Tue 2nd Sep 2014 | Last updated: Tue 2nd Sep 2014 at 16:41pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Mormonism is not a Christian religion

Mormons live exemplary lives but their religion has nothing to do with Christianity

By on Wednesday, 11 April 2012

Mormon Mitt Romney, almost certain to be the GOP candidate in November Photo: Alex Brandon/AP/Press Association Images

Mormon Mitt Romney, almost certain to be the GOP candidate in November Photo: Alex Brandon/AP/Press Association Images

Now that his main rival Rick Santorum has pulled out, it now seems safe to say that Mitt Romney has the Republican nomination in the bag. This means that come November we shall have an election where a Mormon is pitched against an incumbent President, who many Americans believe to be, contrary to all evidence, a Muslim. Great choice, eh?

Barak Obama is not and has never been a Muslim, yet this crazy belief persists; however, the American public seems able to let Mitt’s Mormonism pass. There is a reason for this. While Islam is seen as the religion of the other, Mormonism is in fact a home-grown religion, rooted in the American continent, and rooted in American experience. Say what you like about Joseph Smith Junior, the prophet of Mormonism, but his was a typical American story.

But what this obscures is the fact that, despite their protestations to the contrary, Mormonism is not a Christian religion. It is not even a Christian heresy. It is a religion that has no real connection with Jesus Christ, except at a semantic level. It has been allowed to pass itself off as another manifestation of American Protestantism – some Catholics have been remarkably lax on this front – but it is nothing of the sort, denying as it does the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the exclusivity of revelation in Christ. Oddly enough, Mormonism is further from Christianity than Islam itself. There are indeed interesting parallels between the two. 

Mormonism is based on an audacious forgery, the Book of Mormon. Quite a few American Baptists have undertaken missions to the Mormons to convert them to Christianity and to bring them to see that the Bible itself needs no further books added to it.  I myself have read the Book of Mormon and found it tedious in the extreme. However, I fully recognise that Mormons themselves live exemplary lives. I have no quarrel with the practice of the Mormonism; I have a huge problem with its underlying claims, which are demonstrably false.

There is no room to demonstrate their falsity here; suffice it to say that the claim that Jesus came to America after his resurrection has no historical or archaeological basis; neither does any of the pseudo-history of the Book of Mormon; and no archaeological evidence for it has been found, despite decades of looking for it. 

So we are faced with the prospect of an American president who believes in things that no rational person should possibly believe in: a faith that denies reason. Odd how Rick Santorum, the neoAristotelian, was never treated with the same deference.

  • http://twitter.com/CauseofourJoy Leticia Velasquez

    I think Santorum was vilified because he actually believes and lives by Catholic moral teaching and then drew parallels between strong families and a strong economy
    .Mitt was not a good Mormon when he supported abortion and homosexuality as governor of MA. Americans do not care about your theology if you keep traditional Judeo-Christian morality out of the discussion. Americans rejected that in the sexual revolution of the 1960′s (most Catholics included) and have been facing the dire consequences predicted by Pope Paul VI; objectification of women, governments forcing abortion and birth control on the populace, and near economic collapse from the dissolution of the family and the subsequent reliance on entitlement programs. 
    We are beginning to sense that Rick Santorum and Pope Paul are right, but are not ready to go to confession yet. St Augustine had similar sentiments when he prayed, “Lord, make me chaste. . . but not yet!”

  • DaveD

     There’s always someone to come along and pollute these discussions with idiocy about how Obama is really a Muslim, or isn’t really a Christian, or whatever.  The man belongs to a Christian church for 20 years, but he’s really a Muslim.  Sure.

  • DaveD

     The “fundamental flaw” that Obama was referring to was that the constitution allowed slavery.  I take it you’d like to see slavery restored.  You first.

  • DD

    Mormons think that they all become Gods if they are good Mormons that are married. They believe Jesus was a human that became a God, like they can become Gods too.
    Our religions are way different.

  • MR

    It’s basically a rebranded Pelagianism…nuff said.

  • JabbaPapa

    But I am sure that you would approve of such acts against another faith…

    What a load of bloody rubbish !!!

    I am utterly revolted by the entire practice of post-mortem “baptisms” by LDS.

    Your cowardly attempt to blame this undeniable Mormon blasphemy on “hacking” is contemptible.

  • JabbaPapa

     I’m quite unsure which definition of “religion” you’re using in your post.

    Hence it’s difficult to understand precisely what you mean…

  • JabbaPapa

    Truth is not based on good feelings.

    QFT

  • Jeannine

    The fundamental flaw is in your thinking & Obama’s. The US Constitution was written in such a way so that the citizens can amend the document to better reflect the values of their society. Obviously you & Obama don’t have a clue about the amending process & about slavery in America & the world at the time. 

  • JabbaPapa

     Jesus actually was a “creature” in the philosophical sense of the word during his earthly incarnated life — this is the principle Miracle of the Incarnation, that the Creator became creature. There is a fair amount of mediaeval mysticism devoted to contemplation of this Mystery.

