Katzpur
Not your average Mormon
This is categorically false. Why would Joseph Smith have claimed to have personally spoken to the Savior and then established a Church bearing the Savior’s name but claimed it wasn’t really a “Christian Church”? There has never been a time in our history when we did not claim to be Christians. I can’t imagine why anyone would claim otherwise.
I really don’t need to think I need to convince you that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian Church, and frankly, I find comments like this to be both hurtful and malicious. We do not accept Catholic and Protestant Baptisms because (1) we believe the baptism must be by immersion, (2) we believe the person performing the baptism must hold the proper priesthood authority to do so and (3) we believe the person being baptized must have reached an age where he can repent of His sins and accept the need for Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice in his life. Many churches baptize by sprinkling; literally any other Christian can perform the baptism; a baby can’t concent to the baptism nor can it repent. (At a few days old, I can’t imagine what sins it might have to repent of anyway.)
We believe that our Prophet can, in fact, receive revelation for the Church as a whole, but in order for this revelation to be deemed from God, it must also be received by the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. No one man, not even the Prophet, can change doctrine or policy on his own.
It’s hard for me to respond to posts like this. They are mean-spirited and misleading. I grew up during the period of time when Black men were not permitted to told the priesthood. I was 29 years old when the policy changed in 1978. Many reasons were proposed why the policy was instituted (and they all turned out to be nothing but conjecture), but I was never in my life taught that “dark-skinned people were evil and God gave them dark skin so the good LDS could tell who was good or bad.” That’s an appalling way to put it.
Most educated Mormons today realize that the policy withholding the priesthood from Black men was not given by revelation at all. It came to exist as a result of the racial tensions in force during Brigham Young’s day, and he evidently believed that there was a scriptural precedent for the ban. The Apostles who served with him obviously went along with his perspective. They were wrong. People make mistakes, even prophets and apostles. (I wonder if the Catholic poster who made these comments would welcome a discussion into the history of the Papacy. Probably not.)
They may believe that there have been no revelations given to the Church since the first century, but they have no scriptural precedent for that conclusion. God has never said He was through providing us with His guidance and wisdom. Oddly, this poster says, “People can and do have private revelations which are sometimes accepted the Church.” If God can give some random person (Fatima, Our Lady of Guadalupe) a revelation, why couldn’t He – why wouldn’t He – speak to a Prophet? We believe that only the Prophet (and then subsequently the Apostles) receive revelation pertaining to the Church as a whole. A bishop may receive revelation pertaining to his governance of the ward that is under his stewardship. A Primary teaches may be receive revelation as to how to best convey a gospel message to a class of 5-year-olds. God communicates to His Church through the proper channels. That’s a safeguard.
So we “offer all kinds of feel good stuff,” huh? The gospel of Jesus Christ is “GOOD NEWS”! It’s worth feeling good about! Yes, sometimes the missionaries do get super stoked when an investigator knows as much as you did when you first got baptized, and they may encourage a person to get baptized before the person is really ready. Your poster makes it sound like a kind of a conspiracy, though, and that’s not the case. I think you’re learning that this time around.
One final thought… You know how relatively easy it was to leave Mormonism when you decided what you wanted. Ask your Catholic friends how Catholic baptism works. Unless I’m mistaken, they will tell you that once you are baptized, you cannot have your name removed from the membership rolls of the Roman Catholic Church. You may become a “lapsed Catholic,” but you’ll always be a Catholic. (I wouldn’t personally worry too much about that, because I believe that God has what you might call veto power over any baptism, particularly one performed on an infant. Baptism is only part of what is required of us; belief is the other half and baptism without belief is meaningless.) Regardless of whether you choose to become a Catholic or a Mormon, you will be a Christian. I hope you won’t allow anyone to convince you otherwise.
Last edited:
