Jump to content
Online Baptist

Similarities Between Mormonism And Catholicism


Recommended Posts

  • Lady Administrators

As per candle's request, I'm starting a thread on the similarities between the Mormon belief and the Catholic belief. I don't remember everything off the top of my head (it's been almost 40 years since I actually looked at this...), I'll try. I'm sure others can think of things, too.

 

 

Each religion has a specific and revered leader.  Catholics have the Pope and Mormons have the Prophet.  Either man can have revelations that can change church dogma.

 

The Catholics accept the Bible and tradition.  Mormon's accept the Bible (and it's usually KJV) and additional "scripture".

 

Purgatory for Catholics, spirit prison for Mormons.  While Catholics believe that they must pray for those in purgatory (and pay for masses...), Mormons believe they must be baptized for those who died without baptism. Those in spirit prison are being cleansed for the resurrection.

 

Both believe baptism is necessary for salvation (they teach other works, too, but without baptism there is no salvation - although the Mormons do not believe in infant baptism).  

 

Each religion believes and teaches it is the one true church.

 

Each religion believes they have apostolic succession (the Mormon church has a council of 12 apostles all the time...)

 

In Catholicism, Mary is believed to be like a god and can answer prayers, etc. (this is an example of a dogma that the pope created - at the beginning of Catholicism, they did not believe that Mary was immaculately conceived...they do because of the papal bull of 1854).  Mormons believe in a goddess mother - she and father populated the earth with spirit babies (who are born and then come into human bodies [and that would include Jesus' birth...]).

 

Both rely heavily on works - the Catholics for salvation, and the Mormons for the level of heaven they will end in (the third heaven being where father is and that is the ultimate goal).  

 

Both religions believe that there is a difference in types of sins. Catholics have mortal - more serious sins, and the ones Jesus died for - and venial - lesser sins to be paid for by each person in purgatory. Mormons believe that there are some sins too grievous for the blood of Jesus to cleanse. In fact, in their history, some have actually given themselves up to be killed to pay for their own sins.

 

Both will side with their traditions (the Mormon "scriptures" are their traditions) over the Bible if push comes to shove.

 

 

Mormons believe that man is becoming a god: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, many may be."  Paragraph 460 of the pope's catechism says:  "For the Son of God became man that we might become God.  The only begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, mad man, might make men gods."

 

There are a number of differences between the two as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

 

Both religions believe that there is a difference in types of sins. Catholics have mortal - more serious sins, and the ones Jesus died for - and venial - lesser sins to be paid for by each person in purgatory. Mormons believe that there are some sins too grievous for the blood of Jesus to cleanse. In fact, in their history, some have actually given themselves up to be killed to pay for their own sins.

 

This is very true, and it also gives them justification for killing 'apostates' from their system, because they believe that only the shedding of the blood of the person who has left them will pay the price for their leaving. This is how they understand the blood atonement-that one's blood must be shed to pay for their own sins-so you're actually doing someone a favor when you kil them 'for their own good'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Thanks so much, HC and Ukelelemike.  This is a very interesting study on the similarities on the RCC and the Mormon "churches."

In many island countries, an RC is known to lay down his life by being crucified to a cross for salvation.  I have seen accounts by US missionaries serving in island countries, where this is the case.  These accounts show a person laying on the ground, and being nailed to it.  

Also, without sounding condescending, as a former RC, I can see many similarities of other religions such as Judaism, Islam and many Protestant religions.  Things taught in the RCC scream loud and clear to me, of things taught in these other religions.    

 

Edited by candlelight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I think, of course, the biggest, most OBvious similarity is that they both worship a false Jesus and a false God, and they completely change what the 'gospel' is, both turning it from "Jesus did it all" to "What WE have to do to finish the work". Aaaand, the both make a lot of money in religion. And no one today seems to want to brand either as a false religion or cult.

 

I guess I could just go on all day but these are all things we all know anyways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I think, of course, the biggest, most OBvious similarity is that they both worship a false Jesus and a false God, and they completely change what the 'gospel' is, both turning it from "Jesus did it all" to "What WE have to do to finish the work". Aaaand, the both make a lot of money in religion. And no one today seems to want to brand either as a false religion or cult.

 

I guess I could just go on all day but these are all things we all know anyways.

 

Well said, brother.  In RC, I see this especially during Lent.  RC's are taught that they have to suffer like Christ did.  Sadly, Lent is celebrated in some Protestant churches, as well.  