    Mormon teachings actually *deny* that Miracle.

  • http://twitter.com/sqlrob Rob

    Harry Potter mentions London. You can go there.

  • MidWestern

    Prove it, JabbaPapa!  He just gave you numerous examples that fit into the Book of Mormon’s historical account of Jesus’ visit to the Americas. Can you give a valid response other than ‘…mish-mash…”?

  • phillipcsmith

    As a believing, active member of the Church of Jesus Christ
    of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon), I do sorrow for all those who reflect misunderstanding,
    malice and/or animosity toward us. Many do so by either using half truths,
    outright lies, and/or failing to present our views either in context or in a
    conceptual framework that we believe is relevant.  Others try hard to be fair but get some things
    right but other things wrong. I am open to helping them see things in their
    proper perspective.  

    There are some among these critics, though, who seem always
    to be on the attack. The Lord Jesus Christ, who we honor as our God and Savior,
    addressed this issue during his earthly ministry. He said relative to such attacks,
    whether made out of ignorance or malice “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile
    you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely,
    for my sake…Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad: for great is your reward in
    heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”  (Matthew 5: 11-12).

    For those who wonder why anyone would attack Jesus and the
    followers of his day, the Savior added the following interesting insights.
    After telling his apostles that they would be persecuted and otherwise
    mistreated he said “the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that
    he doeth God service.” (John 16:2). Then he goes on by saying “and these things
    will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.” (John
    16: 3). Critics of others’ religions and beliefs probably believe that they
    also are doing the right thing, even what God wants them to. What does Christ
    say of this? Those who don’t appear to believe in religion have other
    motivations, but still too often end up being critical rather than understanding.

    Such critics should also, however, give heed to the council
    the Jewish leader Gamaliel gave to other Jewish leaders who were
    misrepresenting and often persecuting the early Christians. He said “refrain
    from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work (of these
    early Christians) be of men, it will come to nought: but if it be of God, ye cannot
    overthrow it; lest…ye be found even to fight against God (Acts 5: 38-39)

    We are taught, though, to “turn the other cheek”
    and “return good for evil” and this present scrutiny of the Church
    gives us the opportunity to do so as we attempt to set the record straight. I
    hope that those who hear of us will seek to understand our true positions. Draw
    your lessons from the good, faithful members of the Church. Go to official
    Church websites for your information about us.

     

    Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.
     

  • Just-asking

    How does Romney believe Mormonism?  Mormonism is on par with The Church of Scientology.  The founder of Mormonism, Joseph Smith was a known crook.  Mormonism is about to undergo a scrutiny it cannot withstand.  

  • JabbaPapa

    Well, I usually use the term “bollocks” to describe rubbish like that, but the moderators in here seem not to like the b-word, so I refrained …

    The Mormons routinely use indoctrination techniques similar to brainwashing.

    Put quite simply, the intellectual ability of Mormons to differentiate truth from fiction is heavily compromised by these methods of systematic indoctrination that they are subjected to.

    I don’t go so far as to describe it as *being* braiwashing : just *similar*.

    But just as the Young Earth Creationists are indoctrinated into giving credence to all sorts of scientifically untenable teachings, so are Mormons.

    As for the claims posted above, they are unworthy of being addressed by any kind of serious consideration whatsoever.

  • Honeybadger

    There’s a Mormon ‘church’ not too far away from where I used to shop. Saturdays were like a living Freeman’s catalogue for the style of clothes they wear!

    What annoys me is that, at Easter, they still come knocking on the freaking door – in spite of the fact that there is a Sacred Heart cross on the door and a ‘This Is Holy Week’ poster in the window!

    They can afford to dress up for Saturday but they can’t get a decent pair of specs!

  • JabbaPapa

    I do sorrow for all those who reflect misunderstanding, malice and/or animosity toward us

    Not towards mormons — towards the aggressive, patronising, disrespectful lack of ordinary decency that they consistently and publicly display in their relationships with non-mormons.

  • JabbaPapa

    I can’t believe I’m going to set myself up as a target for any extra helping of mormon rantings, but I have an overwhelming desire to denounce this form of straightforward disinformation.

    This member describes the following as so-called “factual errors” :

    1. “The Bible itself needs no further books added to it.”
    Response:  I
    suppose that means that you do not regard anything after Deut. 12:32 as
    Biblical?  I often wonder about people who claim to be such studious
    Christians don’t even read their Bible.  To a reasonable person
    misunderstanding Rev. 22:19 demonstrates a lack of ability to reason.

    ??????????

    As you are no doubt aware, the Bible comprises the Old and New Testaments. Prior to the writing of the New Testament, the Bible did not exist — but only the Torah.

    Apocalypse 22:18

    contestor ego omni audienti verba prophetiae libri
    huius si quis adposuerit ad haec adponet Deus super illum plagas
    scriptas in libro isto
    For I testify to every one that heareth the words
    of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God
    shall add unto him the plagues written in this book.

