Conference tecrus::mormonism

    As an ex-Catholic, I liked reading this Catholic's boiled-down
    definition of Mormonism.  It recalled to me my  parents and priests
    stern objection to my conversion. This definition seemed to have
    a tone of impartiality, not outright condemnation.  Although, the
    idea of Mormonism having incorporated pagan ideas seems strange
    when one considers the history of Christianity's and Catholicism's
    absorption of pagan influences (i.e. Easter and Christmas being
    only a small example).
    
    Thanks for entering the description.  As for its accuracy some hits,
    some misses.  
                                                

>    The Mormons have one doctrine which they preach, and another 
>    which is explained to initiates. ...

    Was there any explanation about what this meant?  So far, I've only
    been aware of one doctrine ... And, thanks for posting this.  This
    is one of those things that gets one to thinking, 'If the Mormons
    are so bad, how come they're so good?'  This then leads them to
    check it out, sometimes.
    
    Reminds me of an encounter I had while knocking on doors in Denmark.
    A fellow that answered asked us if Mormons believed in poligamy.
    We were quick to respond that poligamy was no longer a practice
    of the Church.  He was disappointed.  That was one aspect he thought 
    he'd like about the Church ...
    
    
    Steve

RE: < Note 148.0 by CASV05::PRESTON : Catholic Definition of "Mormons" >-

Thanks, Ed, for entering this. I got a kick out of the entry, since I
am an ex-Catholic, and I could see some of the same well-here's-the-
story-don't-think-about-it-just-accept-it-even-if-it-doesn't-make-
much-sense kind of declamation I learned in 12 years of parochial
school. 

I would like to respond to a couple points, if I may. 

We hold that when Christianity was founded by Christ, it was
(obviously) based on correct principles and truth. As Christianity was
corrupted in the centuries that followed, some correct principles
nonetheless were preserved. Hence, when the true Church was restored
by Jesus Christ, there would no doubt be some similarities to present
day Christian religious practices. 

This is the case with whatever similarities may exist between 
Mormonism and Catholicism, Protestantism, Judiasm, and Masonry. 
Mormonism is completely independent of these organizations, and is 
not 'based' on them. Rather, they have roots in the same correct 
principles and eternal truths.

As for the other comparisons, the comparison to spiritualism and
materialism is an editorial comment. I don't have any idea what
Sedenborgianism or Campbellism are, nor do I have any clue as to what
the 'several pagan philosophies' are, and would like to hear more, if
anyone has some info. 

    >Christ after His Resurrection set up His church 
    >in North America among the indians, remnants of the lost tribes of 
    >Israel. 

I saw something similar to this in an encyclopedia while looking for
something else. The entry on Mormonism said that we thought the
Indians *were* the lost tribes of Israel, and had a lot of other
nonsensical misinformation about the Church. It was really hilarious,
and reminded me of some science fiction stories about some 25th
century archeologists trying to figure out 20th Century society. 

/kevin

Kevin,

'Campbellism' is the term used to refer to the followers of Alexander Campbell
during the early-mid 1800's.  Sidney Rigdon was a follower of Campbell before
he became a Mormon.  If I remember correctly, the Church of Christ of today
is the same as the 'Campbellites' of the previous century.  Some of the
beliefs of the Church of Christ are faith, repentance, baptism for the
remission of sins, the Bible as the only word of God, no modern prophets
or revelation, and I think no gifts of the spirit today.  If Tony Balsamo is
still following this conference he can give us a clearer understanding of the
Church of Christ.

Allen

> This definition seemed to have a tone of impartiality, not outright
> condemnation.  Although, the idea of Mormonism having incorporated pagan
> ideas seems strange when one considers the history of Christianity's and
> Catholicism's absorption of pagan influences (i.e. Easter and Christmas
> being only a small example). 
    
