldly pursuits. The anti-Christ is not the Pope. At the time of first century Christianity it was considered to be Nero or the Roman emperor. I think most LDS scholars accept that. Those people who look at Catholicism in these terms are way off base. In some Mormon circles you may here said that there can only be three of the Judeo Christian religions that can legitimately claim direct authority from God. They are Judaism, Catholicism and Mormonism. None of the others had permission to start their own church. Their perceived authority comes from what we believe is some convoluted and disjointed logic especially in light of how the NT says authority is passed down. We don’t say that very loud though. We don’t want to unnecessarily offend anyone.

55. 55 Comment by C. Edward on 18 May 2008:

    Mr. Fuller

    What is LDS view of the Godhead and the Nicene Creed which Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox ,with some quibbling over a word or two, hold as being a good summary of the main points of what a Christian is to believe?

    CT

56. 56 Comment by JLFuller on 18 May 2008:

    CT
    Let me set some context. Mormons believe we have always existed in one form or another. God, our heavenly Father provided our literal spirit bodies and created the first man and placed a spirit in him and he propagated as we all know, with Christ being the sole exception. His father was God the Father, a separate being from Christ. When Christ said if you have seen me you have seen the Father indicates a physical likeness not that they are one and the same. Christ is Jehovah who was a God before he was born into the world. Both have physical bodies just as we see when He was resurrected and took his resurrected body to heaven. God the Father, also known as Eloheim and the Holy Ghost are individuals with the Holy Ghost being the communicator with man. Together they are the Godhead.

    The NC says all three combined into one being. We agree with part of the NC in that all three are one in purpose, power and understanding and so forth however they are separate individuals. We take what the NT says about the three literally where the Creeds adopted a Greek version of the nature of God. I think I am correct in that last statement. It has been a while since I researched that part. It seems critically important to me that traditional Christians have built the credibility of their entire existence on whether the Creeds are accurate. They leave no room to re-interpret with new information or other points of view. That makes them fragile. So when logic and the understanding of history successfully refute any part of the Creeds the whole of traditional Christendom is shaken and starts to go wobbly. I guess you can say it puts much of what they say in doubt.

    The second part of your question about what a good Christian is to understand takes a little different turn here. We are Christian because we believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ with the same understanding of other believers in Him, for the most part anyway. Some differences are His divine sonship, that His atonement covers every being in the universe not just on earth, that He followed the literal example His father set, that we are also to follow His literal example insofar as we are capable (we can’t bring about an atonement but we can sacrifice for others). Maybe the most controversial part is that in a full partaking of Christ’s inheritance we too can become divine in nature. Some traditional Christians claim that that makes us polytheists. However I think it makes it a little bit more understandable when we take the NT literally and don’t filter it through the NC. The atonement and the full inheritance of Christ is a separate course of study in itself, so brief comments like I include can’t do it justice. Does that answer your question or did I misunderstand?

57. 57 Comment by Edward on 18 May 2008:

    “We are Christian because we believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ with the same understanding of other believers in Him, for the most part anyway. Some differences are His divine sonship, that His atonement covers every being in the universe not just on earth, that He followed the literal example His father set, that we are also to follow His literal example insofar as we are capable (we can’t bring about an atonement but we can sacrifice for others). Maybe the most controversial part is that in a full partaking of Christ’s inheritance we too can become divine in nature.”

    No Christianity has ever defined itself as simply “belief in the divinity of Christ.” Thats why the Creeds exist. They summarize the main points of what Christian faith entails. Unless you are completely altering the historical definition of Christianity, which I believe you are, then you cannot call the above articles of your faith Christian. I hear Mormons say that they are Christian because they ‘believe in Jesus Christ as their savior.” But that statement is too vague and obviously meant to blur the line between what most of Christianity has believed for 2000 years and what you actually mean when you say that.

58. 58 Comment by JLFuller on 18 May 2008:

    Edward
    You are correct in at least one sense. We have never defined ourselves as Christian in the same mold as traditional Christianity. But we reserve the right to worship Christ as we see fit. We hold no brook with anyone who thinks differently than we do but a deliberate attempt to disenfranchise us appears to be a marketing ploy aimed at those who don’t study the issues like you and I do. Some may say they are just protecting the innocent from heritics. But by the same token they never address the issue we raise about the Creeds. Of course we suggest there is a way to find out for oneself whether we are heretical or not. And it doesn’t rely on any human being to tell them. In fact we suggest relying on the “arm of man”, also known as the understanding of men, is going in the wrong direction. I think the NC is a prima facia example of that.

    Like I said above – one thing I have not encountered in Creedal Christianity is a response to what I said earlier. I copied it below.

    “It seems critically important to me that traditional Christians have built the credibility of their entire existence on whether the Creeds are accurate. They leave no room to re-interpret with new information or other points of view. That makes them fragile. So when logic and the understanding of history successfully refute any part of the Creeds the whole of traditional Christendom is shaken and starts to go wobbly. I guess you can say it puts much of what they say in doubt.”

