Mormonism and Catholicism

Having studied both Mormonism and Catholicism over the years, I couldn’t help but notice such strikingly similar attributes. What is the relevance of Catholicism to Mormonism in this day age you might ask? Because I believe that Mitt Romney, a Mormon, is facing the exact same criticism that John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, faced when he ran for President.

You see, when JFK was running for President, many felt that as a Catholic, he would bow to the authority of the Pope, even if it was not in the interest of the United States to do so. But as we now know, the American people got past that and ended up electing Kennedy to office.

So what common ties would Catholicism and Mormonism have, you might ask?

First, both religions have a large hierarchy on Earth. Catholicism has priests, bishops, cardinals, all the way up to the Pope. Mormonism has elders, stake presidents, the Quorum of the Twelve, all the way up to the President. I might be leaving out some in the chains of command, but you’ll have to forgive me. Regardless, I think you see the basic point.

Second, in line with the first point, both have one main leader who is infallible on matters of faith and morals. When the Pope is speaking “ex cathedra” on matters of faith and morals, he is infallible. In the same vein, the Mormons teach that their President will never lead them astray.

Third, both limit the authority of the Bible. Catholics believe that you need the Catholic Church to tell you how to interpret the Bible, which is probably why they used to lock Bibles up hundreds of years ago. Mormons only trust the Bible “insofar as it is accurately translated.” Basically, they believe that much of the King James Bible (their only “viable” translation) is still corrupt and only Joseph Smith could see through the errors in it.

As a result of that, we’re led to the fourth similarity which is that both religions add to the Bible. The Catholics include apocryphal and deuterocanonical literature such as the Maccabbean books, Judith, Tobit, and others in their Bibles. Most Protestants don’t regard these books as canonical, meaning that they have no place in the canon of legitimate scriptures. The Mormons add the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants to their required reading list.

Fifth, both religions believe that the destiny of the soul after death can be influenced by the actions of people living on Earth. For instance, the Catholics believe (or at least did at one time) that you could pray for someone else’s soul to leave Purgatory and enter Heaven after death. The Mormons believe in baptism for the dead, a doctrine that allows living individuals to be baptized in the place of deceased individuals. This is also known as “proxy baptism.”

Sixth, corresponding to baptism, both Catholics and Mormons believe that it is essential for salvation. Of course, Catholics “baptize” infants with sprinkling, while Mormons believe in adult immersion. Nonetheless, they both subscribe to it as a necessary part of their faith.

Seventh, both are plagued by scandalous and embarassing histories. The Catholic church really has a great deal, but they’ve been around much longer than the LDS. For instance, indulgences were sold to families who wanted to bail their loved ones out of purgatory. Throughout history, those who were branded as “heretics” went through tortorous inquisitions. The LDS (Mormon) Church is best known for its previous stances on polygamy and for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.

Eighth, both religions are known for changing their positions on doctrine. The Catholic Church just recently distanced itself from the long-held doctrine of “limbo,” which is one of the many stances that the Roman Catholic Church has “flip-flopped” on. As for Mormons, until 1978, African-Americans were not allowed to serve in the priesthood of the LDS church. Of course, a major doctrine that the LDS changed their position on was the allowance of polygamy. The LDS has also been known to make certain changes to the Book of Mormon over the years.

Many really slam Mormons for their “wacky” beliefs like protective underwear, but is it really all that different from being able to purchase salvation?

My point in this post is not to offend Mormons or Catholics. Instead, I’m trying to show how every religion has its own peculiarities. Obviously these two religions have their major differences. But I think the case can be made that in many ways, they are the same. Both are centered around a faith in Jesus Christ. Both uphold strong moral standards. Even as an outsider from these religions, I believe that they both can be admired in many ways.

So I say to you who would not vote for Mitt Romney on the basis of his religion: would you vote for a Catholic instead? If not, we’d better throw Sam Brownback and Rudy Giuliani off your list. Would you vote for a pre-millenialist Protestant? I guess that would affect President Bush and President Eisenhower.

Mitt Romney makes an excellent point when it comes to this subject. He says that most Americans have some kind of faith, and they want to elect someone who has faith. But they aren’t electing a leader in their church. They’re not electing someone on the basis of what church they are a member of. They want someone who shares their values, not necessarily their religious beliefs.

Note: I know there are ways I could delve deeper into the similarities of the LDS Church and the Roman Catholic Church, but I didn’t feel it was necessary at this point. In the future, I may revise this post and add more. Thanks for reading.

41 Responses to “Mormonism and Catholicism”

  1. Timothy Says:

    >”which is probably why they used to lock Bibles up hundreds of years ago.”

    Nope. Catholics chained the Bibles to keep them from being stolen as they were very valuable due to there being so few and all of them hand copied. Catholics ensured the Bible endured and was made available to all. A Catholic named Gutenburg even invented the printing press and printed Bibles to make them more available.

    >”The Catholics add appocryphal literature”

    Nope. Catholics use the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament which pre-dates the Apostles by 200 years and which was also used by the New Testament writers. You’ll find the Catholic canon in the 1611 King James Bible.

    Catholics did add all the Books of the New testament to the Bible about 1600 years ago. Catholics are guilty of that.

    >” both religions believe that the destiny of the soul after death can be influenced by the actions of people living on Earth.”

    Nope. Catholics do NOT believe or teach that. Catholics teach that there are two and only two eternal destinies – heaven and hell. One’s eternal destiny is locked in at the moment of death, no changies. Purification (”Purgatory”, 1 Cor. 3:15) is only undergone by souls which are heaven bound.

    >” Catholics believe (or at least did at one time) that you could pray for someone else’s soul to leave Purgatory and enter Heaven”

    Oh, so very close. Catholics believe that we can petition Christ to ask that the purification of saved (heaven bound) souls (Purgatory, 1 Cor. 3:15) be completed and the soul allowed access to heaven.

    >” both are plagued by scandalous and embarassing histories. The Catholic church really has too many to mention”

    Yep. Christ founded a Church and populated it with sinners. Go figure…

    >” The Catholic Church just recently distanced itself from the long-held doctrine of “limbo,”

    Wrong. Limbo was never a doctrine. You don;t get to declare catholic doctrines. Catholics do. Limbo was a theological construct of theologians. BTW, what does happen to unbaptised babies and young children who die before being saved and what is the scriptural proof?

    >”being able to purchase salvation?”

    Huh? Who teaches that? Catholics and most Christians believe and teach one is saved by God’s grace alone.

    Regarding the Catholic vote. Most will vote for the most “Catholic” candidate regardless of denomination. That’s why Kerry lost the Catholic vote. Kerry wasn’t “Catholic”. Bush, a Methodist, was very “Catholic”.

  2. Braden Says:

    Alright, let the criticism begin. I knew I was in for it with this one. The books I mentioned are deuterocanonical, some are apocryphal. Maybe add is not the right word, perhaps include? Nonetheless, they’re in the Catholic Bible and most Protestants disregard them. As for influencing souls after death, isn’t that what petitioning Christ on their behalf is? Tom-ay-to To-Mah-To. Christ didn’t found the Catholic church. Peter wasn’t the first Pope, blah blah blah. I don’t even want to get into that. Limbo was a doctrine of the RCCh, look it up. There were these things called “indulgences,” which allowed people to purchase salvation. The Catholic church sold them. It happened. It’s historical fact.

  3. Braden Says:

    By the way, since you evidentally believe in inherited depravity, I’d like to say that unbaptized babies go to Heaven because they are innocent. Ezekiel 18:20 says that “the son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father.” Adamic inherited depravity is negated by this scripture. Matthew 18:4 and Matthew 19:14 also contradict the nature of children going anywhere but Heaven. Also, you know that Catholics don’t believe in “grace alone” salvation. If it was grace alone, baptism would be unnecessary, along with all the other sacraments. Keep in mind, my point in this post was not to trigger a theological discussion, it was to show the common attributes between the Roman Catholic Church and the LDS church.

  4. practicalreasoning Says:

    Pretty good analysis overall. Of course, there is always the semantical nit-picking. We Mormons don’t use the term “infallible” when we talk about the church president (or ‘prophet’). We believe he is the final word on doctrinal matters, but still a man, subject to typical human frailties.

    The Mountain Meadows Massacre is a very over-discussed event. Conspiracy theorists like to hypothosize that the Mormon prophet Brigham Young had a hand in the matter. Everything I’ve studied, however, tends to evidence against that fact. It was very likely an isolated incident involving only a dozen or so overzelous “bad apples.” It says nothing of the overall “fruits” of the Mormon Church.

    I think the biggest similarity between Catholics and Mormons is the fact that both claim the exclusive priesthood authority that Jesus gave Peter, and the rest of the Apostles. Catholics believe in an unbroken chain of apostolic sucession, while Mormons believe that the chain was broken once the original apostles all died, but that the chain has since been restored through modern prophets and apostles. Catholics reserve the priesthood for professional clergymen, while Mormons have a completely lay clergy, with near-universal priesthood for all male members. Both, however, do have a heirachical structure that give them the appearance, to outsiders at least, of a corporate identity. In my opinion, this is not necessarily a bad thing if you goal is to haromonize doctrine and teaching.

    As a Mormon, I believe my church contains more light and truth than others – and I’m sure you feel the same about your church. Our goals, however, are likely similar – strong families, personal responsibility, a relationship with the divine, etc. More importantly, religions of all varieties are facing unprecedented pressure from a increasingly secular and athiestic left wing that is hell bent on supressing religious expression.

    I wasn’t around in 1960 to see how fervently JFK was persecuted for being Catholic, but the sheer magnitude of vitriol being spewed toward Romney really surprises me. I read some of this stuff, and have to ask myself, “have these people even met a Mormon?” In fact, I’m sure it’s a only a matter of time before some anti-Mormon nutjob shows up in the comments to spread the hate.

    Our Constiution specifically prohibits a religious tests for office (Art. VI). Some segments of society effectively seek to impose one on our presidential candidates. Thier agenda of bigotry and hate is clear. First, they don’t want Mormons running for president, next, they’ll won’t want Mormons voting for one. It’s an unrelenting effort to relegate Mormons to second-class citizenry. Many of our presidents did not come from orthodox protestant Christianity: Nixon was a Quaker, Jefferson a diest, Eisenhower was raised a Jehova’s Witness, and Lincoln showed no religious affiliation whatsoever. Why, today, have people decided to put their foot down on a Mormon?

  5. Braden Says:

    Excellent points, PR. I like Mormons. They are really friendly people. And they take criticism a lot better than a lot of other denominations. I know the Mountain Meadows massacre is a tough topic, but I think you see why I mentioned it. I really did try to be fair with this post. And I could’ve gone into further depth in criticizing both religions, but that really wasn’t the nature of the post. I just wanted to point out, like you mentioned, that religious affiliations are relative when it comes to selecting a candidate.

  6. jens Says:

    I thought it was a well thought out post. I get the idea that Timothy was getting a bit defensive. Unfortunately all of that stuff did happen. So did the Crusades. Mormons have had a pretty bad history with Blacks. Not just not letting them into religious posts but downright hostile toward them as humans.

    “Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.”
    Brigham Young

    Protestants aren’t immune either. Witness the many scandals of conservative Christian TV preachers and the like.

    Overall, the arguement that any religion has any more weird beliefs than the other is absurd. The story of Jesus is equally absurd on its face as that Jesus might have set foot in America and preached to the Indians. It is equally as strange to believe that the different tribes of the Northwest were decended from the severed parts of a giant which was thrown over the land by coyote, or that you will be reincarnated until the achieve Nirvana. If you grew up hearing the stories they would not seem absurd because it would be a part of who you are. If you believe it, that is well and good. I hope it makes you a better person. But disparaging someone elses belief as ‘weird’ is self defeating until you look at your own beliefs objectively.

    I thought the post was pretty well balanced, fair, and insightful.

  7. jens Says:

    Of course the irony of all of these awful things that different reliions have done is that they teach that things like this should not happen. So, is a religion made up of the people within it who do bad things or the teachings, which teach good things. It seems most religions mix both, and thier books generally allow justification for both depending on how you read them. Making judgements based on religion, or trying to say one is “better” or “more true” is just an excercise in sillyness as far as I’m concerned.

  8. brendan Says:

    “There were these things called “indulgences,” which allowed people to purchase salvation. The Catholic church sold them. It happened. It’s historical fact.

    No it’s not. Salvation is an unmertied Gift from God. It cannot be purchased. Our final end is determined by God alone.