You may be able to point to examples of paganism having crept into
fringes of Catholic/Christian theology over the centuries, but it is a
misnomer to cite Easter and Christmas as examples. Are you suggesting
that pagans celebrated the birth and death/resurrection of Christ? I
don't think so. I believe you are thinking of the pagan observances of the
the winter and spring solstice or equinox as feast days, that were supplanted 
by Christian celebrations. I have heard this idea expressed before, and
I believe it's misleading. Simply because converted pagans wished to
honor their Lord on these days rather than pagan deities is not evidence
of the absorption of pagan influence. Quite the contrary, I think a good
case could be made for this as evidence of the influence Christianity has
had over paganism, that men could be drawn from worshiping idols to
worshiping Christ. In any case, if the celebration of Easter and
Christmas is proof of pagan influence, then the Mormons are just as
influenced, aren't they? 

�    The Mormons have one doctrine which they preach, and another 
�    which is explained to initiates. ...

>    Was there any explanation about what this meant?  So far, I've only
>    been aware of one doctrine ... 

No, there was no explanation of what was meant by this. Remember, it's
from a dictionary, so further detail cannot be expected. I wondered about 
this myself. My guess is that it refers to what is revealed when one becomes 
'worthy' enough to participate in sacred/secret Temple ordinances, which, 
as far as I understand, are kept from the rank and file LDS.

Ed

>    >Christ after His Resurrection set up His church 
>    >in North America among the indians, remnants of the lost tribes of 
>    >Israel. 

> I saw something similar to this in an encyclopedia while looking for
> something else. The entry on Mormonism said that we thought the
> Indians *were* the lost tribes of Israel...

This is a chance to clear this up then, since I heard somewhere that
Mormons believe the American Indians to be the descendants of the lost
tribes of Israel, but you say this isn't so. Please clarify this.

Ed

    The Book of Mormon clearly teaches that Lehi and the others in his
    party were descendants of Joseph, son of Jacob, who was also called
    Israel. Thus the people in the Book of Mormon, and the American
    Indians, to the extent that they are descendants of the people in the
    Book of Mormon, are Israelites. I phrase it this way because we do not
    know what, if any, other people besides Lehi's descendants inhabited
    the American continents. Mormons do generally think of the American
    Indians as descendants of the Book of Mormon Lamanites and thus as
    members of the house of Israel. 
    
    Mormons also believe in the teachings from both the Bible and Book of
    Mormon that refer to the scattering and gathering again of Israel. For
    example, when the resurrected Savior appeared to the Book of Mormon
    people, he also taught them that he was going to visit also the 'lost
    tribes' of Israel. He told them that in the last days he would gather
    them in to fulfill the covenant the Father had made with all the people
    of the house of Israel. 

    The Book of Mormon people are referred to as a 'remnant' of the House
    of Israel, but not as part of *the* lost tribes of Israel. We do not
    know where the lost ten tribes are at this time, but that they will
    return during the latter days. 

    Your brother in Christ,
    Rich
        

   re: 148.0 & .4

       I too, am interested why you compared Mormonism with Campbellism.  The
   Church of Christ and the restoration movement owes a lot to Alexander
   Campbell and others for what they started.  I have read little of mister
   Campbell, however I do know that he and other reformers were less then
   content with the then direction of the reformation movement and sought to
   'Restore' rather than 'Reform' Christianity back to the pattern of the
   first century Christians.  They sought to turn away from tradition and man
   made doctrines and a return to Bible as the only inspired and reliable Word
   of God.

   >If Tony Balsamo is still following this conference...

       Yes, Allen, although I have not found an occasion to reply, I still do
   follow this conference.

   In Christ,
   Tony
    

    To Preston on Pagan Influences in Christianity.
    
    A cursory study of Catholic history and the Reformation (i.e. Martin
    Luther's era) will point to the influence that non-Christian beliefs
    and practices had on Catholicism. An even closer study of the first
    3 centuries of Christianity will also show that it was not too long
    after the first century that Roman influences were taking over (i.e.
    Emperor Constantine and his reign).  The studies of Protestantism
    I made, during my search for truth, showed that basically Protestantism
    used Catholic thought as its base but removed controversial practices.
    