Years ago, an attorney in the city of Cleveland, OH wrote a huge article that appeared on the front page of the town's only newspaper.  He talked about all the money the Vatican has stolen via the RCC.  It got lots of results.  You are right about people not branding both the RC and Mormon "churches" as false religions or cults.  I have read material from IFB's that shy away from calling the RCC a cult.  Any religion that teaches anything contrary to "salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ" is a cult.  Sadly, even bold Christians do not say this aloud.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Interestingly enough, Mormon leaders don't get paid - I'm talking about stake leaders, etc (they would be equivalent to pastors).  Missionaries have to pay their own way, etc.  The RCC pays all of their cardinals, bishops, etc.  The pope lives lavishly while the prophet (president) of the LDS does not.  

 

The Mormon church does have money - they are fiscally sound, with investments, etc.  But one thing that I know they do is help each other. There is a system of church (for want of a better word) "welfare" where they take care of their own. Sadly, much better than Christians do.  The RCC simply takes from their members.

 

That in no way justifies Mormonism, but it does explain a wee part of the attraction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

I dunno, I suspect some of the higher leaders like the Quorum of 12 and the prophet prOBably don't get 'paid' but I am certain there are other perks that make up for it. Otherwise how do you keep people who MUST KNOW they are false prophets, to remain in place?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Interestingly enough, Mormon leaders don't get paid - I'm talking about stake leaders, etc (they would be equivalent to pastors).  Missionaries have to pay their own way, etc.  The RCC pays all of their cardinals, bishops, etc.  The pope lives lavishly while the prophet (president) of the LDS does not.  

 

The Mormon church does have money - they are fiscally sound, with investments, etc.  But one thing that I know they do is help each other. There is a system of church (for want of a better word) "welfare" where they take care of their own. Sadly, much better than Christians do.  The RCC simply takes from their members.

 

That in no way justifies Mormonism, but it does explain a wee part of the attraction.

 

That's interesting to hear, HC.  If one needs help in the RCC, you get a can of soup.   :icon_rolleyes:   Although, there are RC "churches" set up with food kitchens.  Take, take and take is the RCC way.  Priests get their hands on a few wealthy members of the congregation, and use them to live their lavish lifestyle and build onto the church.

Years ago, before my mom started working outside of the home, she worked on the Ladies Guild in our RCC church.  During Lent, when RC's aren't supposed to eat meat on Ash Wednesday, and all Fridays during that period, my mom saw the priest's refrigerator stocked with a whole lot of meat.  And, booze was everywhere.  Not just communion wine, but beer and hard liquor.  That was the beginning of the end for her with the RCC.  The end for her and the RCC occurred when her brother died of Colon Cancer in 1983.  She went to the parish priest for counselling.  She received no help.  My dad was already finished with the RCC, when he went to a confession booth to talk with a priest.  He hadn't gone for years and had not taking communion, either.  He told the priest he needed some help rearing my second oldest brother, who was a handful.  The priest told my dad he was a bad, father, and also needed to work on his marriage, as well.  Well, my dad went off!  He preceded to tell the priest that he would never consider telling the pilot of a 747 airplane how to fly the jet, b/c he had no experience and training.  He told the priest, that he had no right to talk to him about marriage, since he wasn't a married man.

Before that, my parents attended another RC church when I was a young girl.  The priest in that church, was telling everyone that they were going to hell (on their works, of course   :icon_rolleyes: ) and that he "the priest" was the only one going to heaven.  My dad almost took his family of six out of the Mass, right then and there.  However, my mom managed to convince him to stay and they would leave quietly after the Mass.  My dad's cousin, a Monsignor in a church in CA, and head of the Diocese of Education in San Diego, at that time, directed my parents into the other local RC church.  We stayed until I was at the end of 6th grade.  We went back to the other RC "church" because it was under different leadership.  Since they extended the lunch hour in the public grade school my sister and I were attending, my parents put us in Parochial School, b/c tuition was free at that time.  My parents were both working and their were a series of kidnappings in my hometown. Anyway, it was in this RCC that I was introduced to the Bible.  I found out years later, that my favorite teacher, in that school, was a Born Again Christian.  My religion teacher, was a nun.  She used the Bible "The Way" to teach religion in 7th grade.  Anyway, years later, the school fired the Born Again teacher, when they changed "church" leadership again.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

This is from a site I found googling mormon benefits. It purports to be from an actual publication given to leadership, so of course I can't confirm it, but it would support the idea.  Found at: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2984029/posts

 

If you go there, spend a couple minutes going over the comments. More first-hand info there, as well.