    No level of alms giving can help those condemned to Hell.

    Those in Purgatory have already been judged to be Saved and will enter Heaven.

    But unless a person feels that the are already perfect and sinless in life now, some level of Purfication will need to be done before entery into Heaven.

    Luther thought that we still retained our corrupted Nature in Heaven, but that God choose to ‘overlook’ that. The classic “Snow covered Dung Heap”

    Unlike the Lutherans, The Catholic Church believes otherwise, that we will truely be made “Perfect, as our Heavenly Father is perfect”, but it will not happen in this life, but rather between here and our final entry into Heaven.

    And unlike the Fundamentalist tradition, we don’t believe we are totally perfect and sinless the moment we accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior

    So if you are going to critize Catholic Theology, at least get it right.

  9. Scott Says:

    Good job, Braden. Excellent and fair. I’m going to get an ex-Catholic to read it and see if he thinks that it is fair and accurate.

    Jens, I’m going to challenge you. Don’t take it the wrong way. How do you know anything about right and wrong? What’s you’re authority to make your statements about religion having a mix of right and wrong? Lastly, I hope you’re not including the Bible in “their books”, because on that, you would have erred greatly.

  10. jens Says:

    Scott, I’m going to try to answer that by in part skirting the question. I know where you are headed and it quickly becomes a bloodbath in words or deeds depending on the social, political and geographical nature of the argument. Witness, the Middle East, Pakistan & India, China & Tibet, Pentacostal vs. Catholic, The world vs. Mormonism, World vs. Atheism, Hutu vs. Tutsi, King Richard vs. Saladin, ad nauseum (emphasis on NAUSEUM!)

    Any time that you begin comparing religions you reach a stalemate. If you happen to believe in a religion you will automatically believe it to be superior for obvious reasons so arguing the point is impossible. It is an exercise in logical conversion at best and a screaming match at worst. In the case of nations it quickly becomes a bloodbath.

    I certainly would never claim to have a corner on right and wrong. If I did I think you could feel free to call me a heretic or a messiah, either would be justified. As it is I’m just human and don’t want either label.

    If you will look I never said anything about right and wrong. I did, mention good and bad. I think that is a valid distinction to make.

    The bible makes it fairly clear what is right and what is wrong via the ten commandments and many other edicts, not to mention the teachings of Jesus. People, on the other hand, use the book for good and bad purposes. My point, and I hope you would not disagree, is that there is plenty in the Bible that can be used to justify a good or a bad act by picking and choosing what verse you read. It is similar in every other religious text I am familiar with.

    If you will forgive me I will use the Bible as an example as that is what I know best:

    *Moses was given the ten commandments in the desert and forced his people to obey them. What was the 6th commandment? Thou Shalt not Kill. What are some of the laws of Moses just before his death in Deuteronomy? Here are a few quotes:

    “When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you may nations…then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them and show them no mercy.” Deuteronomy 7:1-2, NIV. 1
    “…do not leave alive anything that breaths. Completely destroy them…as the Lord your God has commanded you…” Deuteronomy 20:16, NIV. 1
    And a choice quote from Samuel:
    “Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.” (1 Sam. 15:2-3).

    Moses also decrees death as the penalty for believing in other religions and for disobeying one’s parents.

    So, would you not say that there is a disconnect there between the rules (Thou Shalt Not Kill) and the practical application of them (Wiping out the Amelikites and killing women and babies).

    Before you freak out though, my point is not that the Bible is wicked or hypicritical. Obviously the New Testament establishes a New Covenant and a much gentler religion based on love and care. My point is that these passages about killing can be used to justify things that we would percieve as bad, for example killing whole races of people that we don’t like.

    Islam is the same. The main point of Islam is peace and becoming a better person through service to others. There are quotes, however, that al Qaeda uses to great effect to state that jihad=holy war and it is a justified thing to do. They are doing bad things and justifying it using a good religious text.

    I’m sure you will disagree with me about listing the Bible with the “other books”. I’m sorry you feel that way. I’m not trying to bash your religion, I’m just making a factual statement that they all include passages that can be used to justify horrible things that people do, whether or not the whole text would support that kind of behavior. It is not a judgement of whether any of them are more or less true.