    A previous note of mine listed when current Christian beliefs appeared
    on the scene (most arriving about 300AD.)
    
    I visited Rome a few years ago and during a tour of the city our
    tour director, an Italian, pointed out how the Roman Empire influenced
    Christian/Catholic thought and practices and how Christianity adapted
    itself in order to survive Rome.  The same story can be told of
    France where I lived for a year.  
    
    I came to the conclusion, as did Roger Williams and many other persons,
    that Christ's church and his teachings/practices, were seriously
    changed, adapted and/or dropped after 300 AD.  From that point in
    history Aristotelian logic, as applied by Thomas Aquinas, became
    the filter through which Christian theology was passed. Then add
    whole spate of schisms, excommunications, Papal Bulls, edicts, etc
    emanating from Rome (or Avignon, France), or Paris or England during
    the middle ages and up to the Reformation and you get a pretty clouded
    picture of Christian theology.
    
    But all of this is just to say that to say that Christian thought
    itself not been influenced by "pagan" belief systems/practices is
    to be blind to history.
    
    Mormonism's position is that it is the Restored Church of Jesus
    Christ, thus wiping away 1800 years of these influences and stating
    that Christ's Church, that is the Church as Christ set it up, is
    once again upon the Church.
    
    I recently had a conversation with an ex-Jesuit Priest.  I mentioned
    to him that on a recent attendance at a Catholic Mass, I was impressed
    on how things had changed and how similar they seemed to some of
    Mormon ideas/practices.  His answer (and this is a direct quote):
    
   "Catholicism is trying to scape away 2 thousand years of encrustations
    to get back to the way Christ set it up." 
    
    Well, what does this all mean.  Given what I have read about Christian
    history and the pressure it was subjected to, it is a miracle that
    anything survived.
    
    Regards to one and all,
    
    Paul

    A. Campbell and comparison to Morman Church

    The Catholic comparison of Campbell and the Morman church maybe due in
    part to the fact that he was one of a great many people who stumbled on
    the baptism of adults upon their confession (Living and Verbal) of
    faith in Jesus/G_D, sort of a resolution of salvation by Faith and our
    response i.e. one cannot go without the other. Anyway as a pratice the
    two must look similar to the outside observer although in terms of the
    basis upon which each have been built they are worlds apart.

    Another similarity ?

    Do Mormans assert the "Doctrine of Original Sin" ? (Post 300 Addition)

    <Non Objective mode>    I find Original Sin repugnant <Objective mode>


    An excellent summing up by .-1 There are obvious lessons to be gained
    from understanding the points raised although some responses that
    people encourage I feel are a bit lopsided. In fact it might be said
    that for most the following applies

    "Once a <Cultural Mix Religous Bias> always a <Cultural Mix Religous Bias>"

    It's a bit of a sad joke really that most of humanity really can't do
    as their told (See Luke 13:34 note esp the preceeding discorse so often
    used to bring other points home)

>    Do Mormans assert the "Doctrine of Original Sin" ? (Post 300 Addition)

Mormons believe the Jesus Christ fully atoned for the sin of Adam. Thus, we
believe that babies are born into the world clean and pure and "of thus are
the kingdom of God".  We, therefore, do not believe in the doctrine of
original sin.  However, as mortals we all commit sin and become separated
from God and thus suffer a spiritual death.  We believe that Jesus atoned
for our sins and that through his blood and grace, our sins can be forgiven,
our spiritual death overcome, and we can be with God in the eternities.  We
believe that Jesus requires that we repent from our sins and obey God's
commandments before he will allow his atonement to remove our sins.

As background reading, you may want to read the following notes:

4.41  Our freedom to choose
4.42  The Book of Mormon teaches free agency
4.43  Latter-day revelation: Spheres of freedom
4.44  The Fall of Adam
4.45  Born in sin
4.46  The Atonement of Jesus Christ
4.47  What happens to children who die?
4.48  The Book of Mormon Teaches the salvation of children

Allen

    Re: .11
    
    As a side note, we believe that children are innocent until they
    reach the age of accountability. That is, they cannot sin and have
    no need for repentance until that time. The Lord has revealed to
    that children reach the age of accountability at the age of eight.
    That is why children are baptized at the age of eight in the LDS
    church. 
    