 

 

Late last year (2012) a copy of the 2006 Mission President’s Handbook was posted on an individual’s blog site. This document, produced by the Mormon Church as a practical instruction manual for mission presidents, “contains basic policies and guidelines established by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles to help you lead your missionaries and direct the work” (6). The book is not intended for general readership; “general” readers have found that it contains some things that are surprising in light of the public face that the Church puts forth.

PaycheckOne such surprise is found in Appendix B, Family Finances. It begins,

“While you are serving as mission president, the Church reimburses the necessary living expenses for you, your wife, and your dependent children. Dependent children are defined as those who are under age 26, have not been married, and are not employed full-time. Living expenses include food, clothing, household supplies, family activities, dry cleaning, personal long-distance calls to family, and modest gifts (for example, Christmas, birthdays, or anniversary).” (80)

Additional reimbursable or paid expenses are also listed including (but not limited to) medical expenses; support for children serving full-time missions; dance lessons (and the like) for elementary and secondary school-aged children as well as their school tuition, fees and books; undergraduate college tuition; a gardener; a housekeeper; internet and other utilities; babysitters; transportation expenses including the use of a car and all fuel and maintenance expenses; and personal health and life insurance premiums.

The handbook instructs,

“The amount of any funds reimbursed to you should be kept strictly confidential and should not be discussed with missionaries, other mission presidents, friends, or family members.” (80)

One can only speculate about the reasons for this confidentiality among friends and family. But the mission president is also instructed to keep mum about these financial benefits to the taxman.

“Because you are engaged in volunteer religious service, no employer-employee relationship exists between you and the Church. As a result, any funds reimbursed to you from the Church are not considered income for tax purposes; they are not reported to the government, and taxes are not withheld with regard to these funds…

“To avoid raising unnecessary tax questions, please follow these guidelines closely:

“Do not share information on funds you receive from the Church with those who help you with financial or tax matters. Any exceptions should be discussed with the Church Tax Division.

“Never represent in any way that you are paid for your service.

“If you are required to file an income-tax report for other purposes, do not list any funds you receive from the Church, regardless of where you serve or where you hold citizenship.” (82)

Eric Johnson and Bill McKeever did some calculations on a hypothetical mission president serving in the state of Utah. This imaginary Mormon Church leader ended up with benefits equaling $99,500 per year. Furthermore, Eric Johnson writes,

“It must be mentioned that tithing on these items are not supposed to be paid. Unlike other church members, this family can receive temple recommends without paying tithing on “income.” Hence, for the value of this compensation, which we list here at almost $100,000, the tithe amount would be at least $10,000. So, this particular mission president—who, remember, is considered a “volunteer”—is getting compensation for at least $110,000! Not bad for someone who is not supposedly getting a wage!”

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

a born again nun?

 

No, I don't believe she was born again, Miss Daisy.  She merely taught religion from one of the MV Bible's "The Way."  It was kind of like the hippy Bible of the 1970's.  LOL  While I was being spiritually drawn, I picked up "The Way" at a garage sale.  I opened it and found a pot leaf inside the pages.   ;)  Anyway, this nun still adhered to the false teaching of the RCC, however, I truly believe my 8th grade Social Studies teacher was a Born Again Christian.  I found this out years later, at my old IFB church, from a man who was raised IFB.  He told me that this teacher, was saved.  Thinking back, I really believe she was.  She was also the best teacher in that school.  She taught the class the US Constitution, we had to memorize the presidents in order, the states and state capitals, etc.  I wish I would have been in her 8th grade religion class.  

Edited by candlelight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

I dunno, I suspect some of the higher leaders like the Quorum of 12 and the prophet prOBably don't get 'paid' but I am certain there are other perks that make up for it. Otherwise how do you keep people who MUST KNOW they are false prophets, to remain in place?

Well, I did specify stake leaders.  They don't get paid anything.  Neither do ward leaders.  That is the local leadership.  

 

The upper leaders do get something - whether stipend, salary, or reimbursement.  They don't, however, live a lavish lifestyle. I've heard that the GA (General Authorities) receive about $50,000 - which is much less than what most of them would get in jOBs outside the church (and, really, $50,000 isn't all that much in today's economy).  Keep in mind that most of the leaders are qualified to be in quite high paying jOBs, for the most part.