    The Bible is a great example of a book with a moral. Unfortunately, if you don’t understand the overall teachings you can get caught up in single passages that justify things that are contrary to the whole. Partly it is due to multiple people doing the physical writing (I assume you believe that God worked through others hands to write it, not that he actually penned it himself) and partly due to it being a combination of historical document and teaching document. The people in the Bible were human and they had human failings, like killing a whole race of people in Canaan. You can’t get caught up in that and discount the whole book.

    So, please realize I’m not judging the veracity of any of the religious texts, including the Bible. I’m commenting on the ability of people to use them for their own ends, regardless of the good or bad ramifications of those acts.

  11. Braden Says:

    Brendan, I agree that salvation is through the grace of God. But I also believe that grace must be accessed by baptism, as do you, correct? I do not believe salvation can be purchased and I don’t think that Catholics CURRENTLY think that either. But at one time, Catholics did believe in selling indulgences to grant release from purgatory. If not, what were indulgences for? By the way, would you say that in Luke 16, Lazarus was being “purified” or “refined by fire” while at the same time being comforted by Abraham? I have trouble reconciling that concept.

  12. jens Says:

    Correction: I did make a judgement of religious texts as a whole in my previous post. If you look at the miracles and supernaturalism of any religious text at face value it is blatantly silly from a fact based point of view. Religion isn’t fact based, and never will be. What a believer believes in his heart is what it is and shouldn’t be quibbled with. I will never single out a particular religious belief as “silly”, but taken as a whole they all include lot’s of silly stuff that seems to be impossible and improbable. Overall it teaches a good lesson, if you can get stay out of the pitfalls of cherrypicking quotes to justify your actions that I mention above though. So, I did make a judgement of religion as a whole, but you won’t catch me saying one religion is better, more true, or less silly, than another.

  13. Scott Says:

    Jens,

    To answer your skepticism, your understanding of the Old Testament is a common misunderstanding. There are two different words in Hebrew and Greek for kill and murder. Thanks to flawed English translations, many translate these words in the original with both kill and murder in English, but there is a difference between killing the guilty and murdering the innocent.

    The complete destruction of a people was not typical of the Israelites fighting against them as is seen by Deuteronomy 20:10-15, which a part of one your citation. The whole invasion of Canaan was promised and it was a judgment upon the sins of Canaan. The killing of the people of Canaan was not murder, but a judicial killing judged by God Himself and done by man. These people were killed for their wickedness (Deut. 9:4; 18:9-12; Lev. 18:24-25, 27-28). God was just and gave them time until their wickedness was full (Gen. 15:16). There was simply no other workable solution. See, God told the Israelites to put to death those who murder (Lev. 24:17). This is no contradiction. The contradiction of kill and murder is your own and not of the Bible. The people of Canaan were guilty and died by judgment of God including both man and woman.

    Children die every day. It’s sad, but it is true. This is how God has created the world that we all die even children. The continuing death of children today is only as unjust as the death of the children in Canaan, and in this case, there was no other option. It was not unjust of God for children to have died in the flood in a judgment of God against man and woman while judgment was not against the child (Gen. 6). The cause of the deaths of these children was their parents. Isn’t this true today of parents who break the law and/or are abusive? The children suffer more even when justice comes upon the parents, but not because of those giving justice but because of the parents. In all of these cases, the children suffered unto death, then they inherited Heaven by God’s Will (Matt. 19:14). That is certainly more than just on God’s part. These incidents of children being killed is certainly not one of injustice on the part of any person nor God. Though we might conjecture about other solutions to these situations, evidently God saw none. Clearly, the Bible has no part in supporting any murders.

    “For all His ways are justice: A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, Just and right is He.” (Deut. 32:4).
    “Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his Maker?” (Job 4:17).
    “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past tracing out! (34) For who has known the mind of the Lord? or who has been his counselor?” (Romans 11:33-34).

    Erring religion has been used to allow murder, but then look at Hitler’s use of evolution and the state of the atheist mind of Stalin to see the murder that no religion allows. No religion is just as guilty as erring religion. Without God, who can say that murder is wrong?

    It is true that you did not reference right and wrong but you did label behavior as being good and bad, which is the same thing. I hope you’ll consider how you know right and wrong, and I hope that you will recognize the day will come when we will all be judged having earned a spiritual death for our deeds. Who will satisfy your sins? Not believing in this will not prevent it.