    2. “and no archaeological evidence for it has been found, despite decades of looking for it.”
    Response: 
    what that statement demonstrates is a profound lack of reading many old
    texts that are familiar to many LDS people; such as Dr. Hugh Nibley’s
    many works on The Book of Mormon (beginning in 1949); Janne M.
    Schodahl’s profound work, An Introduction to a Study of the Book of
    Mormon (1927); Echos and Evidence of the Book of Mormon, etc.  I have 5
    bookshelves full of books regarding various evidences for the Book of
    Mormon.  If you have not read at least the material mentioned above,
    then you know nothing about what has been demonstrated. &c.

    Fraudulent confidence trickery does not constitute historical nor archaeological data.

    More objectively, many of the claims provided by the Book of Mormon, wherever they are not strictly theological in nature, cannot seriously be described as pertaining to any kind of historical realities.

    3. “Say what you like about Joseph Smith Junior, the prophet of Mormonism, but his was a typical American story.”
    Response. 
    Josiah Quincy (ca. 1883) wrote: “It is by no means improbable that some
    future textbook, for the use of generations yet unborn,
    will contain a question something like this: What historical American of the nineteenth century
    has exerted the most powerful influence upon the destinies of his countrymen? And it is by no means
    impossible that the answer to that interrogatory may be thus written: Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet.” Clearly you are doing nothing more than stating personal opinion, one based not on evidence, but on a predisposed attitude.

    Clearly, you have neglected to successfully read and understand the extent nor the neutrality nor the benignity of that statement.

    And as for “personal opinion, … based not on evidence, but on a predisposed attitude”, your hysterical response to such a simple, benign statement is easily interpreted as being something of that very nature.

    4. “Mormonism is not a Christian religion.”
    Reponse:  Says who? 
    You?  Why do you feel that you get to define what a Christian religion
    is?  Mormons follow the Lord Jesus Christ of the New Testament and of
    the Book of Mormon and of the Doctrine and Covenants.  Mormonism is
    closer to New Testament theology than any other Church, including
    Catholicism.  Our beliefs are not based on a highly argumentative
    debated meeting at the Council of Nicea in order to hammer out a
    “Christian theology.”  Didn’t they already have the Bible?  And why did
    it take more councils after that?  Couldn’t these great learned men get
    it right the first time?

    Mormonism is not a Christian religion because it positively teaches doctrines that are not only directly incompatible with the teachings of Christ, not only because it is polytheistic against the express command of Christ, but because it claims to have an authority superior to that of Christ Himself, by virtue of teaching that the LDS has a legitimate power to contradict Him via its own writings and “prophecies”.

    Oh and BTW — good job with your paraphrase of the inherent double standards and self-contradictions of mormonism — you claim for yourselves certain rights to post-biblical teachings that you deny to others. You claim for yourselves “prophetic” powers derived from your “christianity”, but simultaneously deny that any non-mormon has such powers of prophecy and that non-mormon teachings are wrong.

    No. Mormonism is bloody well not a Christian religion.

    5. “It is a religion that has no real connection with Jesus Christ, except at a semantic level.”
    Response:  A most offensive statement, if ever I have heard one (and I have heard many.  I am one of the founders of the blablabla website, so I can say with great authority that I have seen many an
    offensive statement.  I, and all Mormons that I personally know have a
    “real connection with Jesus Christ.”  You statement is nothing short of
    ludicrous.  Again your statement is one of nothing more than personal
    opinion.

    He says that the “religion” has no real connection with Jesus Christ, except at a semantic level — not that no mormons have such a connection (which depends on God’s Grace and Mystery, not on any of our personal opinions of the secrets of your souls’ relationships with God, of which we are invincibly ignorant).

    For the already abovementioned reasons alone, I agree with the good Father’s opinion. You have in any case failed to demonstrate it as a “factual error”. I myself view it as being a factually accurate description.

    6. “denying as it does the foundational doctrines of the Christian faith
    – the Trinity, the divinity of Christ, and the exclusivity of
    revelation in Christ.”
    Response: Do you believe those “foundational
    doctrines” are found in the New Testament or do they come from the
    Nicene Council?  If you believe they are from the Nicene Council, then
    you are right, we reject those, with very good reason.  Many of them
    don’t square with the scriptures, for example, “The Trinity.”  Mormons
    do believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but not as a single
    unintelligible entity which cannot be understood in any sense other than
    semantics that man chooses to believe.  We MOST certainly do believe in
    the divinity of Jesus Christ!  We, like most of those professing to be
    Christians, accept the Bible to be the Word of God (let’s not play
    stupid games here about what Mormons accept and what they don’t.).  I
    have no idea what you mean by “the exclusivity of revelation in
    Christ.”  Are you suggesting that after Christ was crucified that the
    Apostles and followers of Jesus Christ didn’t receive personal
    revelation?  Again, read your scriptures.