    Your brother in Christ,
    Rich

In the September 1988 issue of Sunstone, there was a blurb about a 
Catholic bishop in a diocese out west somewhere (I don't have the
article here, but I'll get it and report the specifics if anyone wants
them). 

In essence, this bishop declared that Mormon baptisms were recognized 
by the Catholic Church as being valid for purposes of being recognized 
as a Christian.

In practical terms, this means mainly that Mormons who marry Catholics
may do so in a Catholic church building, by a Catholic priest.
Evidently, if a Catholic marries a non-Christian, the marriage cannot
take place in a church building, or be performed by a priest. 

This is progress of a sort. When I was a Catholic, the idea of a
Catholic/non-Catholic marriage was grounds for excommunication. Now it 
is OK to marry a non-Catholic Christian, which category now includes 
Mormons. 

One still has to be baptized by a Catholic priest in order to be 
recognized as a Catholic, of course, just as one must be baptized by a 
Mormon priesthood holder to be recognized as a Mormon. But I had no 
idea that non-Catholics can hold some kind of 'official' Christian
status in the eyes of the Catholic Church. 

My impression is that Mormons recognize people of other faiths as 
"Christian," the only requirement being a professed faith in Christ -- 
no ceremony necessary. Am I correct?

We had a marriage in our ward not too long ago, between a Mormon and a 
Catholic. It was performed by our bishop, in our ward meetinghouse. My 
impression, however, is that even if the non-member spouse wasn't 
nominally a Christian, it wouldn't matter. Is that true?

Anyway, there are lots of interesting implications in this 
development. 

       
/kevin

    Re: Note 208.0 by ONFIRE::PERM

    Interesting comments!
    
>My impression is that Mormons recognize people of other faiths as 
>"Christian," the only requirement being a professed faith in Christ -- 
>no ceremony necessary. Am I correct?
    
    I think that we generally do recognize anyone as a "Christian" who
    professes a faith in Christ. However, being a "Christian" in this sense
    is not sufficient for salvation in the kingdom of God. Faith,
    repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins by one
    holding proper authority, and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by
    the laying on of hands, followed by enduring in faithfulness to the end
    of one's mortal life are required for this. 
    
>We had a marriage in our ward not too long ago, between a Mormon and a 
>Catholic. It was performed by our bishop, in our ward meetinghouse. My 
>impression, however, is that even if the non-member spouse wasn't 
>nominally a Christian, it wouldn't matter. Is that true?
    
    A marriage performed in a Mormon church house is not affected by the
    religious affiliation of either party. They may both be non-Mormons for
    that matter. Such a marriage, while a special occasion, is valid only
    for as long as both of them live, in contrast to marriage in the Holy
    Temple, which is sealed for time and all eternity. To be married in the
    Holy Temple, both parties must be worthy members of the church. 
    
    Rich 

>    In the September 1988 issue of Sunstone, there was a blurb about a 
>Catholic bishop in a diocese out west somewhere (I don't have the
>article here, but I'll get it and report the specifics if anyone wants
them). 
 
    I'm interested in the specifics.  In our Gospel Doctrine class we
    were discussing this and several people wanted to know where I heard
    this.
    
    Thanks.
    
    scott

    The discussion about the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which was in this
    topic has been moved to topic 210, at the suggestion of Allen Leigh,
    in order to prevent fragmentation of this topic.
    