  14. jens Says:

    I would submit two questions to you then:

    How do you know when a command to wipe out a race of people is from God or when it has been made up to satisfy the worldly desires of a despotic leader?

    Don’t take this the wrong way. It is a hypothetical question based on your response above that justifies the invasion of Canaan and feeds off the previous question:
    I assume that if God told you to take part in a genocide, and you knew it was him speaking, you would do it?

    As for right and wrong vs. good and bad I see a huge distinction. The definition of good is “having positive or desirable qualities”. Right, on the other hand relies on freedom from error. It’s definition is, “correct: free from error; especially conforming to fact or truth”. I will never say that one religion is right or wrong. As a human I don’t have that ability to be certain, nor do I want it. It is fairly obvious on the other hand that killing a whole race of people has horribly negative impacts for all involved (death, PTSD, injury, civilian death, increased disease, etc…) and could easily be said to be bad. Getting along, despite our differences, has many positive attributes and could easily said to be good.

    Has religion erred? Yes. Have non-religious people erred? Yes. That is my point. The common ground in your statements is the word PEOPLE. People are the problem, they twist the teachings to fit their own ends. The fact that you admit that proves my point. I’m not arguing that the Bible is right or wrong, I’m arguing that all of the religios texts have parts that can be twisted to fit worldly desires.

    As I said in my previous post: “Before you freak out though, my point is not that the Bible is wicked or hypicritical. Obviously the New Testament establishes a New Covenant and a much gentler religion based on love and care. My point is that these passages about killing can be used to justify things that we would percieve as bad, for example killing whole races of people that we don’t like.”

    So…I’ll admit to you that my interpretation of commandment 6 was flawed. The irony is that it fits my premise precisely. People misinterpret the text and take parts that they agree with and use those to the exclusion of the lesson as a whole. So, my overall point is not that I think the Bible, or any religious text, is RIGHT or WRONG. I think the Bible, as well as many other religious texts, are good. It just so happens that people are people and they use it for bad as well. The text allows it because of these inconsistencies due to translation, misunderstanding, and human error.

  15. Kenlie Says:

    Mitt said it best during the CNN debate in early June when he said…”Like JFK, I am not running as a Mormon; I am running as an American.”
    That’s really most relevant, in my estimation.
    -Kenlie

    http://www.theivyroad.com

  16. Kenlie Says:

    Actually, I’d like to mention one more thing…

    One characteristic that I see in Mormons is honesty…Though I am not Mormon, I do embrace the idea of having an honest man in office. And I think Mitt fits the ticket.

    -Kenlie

    http://www.theivyroad.com

  17. Scott Says:

    Jens,

    I appreciate and respect your honesty. I come across so many abrasive people that it’s nice talking to you. Forgive me if I’m overbearing. I see your understanding of good and bad, and I think that you’re right in presenting it as many would understand it. I do see it differently coming from the Bible when the righteous are good and the good are righteous. I guess that would change my question to: how do you know what is good and what is bad?

    I know that you do not see one religion over another but in the case of Christianity, there is just no middle ground. In regards to Christianity, it is either Christianity and nothing else or most everything else and not Christianity. Acts 4:12 – “And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” John 14:6 – Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” There is nowhere in between unless one rejects most the beliefs of the Christian faith and then slaps the label “Christian” on what’s left without any biblical or ecclesiastical authority.

    The New Covenant is better, but not much gentler in the end. There is still church discipline (1 Cor. 5), Hell (Rev. 21:8), and Christ’s wrath (Rom. 1:18, 2 Thes. 1:7-9).

    One more thing before addressing your questions, I wasn’t freaking out, but I couldn’t let your comments regarding the Bible to stand and still have a good conscience regarding my faith. Freaking out would be someone condemning you to Hell and being more of a jerk than me.

    “How do you know when a command to wipe out a race of people is from God or when it has been made up to satisfy the worldly desires of a despotic leader?”

    Well under the New Testament and having complete revelation in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:3, Jude 3), God would not command such. He would work as usual through providence against wicked nations and individuals with an outright physical wrath at Jesus’ coming upon the earth in the end (Rom. 1:18, 2 Thes. 1:7-9).