    Again with the Mormon double standards — you claim that revelation is a continuing work of God ; fine ; but then suddenly and magically, these or those persons that you disagree with cannot have partaken of this work of revelation ???

    You raise Scripture to the pinnacle, but then deliberately contradict or disobey its contents. Or simply rewrite them to serve your own sectarian purposes.

    Or, as above, deliberately misquote the Apocalypse of John to support Mormonism when in fact Apocalypse specifically and directly condemns the very basis of the Book of Mormon’s claim to be “scripture”.

    Even the vocabulary that you use is suspect, by virtue of your having warped its meaning out of any sensible context — the Mormon definitions of even such basic words as “divine”, “god”, “revelation”, and “scripture” are incompatible with Christianity as such.

    Mormonism is fundamentally mendacious.

    And then you have the absolute gall to come in here and lecture people about “factual errors” …. when the entirety of your religion is based on a deliberate, historically demonstrable fabrication.

  • Luwy

    For centuries Catholics and Protestants fought wars about what Protestants call “Sola Scriptura”. Clearly, Catholics do NOT believe in “Sola Scriptura”. Yet, Fr. Lucie-Smith is proud to proclaim that the very same Protestants who time and again argue that Catholicism is not Christian, because it is not solascripturian, show that Christians are solascripturians, and therefore Mormons are not Christians. Pot, kettle, black.It further seems, that Fr. Lucie-Smith also misses the fact, that Catholics and Protestants even do not share the same set of books in the Bible, as the Catholic Church recognizes 72 books (if I counted correctly), whereas Protestants only recognize 66 books to be part of the Bible. And since the Catholic Church’s first decision in a council was at Trent, well after Luther decided to rule the deuterocanonical books extracanonical, it is the Catholic Church who added to the already established Christian canon, Protestants argue. Again, pot, kettle, black.

    And concerning “faith that denies reason”, again this is strange coming from a Catholic. Ever heard of the scholastic proverb attributed to Augustine of Hippo and Tertullian, “Credo quia absurdum”? Pot, kettle, black.

  • JabbaPapa

    The sheer number of historical fallacies that you have managed to cram into your first paragraph is awe-inspiring.

  • Stan Barker

    # 1.  Thank you; you make my point well, or you don’t understand what I wrote.  I am well aware that the Bible, as we have it today didn’t exist then.  That is most certainly included in my point, with a sub point that what we have today includes a book in the OT that says the same thing!  So, that statement about not adding to or taking away refers to the Book of Revelation (or Apocalypse), not the entire Bible as we have it today.  But that argument (don’t add to or take away) gets used quite regularly on Mormons to attempt to beat them against the idea that God could actually have more revelations that he has given us.  That couldn’t be further from the truth.  In fact, the Council of Nicea “voted” on books that up to that time had been accepted as scripture, by Christians, but because some of those books contained doctrines that those at the council didn’t want to have as part of their new brand of “Christianity,” they discarded them.
    #2: “Fraudulent confidence trickery does not constitute historical nor archaeological data.”
    Response.  That and your following statement constitutes no response.  You have done nothing except to state your opinion.  I, as most LDS reject that opinion.  It is empty.  Clearly you, as the good father, also haven’t read the books and information I provided or you wouldn’t be so bellicose and cock-sure about your views (here is where you are sounding hysterical).  It’s about the issues and fact, not about your opinion of something you haven’t even read.  I mean, “give me a break!”
    #3: “Clearly, you have neglected to successfully read and understand the extent nor the neutrality nor the benignity of that statement.
    And as for “personal opinion, … based not on evidence, but on a predisposed attitude”, your hysterical response to such a simple, benign statement is easily interpreted as being something of that very nature”
    ??????  (sigh)  “hysterical?”  (snicker) Surely you jest.  There was nothing hysterical in my response.  That is one of those words that those who wish to argue with the LDS use in order to persuade others that they the person using it has the upper hand.  It’s called “poisoning the well.”  But you have not shown that I was hysterical (you can’t because I wasn’t).  My response is clear and stands on its own.
    #4:  My response to this one stands on its own without the need for comment, except for your following opinion:  “it [LDS Church] claims to have an authority superior to that of Christ Himself, by virtue of teaching that the LDS has a legitimate power to contradict Him via its own writings and “prophecies”.”
    Response: Your statement does not demonstrate that “the LDS Church claims to have authority superior to Christ.”  You have merely expressed the opinion that your argument constitutes such a belief.  Simply put, you are wrong and what you said is not true.  What LDS “prophecies” do is demonstrate that those, such as yourself, believe to have been original teachings of Christ, simply weren’t and again, came from the Council (and later councils) of Nicea. Not from the NT.
    #5: So, you are saying that Mormons have a relationship with God and Christ by going around the teachings of Mormonism (which they believe in or they would be a member of the LDS Church)  and not believing in its teachings.  OKAY!  This is a demonstration of semantics at its best!  You are free to think whatever you wish, but I’m here to tell you, just as assuredly as you have stated your opinion, that you are wrong.  My points all stand as demonstrations that the good father was factually wrong, as are you.
    #6:  Your response to my comments seems to me to be incoherent ramblings and have no real meaning.  I’ll let my comments stand for themselves and the readers can decide.