 

That's just it, Uke. They don't know they are false prophets. They really believe what the church teaches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

No, I don't believe she was born again, Miss Daisy.  She merely taught religion from one of the MV Bible's "The Way."  It was kind of like the hippy Bible of the 1970's.  LOL  While I was being spiritually drawn, I picked up "The Way" at a garage sale.  I opened it and found a pot leaf inside the pages.   ;)  Anyway, this nun still adhered to the false teaching of the RCC, however, I truly believe my 8th grade Social Studies teacher was a Born Again Christian.  I found this out years later, at my old IFB church, from a man who was raised IFB.  He told me that this teacher, was saved.  Thinking back, I really believe she was.  She was also the best teacher in that school.  She taught the class the US Constitution, we had to memorize the presidents in order, the states and state capitals, etc.  I wish I would have been in her 8th grade religion class.  

 

I wanted to clarify something.  This man, raised in the IFB, had some learning difficulties as a child.  His parents sent him to this parochial school b/c they offered more help for him than the public school did, at that time.  School tuition was also cheaper in the RCC than in Christian school.  Besides, the only Christian school in my area is Heritage Baptist School, out of Cleveland Baptist Church.  It is a bit of a drive for many Christians to take their child daily to school.  Homeschooling was not big in the 1970's, either.  I do know several Born Again Christians who send their children to get educated in parochial school.  Some go to parochial high schools.  I don't know how it is now, but the RCC didn't force anyone who is not an RC to take daily religion classes, and go to weekly Mass.  In fact, during my first two years of teaching, I taught at a parochial school.  The other 4th grade teacher was a Lutheran.  It was my jOB to plan class Masses for my children, when the 4th grade took their turn.

  

Edited by candlelight
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

TLC found a loon who has 5 wives but do modern Mormons have extra wifes?

 

 

President Gordon B. Hinckley, prior president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made the following statement in 1998 about the Church’s position on plural marriage:

“This Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church.... If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”

At various times, the Lord has commanded His people to practice plural marriage. For example, He gave this command to Abraham, Isaac, JacOB, Moses, David, and Solomon (Doctrine and Covenants 132:1). At other times the Lord has given other instructions. In the Book of Mormon, the Lord told the prophet JacOB “for there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife: and concubines he shall have none... for if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things (JacOB 2:27-30).

In this dispensation, the Lord commanded some of the early Saints to practice plural marriage. The Prophet Joseph Smith and those closest to him, including Brigham Young and Heber C. Kimball, were challenged by this command, but they OBeyed it. Church leaders regulated the practice. Those entering into it had to be authorized to do so, and the marriages had to be performed through the sealing power of the priesthood. In 1890, President Wilford Woodruff received a revelation that the leaders of the Church should cease teaching the practice of plural marriage (Official Declaration 1).

The Lord’s law of marriage is monogamy unless he commands otherwise to help establish the House of Israel (see Encyclopedia of Mormonism Vol. 3, pp. 1091-1095).

Current church position on polygamy.  But, yes, there are others who practice polygamy.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

TLC found a loon who has 5 wives but do modern Mormons have extra wifes?

A loon with 5 wives . . . . silly goose prOBably spends most of his life ducking for cover.  :face:

Sorry  I couldn't help myself.

 

God bless,

Larry

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

On Polygamy, what we see as mormonism is actually the reformed LDS church out of Utah-the ACTUAL LDS group are those who still follow the teachings of Smith, not Bring'em Young, who basically sought to completely re-work the organization. But the true faithful still teach and practice polygamy, because Smith claimed that God declared it to be an everlasting covenant-so they believe it is. As well, according to Smith AND current church doctrine, one cannot attain godhood unless one has more than one wife. They get away with this by marrying by proxy-marrying other people in the temple, but it means nothing in this life, only the next. Its my understanding that ol Joe Smith is going to have thousands of wives, as many have married him in proxy since he died.

 

So they baptize the dead by proxy AND marry the dead by proxy. How crazy is THAT? :drool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

I have a book called "Where does it say that?" that is page after page of photocopied articles from various Mormon publications with sections underlined, and mostly without further comment - the quotes are where they occur on the page to give better context to such comments.

This allows contextual reading of comments that are from their own official publications, which are at times astounding in the things being taught.

For instance, Page 158 of "The Seer" by Orson Pratt, 1853:
"The fleshly body of Jesus required a Mother as well as a Father. Therefore, the Father and Mother of Jesus, according to the flesh, must have been associated together in the capacity of Husband and Wife; hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being, the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully.It would have been unlawful for any man to have interfered with Mary, who was espoused to Joseph; for such a heinous crime would have subjected both the guilty parties to death, according to the law of Moses. But God having created all men and women, had the most perfect right to do with His own creation, according to His holy will and pleasure: He had the right to overshadow the Virgin Mary in the capacity of a husband, and beget a Son, although she was espoused to another; for the law which He gave to govern men and women was not intended to govern Himself, or to prescribe rules for his own conduct."