    Rich (co-moderator) 

For Scott and others who wanted the specifics regarding the base note, 
I have reprinted the article, from the September 1988 issue of Sunstone 
magazine, p. 51:

/kevin
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   In an "Official Promulgation" on the norms for sacramental 
   practices, Bishop Edward C. O'Leary of the Catholic diocese of 
   Portland, Maine, declared Mormon baptisms to be valid, making 
   their recipients Christians, according to Catholic doctrine. Mark 
   Mutty, director of communications for the diocese, noted that the 
   announcement, made in 'The Church World,' 14 April 1988, was a 
   restatement of established Catholic doctrine. Father Paul 
   Stefanko of Portland explained that the criteria for baptismal 
   validity are the method of baptism (immersion, pouring, or 
   sprinkling) and the use of the trinitarian formula.

   Mormons meet the criteria, along with Eastern Orthodox, 
   Adventists, Evangelicals, Episcopalians, Baptists, the Polish 
   National Church, and many others. "Churches who do not believe in 
   baptism, or whose baptisms are considered invalid include: 
   Christian Scientists, Quakers, Salvation Army, Pentecostal 
   Churches, Church of Divine Science, Unitarian-Universalists, 
   Jehovah's Witnesses," said the article, adding, "the above 
   listing is not intended to be exhaustive."

   What does a valid baptism mean in Catholic theology? According to 
   Father Francis Mannion of the Salt Lake diocese, "The doctrine is 
   that any valid baptism brings the person into some kind of 
   relationship with the Catholic Church." ... Father Stefanko 
   noted that Mormon baptisms are determined to be valid chiefly for 
   purposes connected with marriage. The 'Cannon Law Digest' 
   declares that "the baptism of the Mormons in relation to the validity 
   of marriage must be held to be valid;" in relation to everything else 
   [in Catholicism], however, it is termed "doubtful" (vol. 8 pp. 
   677-78). [The distinction between marriage and other sacraments was 
   explained.]

   Church tradition establishes certain ramifications when a Catholic 
   marries a non-Catholic; it makes a difference whether the spouse is 
   considered a baptized Christian, since, in order for any Catholic 
   sacrament to be bestowed, the recipient must be baptized. In the 
   sacrament of marriage, the priest functions as a witness to declare 
   the couple man and wife, but the two parties serve as ministers to each 
   other.
   
   In all other Catholic sacraments (e.g., the Eucharist, confession, last 
   rites), the priest officiates as the minister, and in order to receive 
   them, one must be a member of the Catholic faith. Most non-Catholic 
   Christians who convert to Catholicism go through what is called a 
   "rite of reception into full communion," said Father Mannion, but they 
   do not need to be rebaptized if their former baptism is considered 
   valid.

Re: .5
    
    Thanx for that info, Kevin. My sister is LDS and a number of years
    ago married a Catholic member.  She was required to enter into
    some type of indoctrination through a class for a period of time,
    yet was not required to be baptized.  She doesn't attend the church,
    however the children do (the father is a devout Catholic). Her
    experience appears to be consistant with the statement issued in
    the publication. Thanks for the info
    
    The Other Kevin........

    
    I have found myself in a similar discussion in the CHRISTIAN 
    conference and would like to turn this around for a second
    and ask, 'Would a Catholic baptism [assuming either infant or
    adult 'sprinkling' as opposed to immersion] be acceptable to
    the Mormon church?'
    
    I noted that Rich stated in an earlier note that baptism by immersion
    seemed to be the only acceptable methodology [or so it seemed].
    
    Thanks,
    Charlie

RE: < Note 208.8 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON >
    
>    'Would a Catholic baptism [assuming either infant or
>    adult 'sprinkling' as opposed to immersion] be acceptable to
>    the Mormon church?'
    
Acceptable for what?

Do Mormons accept a recipient of a Catholic baptism as a Catholic? Yes.

Do Mormons accept a recipient of a Catholic baptism as a Mormon? No,
no more than Catholics accept a recipient of a Mormon baptism as a
Catholic. The article indicated only that baptized Mormons were now
considered 'Christian,' not Catholic.

Do Mormons accept a recipient of a Catholic baptism as a Christian?
Yes, along with anyone else who seriously professes faith in Jesus
Christ. For this purpose, baptism by whatever means is unnecessary.