    Have a nice day.  Further comment seems unnecessary, but I’m sure, having learned through years of experience that you will have the need to respond again.  After all, your ego will now have been bruised, but that was because you chose to respond and you expected a response.  If you choose to not believe in Mormonism that is up to you.  But, there is no need for the good father and you to make up false statements about the beliefs of the LDS Church and then, as a “strawman,” attempt to show your prowess by blasting away at something that has the appearance of reality. 

    May I humbly suggest that you read Comenius’ “The Labyrinth of the World and the Paradise of the Heart.” (ca. 1630).  The Introduction alone might help you a great deal.

    Thank you for your time JabbaPapa (perhaps hiding behind a pseudonym keeps you from having to justify your actions in public?).

    The real,
    Stan Barker

  • Allen

    Fr Alexander Lucie-Smith said: “So we are faced with the prospect of an American president who believes
    in things that no rational person should possibly believe in: a faith
    that denies reason.”

    Father, with all respect this seems a rather odd conclusion to reach. You see reason in your faith, yet that reason has been (and continues to be) denied by millions of others. One man’s reason is another man’s folly.

    Just because you fail to see reason in the faith of another doesn’t mean that reason does not exist. If that were true, your faith would fall by the same measure.

    -Allen Wyatt

  • Luwy

    The sheer number of facts you cram into your nonanswer to my posting is even more awe-inspiring. Deal with the facts or go play with Han.

  • DCP the lesser

    “Mormonism is not a Christian religion because it positively teaches doctrines that are not only directly incompatible with the teachings of Christ, not only because it is polytheistic against the express command of Christ, but because it claims to have an authority superior to that of Christ Himself, by virtue of teaching that the LDS has a legitimate power to contradict Him via its own writings and “prophecies.”

    1. Polytheism
    Recognition and worship of many gods…
    (“Polytheism,” in S.G.F. Brandon, ed., A Dictionary of Comparative Religion [New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1970], 506)

    Doesn’t describe Mormon worship or belief.

    2. What “express command” against ‘polytheism’ would that be? I don’t recall reading anything like that in the Bible. Of course, I have a tendency to forget things at times so maybe you can cite the passage and remind me.

    By the way, how does catechetical teacher, Clement of Alexandria, and his “Miscellanies” fit into that claim, since he often mentions all the gods and lords in heaven that he mentions, and has no qualm with the idea that there would be those of the Church would would receive the title of gods and be seated on thrones with the others gods beforehand put there by the Savior?

    3. Mormon revelations make the claim that they come from Christ himself and do not set themselves up as contradictory to Christ when studied carefully.

    On the other hand, have you ever read Father John O’Brien’s “The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion”, complete with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur? What do you think about what he says: “When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man. …the priest brings Christ down from heaven and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man–not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipresent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest command.”

    No Mormon revelation contains anything so blasphemous as that which not only makes a mortal man Christ’s equal but also his superior.

  • DCP the Lesser

    <>

    The major problem is that the approaches of archaeologists with the respect to the Bible and the Book of Mormon differ from one another. When it comes to the Bible, we pretty much know the location of the events so there is little trouble fior archaeologists to find what they are looking for. Not so with the Book of Mormon. In the case of the Book of Mormon it is unknown as to the precise locations of events so no one knows exactly where to look, making that a ‘hunt and peck’ approach that makes finding things very difficult.

    The Bible has it easy because many cultures have preserved the knowldge of the location consecutively for centuries. This is not the case for the Book of Mormon. The tendency of the peoples of Mesoamerica was to destroy all traces of the people and records of their enemies. They would then build overtop the remains of their enemies and cover over any trace of them in the ruins. Examples are many and one example I can give off the top of my head is the tendency to build overtop the remains of their predecessors is in Guatemala, where even the tombs of the revered were overbuilt with the tombs of successive rulers. Without concessions that allow for the destruction of current Maya and other sites to reveal those beneath, Book of Mormon artifacts will be very difficult to find.

    Another problem is that Jewish populations that migrate sometimes tend to take on the cultural traits of those that surround them. This has been observed in several lands where they have migrated over the centuries, one example being seen in the cultural traits of the Lemba, in Africa. This happenstance makes it very difficult to distinguish using archaeology alone. If we found a Nephite artifact, how would we identify it?

    Yet, in spite of all this some evidences have been found, many of which are internal to the text of the Book of Mormon. One archaeological evidence that has been found in Yemen corroborates the Book of Mormon claim of the existence of a place called Nahom, where Ishmael was buried, an altar being found that also bears that name for a region near the place where the altar was found. A regional location has been found that matches the Book of Mormon description of Bountiful in every particular has also been found where the Book of Mormon says it should be found, in what is now called the Sultanate of Oman.