There is no comment in this book at this point, just sections of this underlined, and the rest of the page where this text is found is shown in its entirety.

Similarities to RC and mirrors other false teachings as well. ...

Good book this one. ;).

Compiler (no author as such) is a guy named BOB White; no publishing details in the book, no date, no nothing......

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

Brigham Young taught polygamy.  He, in fact, had 55 wives, vs, Smith's 48. The Doctrine and Covenants forbade polygamy until 1876 - under Brigham Young.

 

The pertinent part of Doctrine and Covenants section 101:  

 

 

 Inasmuch as this church of Christ has been reproached with the crime of fornication, and polygamy: we declare that we believe, that one man should have one wife; and one woman, but one husband,

This, of course, was reaction to the horrible reputation Smith gave the group.

 

In 1842, D&C 101 was amended to add this:

 

 

We have given the above rule of marriage as the only one practiced in this church, to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a matter of his own manufacture; and further to disabuse the public ear, and shew [show] that the said Bennett and his misanthropic friend Origen Bachelor, are perpetrating a foul and infamous slander upon an innocent people, and need but be known to be hated and despise. In support of this position, we present the following certificates:- 

We the undersigned members of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and residents of the city of Nauvoo, persons of families do hereby certify and declare that we know of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published from the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and we give this certificate to show that Dr. J. C. Bennett's "secret wife system" is a creature of his own make as we know of no such society in this place nor never did. 

 

But in 1843, this was removed and section 132 was put in there - the section that endorsed polygamy.  And it remains there today - it's in the copy that we have as well.  Old Joe just kept marrying women...and this was when he revealed himself to his first wife.  Funny, the revelation stated that if Emma rejected it she would be destroyed. She rejected it (at the age of 39), and a year later Joseph was dead.  She lived to be 75.  Methinks that alone should make people pause as to the accuracy of their doctrine...!

 

In 1844, Smith cut off Hyram Brown from the church for preaching polygamy - after he received the "revelation."  Then his brother officiates at a polygamous wedding, but days later denies polygamy.  SMH.  After being exposed, Smith is jailed and then murdered. In OctOBer of that month, Sidney Rigdon admits they practice it, the next month official LDS word was they didn't.  in fact, in 185, the third Mormon prophet - John Taylor - denied polygamy while he had at least 7 (some say 12) wives.

 

in 1852, LDS finally publicly admitted it and in 1854 began to encourage it.

 

 

 

When the family organization was revealed from heaven - the patriarchal order of God, and Joseph began, on the right and on the left, to add to his family, what a quaking there was in Israel. Says one brother to another, 'Joseph says all covenants are done away, and none are binding but the new covenants: now suppose Joseph should come and say he wanted your wife, what would you say to that?' 'I would tell him to go to hell.' This was the spirit of many in the early days of this Church... What would a man of God say, who felt aright, when Joseph asked him for his money? He would say, "Yes, and I wish I had more to help to build up the kingdom of God." Or if he came and said, "I want your wife?" "O yes," he would say, "here she is, there are plenty more"... Did the Prophet Joseph want every man's wife he asked for?... If such a man of God should come to me and say, "I want your gold and silver, or your wives," I should say, "Here they are, I wish I had more to give you, take all I have got."  - Jebediah Grant, first presidency counselor, in the Journal of Discourses 2:13-14  (just ick, man!)

 

But they also condemned polygamy that took place before 1842!

 

Brigham Young, prophet in 1866, said polygamy was more important than statehood.  

 

 

Do you think that we shall ever be admitted as a State into the Union without denying the principle of polygamy?" If we are not admitted until, we shall never be admitted.  - Journal of Discourses 11:269
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

1879, prophet John Taylor: 

 

 

I was asked, “Do you believe in OBeying the laws of the United States?” Yes I do, in all except one—in fact I had not broken that. “What law is that?” The law in relation to polygamy.  - Journal of Discourses 20:317

 

In 1890, with pressure from the government, Wilford Woodruff - LDS president had the revelation to end it.  The 1890 Manifesto.

But it didn't end there.  Joseph R. Smith, sixth prophet, issued the Second Manifesto which condemned polygamy. (Miss Daisy, I think Woodruff is who you are referencing - he was never POTUS, but was rather LDS president [prophet] - we've never had a Mormon POTUS, although they have an old prophecy that states that a Mormon will save the Constitution)  Woodruff's statement was made in Oct. 1890. A year later he started calling it a revelation.  It was canonnized in 1908.