59. 59 Comment by C. Edward on 18 May 2008:

    Mr. Fuller

    Thank you for explanations of the LDS view of the Nicene Creed.
    I think your critical point is the wobbliness occurs because of a lack of willingness to “re-interpret with new information”. Taking that thread the LDS say such new information exists in the book of mormon etc. While Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox disagree about the meanings of various things in the canon of scripture and about the “traditions” in the end their differences are nowhere near as great as those existing between them and LDS. The events and places of the old and new testament are largely verifiable from archaelogical evidence and other historic contemporary writings. The same cannot be said for Joseph Smith’s “revealed” writings in the book of mormon.
    Below is a portion of text from an anti mormon website “The Mormon Conspiracy” There is a great deal of information there but I have inserted only the following.

    The Mormon Church has spent large sums of money and expended tremendous efforts to prove the archeological truth of the Book of Mormon. But not one shred of evidence has been found to verify this claim. Thomas Stuart Ferguson, a former defender of the faith, who used large monetary grants in an attempt to prove the truth of Joseph Smith’s hoax, became disillusioned in his efforts. Tanner and Tanner write: … “that he (Ferguson) had come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was not a prophet and that Mormonism was not true. He told us that he had spent 25 years trying to prove Mormonism, [through archeological research] but had finally come to the conclusion that his work in this regard had been in vain. He said that his training in law had taught him how to weigh evidence and that the case against Joseph Smith was absolutely devastating and could not be explained away.” 3
    3 Jerald and Sandra Tanner, Ferguson’s Manuscript Unveiled, (Salt Lake City: Utah Lighthouse Ministry, (Introduction), 3

    I would say again the Nicene Creed expresses a common understanding of the Apostles teaching and the meaning of scriptures from real historical experience and the work of the Holy Spirit. From this perspective “traditional Christendom” stands upon a sure foundation vs the false “new information” of mormonism.

60. 60 Comment by A Mormon on 18 May 2008:

    Edward

    Re: Mormon beliefs about Christ–How about this for a start:

    “we shall find that among the specific teachings of the Church respecting the Christ are these:
    (1) The unity and continuity of His mission in all ages—this of necessity involving the verity of His preexistence and foreordination. (2) The fact of His antemortal Godship. (3) The actuality of His birth in the flesh as the natural issue of divine and mortal parentage. (4) The reality of His death and physical resurrection, as a result of which the power of death shall be eventually overcome. (5) The literalness of the atonement wrought by Him, including the absolute requirement of individual compliance with the laws and ordinances of His gospel as the means by which salvation may be attained. (6) The restoration of His Priesthood and the reestablishment of His Church in the current age, which is verily the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. (7) The certainty of His return to earth in the near future, with power and great glory, to reign in Person and bodily presence as Lord and King.”

    This is from the book “Jesus the Christ” by James Talmage, an
    Apostle in the early 20th century.

61. 61 Comment by JLFuller on 18 May 2008:

    Edward
    Taking anti-anything statements from people dedicated to destruction gets us nowhere. I never read or comment on them. They have little credibilty. I do however, respect the work done by legitimate researchers whose agenda is balanced and who are willing to honestly approach thier research subject.

    Regarding Talmage, I think you have it right. Certainly Talmage is a respected and even revered scholar in his own right. He is but one. There are others too but he is well regarded.

    Irrespective of whom or what you quote, there really are only two issues at the heart of the discussion that matter. All the rest are subordinate issues and if discussed as the primary points, become distractions to what actually matters. The two points of primary importance are #1, whether God has re-opened the canon and #2 whether he has once again called apostles and prophets to lead His church.

    These two points are the bedrock upon which Mormonism and all our doctrine are based. That is where we should be going in the discussion. We offer a way to prove of our message to those who are honest seekers. Those who are merely curious or are looking for more ways to prove their own point and are not teachable and have hardened their hearts will not be satisfied regardless of what we say. So for those who are sincere in wanting to know, we provide a way to find out for themselves without the intervention of the understanding of men. But faith precedes the miracle. Without faith no miracle.

62. 62 Comment by A Mormon on 18 May 2008:

    Edward

    Re: The Book of Mormon

    Yes, archeological evidence is scant in the Western Hemisphere. The Book of Mormon is not very specific in its geographical details. There is also a lack of a comparable contemporary history such as we have in the Old World. This could be seen as a way that the book would be shielded from criticism. But remember, the Book of Mormon purports to be a translation of a sacred record started by a group that dwelled in Jerusalem and left around 600 B.C. This left Joseph Smith open to justifiable criticism concerning the linguistic, geographic, and cultural details in the Book of Mormon about these people.

    Thus it is in the Old world that we find so much of the corroborating evidence supporting the Book of Mormon. Most of the evidence came to light well after the book was published in 1830. Some of the proper nouns that are found throughout the book have turned up in texts discovered since 1830. The path traveled to arrive at the sea from Jerusalem has geographical support. Linguistically the English used favors the case for a translation from a Semetic language. There are literally hundreds of points within in the book to which striking parallels can be demonstrated that have all come to light since its publishing.

    Ultimately, a testimony of the truth cannot be obtained from flesh and blood, but only as Peter received it–from our Father in Heaven. But there is much internal and external evidence to suggest that the Book of Mormon is exactly what it purports to be.