    Genuine Egyptian names (Pahoran/Parhoron, Pacumeni, Ani, Anti, Aha, etc., including some names compounded with the genuine Egyptian Se/Si/Sa and Ze phonemes, as well as names found in the Book of Mormon in the form of compounds that are used correctly (compare use of Anti in Anti-Nephi-Lehi with Egyptian Anti-Set). Even the phonemic components in such an odd word/phrase as Irreantum in the Book of Mormon have a good Egyptian meaning with an interpretation close in meaning to “many waters.” A Late Egyptian constructed phrase using genuine Egyptian words, e.g, Ir r ntu m means “more than all floodwaters” and makes good agreement with the interpretation of “many waters” given by Nephi in the Book of Mormon. Mere coincidence? Joseph Smith had zero access to an Egyptian dictionary of any kind.

    No one in America knew Egyptian in Joseph Smith’s day at the time he dictated the Book of Mormon in 1829. Those in Europe who knew something knew only a few words and phrases that are not relevant to this question. How does Joseph Smith come across these things in his Book of Mormon if not a genuine Egyptian text? Accidentally? One or two names or connections might be an accident. But the number of examples that can be seen in the Book of Mormon on careful analysis and study cannot be a mere one-time or two-time accident. And, only the surface barely has been scratched.

    There is much more that can be said about this but I will only mention that a large and growing, scholarly literary corpus on the subject can be found and examined upon the merits.

  • JabbaPapa

    1) you wrote “factual errors” — answer : nope

    2) you wrote “factual errors” — answer : nope

    3) you wrote “factual errors” — answer : nope

    4) you wrote “factual errors” — answer : nope — also your latest addition constitutes plain double standards — you defend your beliefs by falsely representing mine

    5) you wrote “factual errors” — answer : nope

    6) you wrote “factual errors” — answer : nope

    Thank you for your time JabbaPapa (perhaps hiding behind a pseudonym keeps you from having to justify your actions in public?).

    Not only does the pseudonym protect me from cyberstalkers — it also helps keep me off the radar of one of your ludicrous post-mortem “baptism” ceremonies.

    After all, your ego will now have been bruised

    What a joke !!

  • JabbaPapa

    1. Polytheism …Doesn’t describe Mormon worship or belief.

    Except of course for the part where God and Christ are separate gods, and the part where the saved will become gods after their death.

    2. What “express command” against ‘polytheism’ would that be?

    Jesus was asked: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment.

    and

    You shall have no other gods before me.  You shall not make for yourself any carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

    On the other hand, have you ever read Father John O’Brien’s “The Faith
    of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion”, complete with
    Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur?

    No I haven’t — but does the clumsily expressed prayer of one man, writing in the 1970s, somehow annihiliate the faith of millions ?

    Nihil Obstat provided by Reverend Lawrence Gollner

    Imprimatur by Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne-South Bend

    Neither of whom were ever elected Pope or anything were they ? — and I can see that the anti-Catholic interwebs describe this book as being “Catholic doctrine” which is totally ludicrous !!!

    No Mormon revelation contains anything so blasphemous as that which not
    only makes a mortal man Christ’s equal but also his superior.

    A rather clumsily expressed meditation of Christ’s service to mankind … “For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve…” (Mark 10:45) … For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves (Luke 22:27) … by one man in one book does not single-handedly destroy 2000 years of Christianity.

  • Stan Barker

    I’m underwhelmed by your articulate response.  And your cheap jabs clearly indicate that there is no point in trying to actually reason or talk with you.  As one game show host used to say, “Goodbye!”

  • Adiutricem

    Well, that isn’t right. It isn’t even wrong.

  • JabbaPapa

    Don’t blame me for the non-conversation — I posted my specific objections to your claim that the Father had posted factual errors, based on the clear evidence that you were either providing manipulated information or indoctrination or fabrications as if they constituted positive evidence that you were correct in dismissing several of his comments as being in “factual error”.

    Your failure to acknowledge, nor even frankly to address the issue, that what you claimed as “factual error” is in fact attributable to a difference in your own personal opinion on the basis of whichever information provided to you personally by LDS.

    Your response to that was that I should simply subject myself to the same Mormon indoctrination as you have accepted for yourself, and that unless I did so then my opinions on the matter were essentially worthless. (paraphrased)

  • DCP the Lesser

    <>

    Except, of course, that you have misunderstood the precise definition of ‘polytheism’ given above, which is recognition of AND worship of MANY gods. Two is not many and Mormons do not worship any of those who will become gods at a future time by the power of God through Christ, or any others who may now sit in that position. Only God the Father through Christ is worshipped in Mormon practice. Why deny that truth? Or, were you aware of it?