 

 

The Utah Commission, in their recent report to the Secretary of the Interior, allege that plural marriages are still being solemnized... also that in public discourses the leaders of the Church have taught, encouraged and urged the continuance of the practice of polygamy—I, therefore, as President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, do hereby, in the most solemn manner, declare that these charges are false. We are not teaching polygamy or plural marriage, nor permitting any person to enter into its practice.  - D&C, Official Declaration - 1

 

In 1905, in protest of Joseph F. Smith's Second Manifesto, John Taylor and Matthias Cowley resigned from the Quorum of 12 - because they both had multiple wives.

 

In 1943, apostle Richare Lyman was discovered to be secretly practicing it.

 

And in 1958. Bruce R. McConkie, apostle, said:

 

 

OBviously the holy practice [plural marriage] will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium.

 

In fact, it was taught that the only men who could become gods had to have plural wives -

 

 

Brigham Young:  

The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.
Joseph F. Smith: Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort of superfluity, or nonessential to the salvation or exaltation of mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false ... [p.28] 

 

... it is useless to tell me that there is no blessing attached to OBedience to the law, or that a man with only one wife can OBtain as great a reward, glory or kingdom as he can with more than one, being equally faithful.[p.29-30]   (that's the rest of his quote - don't know why it was knocked out of the other balloon)

 

 

Their history teaches that if polygamy isn't true, neither is celestial marriage. But that it will exist in the afterlife.  And that Father is a polygamist.

 

 

 

"When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives with him."  "The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do no know who they were, unless His wives and children...'

 

 

These are both Brigham Young, from the Journal of Discourses 1:50 and 13:309 respectively.

(sorry about the quotes thing...)

Young strongly believed in the "principle."  Under him, women who did not cooperate were not well treated.  

 

Other than the absolute falsity of their doctrine, this idea of men becoming gods creates men who act like they are god here on the earth.  Once sealed in the temple for "time and eternity", many of these men have a drastic personality change - and not in any way for the better!  Nowadays, instead of plural wives, divorce is acceptable.  BUT!  If the first marriage was sealed, then any subsequent wives do not have the chance to be called up in eternity by their husbands to create spirit children. That thought does a real number psychologically on second wives.  

 

I have been told by more than one mormon that polygamy will once again be practiced - and accepted.  It is still, as was mentioned earlier, part of their canon.  The groups who practice it openly now are splinter groups.  But they will be able to claim that they brought the church back into the light once the church again condones it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Lady Administrators

so then Woodrow Wilson was the first Mormon president? otherwise, why would the Mormons care if he received a revelation? first I heard of this "revelation".

I mentioned this in my long post, but it wasn't Wilson. The Mormon president referenced was Wilford Woodruff.  The US has never had a Mormon POTUS.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

a born again nun?

We don't know how many RCs are saved. We can assume some common doctrine, trinity, death and resurrection of Christ as our Saviour, confused by much error. How did Jesus relate to the very faulty understanding of the Samaritan woman? Their common need - "give me a drink." The barriers of centuries of hatred were lifted by that simple request, & fruitful conversation ensued.

 

We have to build trust before we can break prejudice.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Similar to the Mormon teaching, the RCC teaches that men become God.

 

It's buried in the bowels of their catechism, but it's there...

 

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
SECOND EDITION
 
PART ONE
THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
SECTION TWO
THE PROFESSION OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH
 
CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD
 
ARTICLE 3
"HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, AND BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"
 
Paragraph 1. The Son of God Became Man
 
I. WHY DID THE WORD BECOME FLESH?
 
460 The Word became flesh to make us...
 
***** "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." *****
 
 
"The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."
 
Edited by Allen
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
Covenanter said...

 

We can assume some common doctrine

 

 

 

 

Well, let's see...

 

they bake a cookie, call it god, then eat it to gain 'grace' - Idolatrous blasphemy

 

they play with religious beads - Idolatry

 

they use those beads to pray to a dead human, expecting a service from that dead human - Necromancy

 

I'm failing to see the commonality between the RCC and IFB.

 

We have to build trust before we can break prejudice.

 

 

This is not about prejudice. 

 

Rather, there is a message from God when that commonality just isn't there...

 

 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 
 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. 2John 1:10 & 11 KJB
Edited by Allen
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 40 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...