So whereas Catholics have always fit into a Mormon definition of 
'Christian,' it was only recently that Mormons fit into a Catholic 
definition of 'Christian.'

Upon rereading, the above reminds me of an algebra problem. :-)

/kevin

    RE: Mormon view of 'Christian'
    
    From Note 208.1 by RIPPLE::KOTTERRI "Rich Kotter"                       

    >I think that we generally do recognize anyone as a "Christian" who
    >professes a faith in Christ. However, being a "Christian" in this sense
    >is not sufficient for salvation in the kingdom of God. Faith,
    >repentance, baptism by immersion for the remission of sins by one
    >holding proper authority, and receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost by
    >the laying on of hands, followed by enduring in faithfulness to the end
    >of one's mortal life are required for this. 
    
From Note 208.9 by STING::PERM "Kevin R. Ossler"                        

    >Do Mormons accept a recipient of a Catholic baptism as a Christian?
    >Yes, along with anyone else who seriously professes faith in Jesus
    >Christ. For this purpose, baptism by whatever means is unnecessary.


    OK you guys, which is it? Rich claims that baptism by immersion by
    one holding proper authority is necessary and Kevin says that baptism
    is unnecessary??? Did I miss something?

    Confused,
    Charlie

RE: < Note 208.10 by WMOIS::CE_JOHNSON >

Hi, Charlie,

I think Rich and I are in agreement. To be recognized by Mormons as 
"Christian," one need only profess a faith in Christ. Anything further 
is unnecessary to attain the label "Christian," which to us means "a 
believer in Christ."

But if one wishes to attain more than the label, if one wishes to 
attain eternal life and exaltation, one must *also* repent of their 
sins, be baptized by immersion by one holding the authority, receive 
the Gift of the Holy Ghost, and live one's life in accordance with the 
commandments of Christ.

We distinguish between labels and actions. Although many sects accuse 
us of depending on "works" for salvation, that is really a simplistic
way of looking at the idea that Christ told us that there are some
things we must *do.* He told us to repent, to be baptized, to receive
the Holy Ghost, and to obey his word, all in addition to having faith. 
If a follower of Christ - a "Christian" - does all these things, then
that person will be blessed. If a "Christian" does not, well, he still 
retains the label, but he forgoes the blessings that Christ promised.

Does this help clear things up, or did I muddy this further? 

Never unconfused about *something*,
/kevin   |-)

Hi Charlie,

Concerning your question about baptism being necessary or not.  You might
re-read notes 4.61 and 4.63.

     4.61   Many Mansions
     4.63   Latter-day Revelation: The Three Degrees of Glory

We believe that in the next life, there is not just "one heaven and one hell"
but many places where one may go, and we believe that baptism by the Priesthood
is necessary for some of them but not for others.

Also, keep in mind that when a Mormon says "baptism is necessary" he or she is
referring to baptism as practiced by the Mormon church and not baptisms as
practiced by other Christians.

Allen

    The key issue on baptism, in my mind, is authority. The authority to
    baptize, and have it recognized by God, is whether or not the one doing
    the baptizing has received authority from God. This authority is the
    priesthood, as we have been discussing in another topic. 
    
    The LDS position is that the priesthood was lost through apostasy, and
    it was restored by John the Baptist (Aaronic) and by Peter, James and
    John (Melchizedek) to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. If this is true,
    then other Christian faiths lack the authority to baptize, and have it
    recognized by God. 
    
    In addition to authority, God has stipulated through revelation that
    baptism is to be performed as follows: 

         Baptism is to be administered in the following manner unto all
         those who repent -- The person who is called of God and has
         authority from Jesus Christ to baptize, shall go down into the
         water with the person who has presented himself or herself for
         baptism, and shall say, calling him or her by name: Having been
         commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the
         Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 
         
         Then shall he immerse him or her in the water, and come forth
         again out of the water. (D&C 20:72-73) 
    
    Rich