    Furthermore, even the Bible proclaims that Father and Son are two Gods. The Father is several times referred to as the God of Jesus Christ, Christ refers to his Father as “My God,” and the author of Hebrews is also clear in the very first chapter that there are two who are referred to as God in the manner of one God (“Your throne, O God”) who is anointed by “God, even Your God.” Take a close look at the context from the verses quoted from the Psalms in Hebrews, the context of which isn’t quoted by the author of Hebrews but which may bee seen in the original Psalm. your footnotes should be able to direct you to the Psalm for a look at the context. What do you see if you take the context literally?

    I also noticed that you ignored the comment about Clement of Alexandria and his mention of many gods and lords in heaven, along with said catechetical teacher’s teaching regarding the future becoming gods of believers as well as the fact that there are already other gods sitting on thrones by the Savior. What do you think about Clement of Alexandria’s believing and teaching that?

    <>

    Loving God with all one’s heart, mind, etc., in no way impedes the view that one may acknowledge that others holding the title of gods exist while still loving God with all one’s heart, particularly since none of these others are worshipped by Mormons but God the Father through the Son, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

    The command to have no other Gods before (literally “to the face of”) God is in no way a denial of the existence of others given the title of gods besides God the Father and His Son. See, for example, John 10:33-36, Psalm 81 (82) and 1 Corinthians 8:6, for starters.

    Interstingly enough, the second passage you quote is more relevant to you because the Catholic Church makes images to bow down before in the Catholic churches. What are your thoughts about that?

    <>

    The doctrine of “Alter Christus” is ubiquitous amongst the priests of the Catholic Church but many of the lay members know little to nothing of it. It is not just one man who advocates this view. See below.

    <>

    I would never imply that Christianity, or any of its myriad forms, are destroyed by one book. The interesting thing is, it is not just one man who teaches this in Catholicism. Even the current Pope speaks approvingly of the doctrine in a letter during the Year of the Priest. Here. Take a look.

    <>

    (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090616_anno-sacerdotale_en.html)

    Did you catch the line that is of most interest in this discussion? It is: <>

    As I said above, even the current Pope speaks approvingly of this teaching. Please explain how the verses you cited from Mark and Luke apply here to that?

  • DCP the Lesser

    Wow. That is really weird how the text in the quotes in my response was processed Sorry about that but I have no idea how that happened. It did not look that way when I typed it up in the comment box.

  • DCP the Lesser

    One last thing. Consider the following from your own catechism.

    The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine
    nature”:78 “For this is why the Word became
    man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into
    communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of
    God.”79 “For the Son of God became man so that we
    might become God.”80 “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.”81
    (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 460)

  • JabbaPapa

    (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090616_anno-sacerdotale_en.html)

    Did you catch the line that is of most interest in this discussion? It is: “…God obeys him: he utters a few words and the Lord descends from heaven at his voice…”

    Words by the Curé d’Ars — and certainly not Catholic doctrine.

    As I said above, even the current Pope speaks approvingly of this teaching.

    In fact, he describes these words as being “excessive”.

    Please explain how the verses you cited from Mark and Luke apply here to that?

    The nature of divine Service can be described as Love — which is a shared desire for holiness and salvation.

    So, the Master can serve the Servant, and the Servant serve the Master in reciprocal service, and reciprocated love.

    Would you deny that God has it within the Attributes of His Power, to serve Mankind according to the prerogative of His own sovereign Will ? Can the fullness of God’s Action in this world and towards mankind not be understood via the metaphor of service towards His loved ones ?

  • JabbaPapa

    I’ve been shown this before — IIRC, it’s another of the large number of poor English language translations that has been plaguing the English-speaking Church since the late 1960s.

    460 Verbum caro factum est ut nos efficeret “divinae
    consortes naturae” (2 Pe 1,4): “Propter hoc Verbum Dei homo, et
    qui Filius Dei est Filius hominis factus est, ut homo, commixtus Verbo Dei et
    adoptionem percipiens, fiat filius Dei”. “Ipse siquidem homo
    factus est, ut nos dii efficeremur”. “Unigenitus [...] Dei
    Filius, Suae divinitatis volens nos esse participes, naturam nostram assumpsit,
    ut homines deos faceret factus homo “.

    The clue in the Latin is in the capitalisation of Deus in some places, and its non-capitalisation elsewhere in the excerpt.

    Deus is a noun, meaning God.

    deus is an adjective, meaning divine.

    The Christian is made divine through Christ, and baptism, and salvation ; the Christian does not become “a god”.

    It means that Christians will partake of the divine nature.

    The quote from St. Athanasius teaches that Christians will “become divine” (not “gods”) — in both the mystical sense that Christians will partake of the divine nature (via the divinisation of our souls, etc), but also in the sense of a deep meditation upon the nature of the Eucharist.

    The quote from Aquinas teaches more clearly and cogently, but in the same way, that God’s desire is for mankind to “participate” in the nature of divinity — again, this does not mean “become gods”.

    Bad English translations of Vatican documents by extremist liberal English bishops are a source of much confusion.

  • JabbaPapa

     But I am sure that you would approve of such acts against another faith…

    No I most certainly would not, and do not.

  • Jason

    ” It is a religion that has no real connection with Jesus Christ, except at a semantic level.”  I am unsure of what the author believes “a semantic level” is, however if he means that Latter-day Saints merely connect with Jesus Christ simply in word, that of course is false.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (commonly known as the Mormon Church), holds that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God (note that the author also states that we deny the divinity of Christ, which we do not), is our Lord and our Savior, and it is only through accepting His atoning sacrifice for us that we can be saved and receive eternal life. 

    Latter-day Saints pray to the Father in the name of the Son, Jesus Christ.  We strive to follow the example of Jesus Christ and His commandments.  In baptism, we believe that we not only become a member of His Church, but we take upon ourselves the name of Jesus Christ and covenant to always remember Him and follow His commandments.  In our communion (known as the Sacrament), we renew our baptismal covenants with God and remember His atoning sacrifice for us, inviting His Spirit to be with us.  Our sacred ordinances, blessings, etc. are done in His name.  We believe that He suffered and died for us, and that no mere man could atone for the sins of all mankind. 

    As far as evidence for the Book of Mormon, firstly, it is very interesting that the author links to a website that not only attacks The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but the Catholic Church as well.  It contains numerous articles on why Catholicism and its practices are not Biblical, and stories of former devout Catholics (including priests) that left Catholicism to “truly follow Christ”.  I assume that the author would not like non-Catholics to accept what this website has to say about his faith, so why should we accept what it has to say about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  Clearly things are not as cut and dry as the author would like us to believe.  As far as faith that denies reason, well, I do not think we need to discuss various Catholic beliefs that denies reason (at least to non-Catholics).  To see the other side of this story, I offer one of many similar sites: http://www.jefflindsay.com/BMEvidences.shtml

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/HCKKMVUXVZTLHRKHAANGBKBOCY Alan

    Our first 4 articles of faith…  You can believe that I, as a Mormon, am not a Christian if you choose, but it makes no difference to my belief in my savior whether you do or not.

    1. We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.2. We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.3. We believe that through the [A]tonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.4. We believe that he first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

  • why me

    I find it intersting that catholics are claiming that mormons are not christian and yet, we have mormons claiming that they are. If mormons believe themselves to be christian, well, that is good enough for me. I would let god sort out who is a christian and who is not a christian. Certain caltholics here being aggressive against the LDS faith better rethink there own form of Catholicism.
    Romney could be the next president of the united states. Will the Pope tell him that he is not christian when they meet in the vatican? I don’t think so. And good luck if he does. By the way, there are many protestants who don’t believe that catholics are christian. Maybe we should have one huge flash mob brawl over it. Who is christian and who is not christian brawl. My gosh people, lets wake up before it is too late.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    Fr. Alexander Lucie-Smith sounds no different then those 1920′s era protestant preachers that bleated and roared against Roman Popery and the evils of Parochial schools and encouraged their congregants to go out and vote for Herbert Hoover over Al Smith- after all, a Catholic U.S. President would quickly usher in Rome rule!

    What a pharisee scumbag bigot! When we have a LDS president, I hope he goes cuckoo for coco puffs; he’s already at that level with his knowledge of the LDS faith anyways.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    That’s your proof?!

    LMAO! You are an idiot.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    Your bigotry is insufficient to demonstrate any form of actual intelligence.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    See- http://www.fairlds.org -and read about just how honest and accurate such books are

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    Sorry, but we’re not opposed to caffeine, and if a prescription drug is being used to treat an illness, then there’s nothing wrong with that.

    And I’ve been to Utah plenty of times; the people there are nice to you, regardless of if you’re Mormon or not, and their unemployment rate is one of the lowest in the western US, crime rates are low, gas and cost of living is cheap and I certainly plan to move there someday.

    Utah beats a LOT of other states out there.  

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    Jesus is the literal Son of God that is the Savior of Mankind; Joseph Smith taught that, we believe that. And the NT certainly backs up the idea that God and Jesus are NOT the same being, else why would Jesus pray to His Father.

    Jabba, you have the same intelligence and wisdom as those psycho, overweight anti-Catholic street preachers out there.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    Only problem is that a LOT of the wild and shocking claims that ex Mormons make against their former faith just cant be clearly proven and made valid when put under the microscope of scrutiny. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    Neither is it based on ignorance or skewed interpretation

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    To further read up on Parasum’s claims, please check out- http://www.fairlds.org

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    Have any other non-christian scholars verified the evidence for Adam and Eve, Moses parting the Red Sea, Jesus ascending to Heaven, etc.?

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cody-Quirk/100000377914597 Cody Quirk

    Psalms 82:6 as one example in the Bible where it backs up such a claim.