    Now, if I lived in the Old Testament times and God judged the extinct of certain wicked people by another people, then I would do so as a part of a nation being that the prophets had proved to be prophets. See, the purpose of miracles according to the Scriptures were to confirm messages being from God (Exo. 10:2, Mark 16:20, John 20:30-31, Heb. 2:3-4). Prophets were also confirmed by agreeing with established Scripture and by his predictions coming true (Deut. 13:1-5, 18:20-22). I somebody went around claiming to be from God, then he would have to prove himself like past prophets have had to do. In case of me talking to God, I would certainly test myself to be prophet and by such miracles to make sure that I am not crazy. Let me add that these signs and wonders were very clear to those who accepted the prophets and the Apostles, and not like the “miracles” of some today when miracles do not work through the hands of men anymore.

    This very issue though is why current revelation coming from one leader could have the fearful result of a cult or a group with a highest and central leader like the Pope or the LDS Prophet though we know the same of secular leaders too. Such a person could order an execution and armies would be formed. There are many who believe that Christ will come back and set up a physical kingdom though Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would fight so that I might not be delivered to the Jews. But now My kingdom is not from here” (John 18:36). When a leader forms a militia and orders believers to fight, then such a religious group would go from being a denomination or fellowship to being a cult. Now, imagine if such a leader rose to power doing such and wrote a book, then sadly you have Muhammadism for which only the most liberal believers are non-violent (Surah 9:1-5). Now, only the ignorant could make such a Faith from the Christian Scriptures, which means a combination of major religious errors in inventing revelation from God and thinking that the Old Testament is a current covenant.

    “Would I take part in genocide that God told me to do?” I would never take part in murdering masses of people, but under the Old Testament theocracy, I would obey orders in a national army to execute a wicked people guilty by the order and judgment of God even by the word of a proven prophet of God. I thank God that we all live under the better covenant of Jesus.

  18. mdvp Says:

    It looks like sense has been spread here quite well. However, I shall give my take on the matter, repetitive or not:

    “Third, both limit the authority of the Bible. Catholics believe that you need the Catholic Church to tell you how to interpret the Bible, which is probably why they used to lock Bibles up hundreds of years ago. Mormons only trust the Bible ‘insofar as it is accurately translated.’”

    And why not? After all, there should only be one church, shouldn’t there? It is not the same with Mormons, who do not believe in the original Bible as it is seen by other Christians (correct me if I’m wrong). The Church surely has the authority to interpret the Bible, for if not, what do we get? Hundreds of thousands of denominations based on the interpretation of the Bible. This surely cannot be the Church that Jesus built through Peter.

    “As a result of that, we’re led to the fourth similarity which is that both religions add to the Bible. The Catholics include apocryphal and deuterocanonical literature such as the Maccabbean books, Judith, Tobit, and others in their Bibles. Most Protestants don’t regard these books as canonical, meaning that they have no place in the canon of legitimate scriptures.”

    And that’s all good and well for most Protestants. Remember that you guys are the ones who broke away, directly or indirectly, from us. Did you know that the Apocrypha, as you would call it, was accepted by most Protestants for a few centuries, or at least published in their Bibles? Anyway, it’s a moot point, because the Catholic Church just so happens to be the creator of the Bible. Not the books, the list of books accepted into the Bible. Without the thinking of theologians of the Church, you might have been born into a Gnostic family. So, they decided the books that were not deserving of canonical status but were not to be wasted were deuterocanonical.

    As for the inquisitions, you may use the Spanish inquisition as the worst example of the three main ones, the Cathars, the Roman, and itself. However, note that this inquisition was denounced by the Pope for being too brutal. It was made to root out those Jews and Muslims who pretended to be Catholics but secretely were not and also to find those who were falsely accused of heresy but were not heretics and defend such, people, not, you would think, an unworthy cause in and of itself. However, it was soon not a religious thing anymore, rather, a tool of the Spanish state to weed out those who might be rebellious. And of course, there are sinners in any church, in fact, most Christians are sinners.

    As for changing positions on doctrine:

    18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19

  19. Braden Says:

    MDVP, what you’re saying is that the average person is not smart enough to interpret the Bible for himself or herself. I really don’t see it that way. Especially since the Catholic church has added so many unscriptural practices as holy water, baptism of infants, praying through Mary, selling of indulgences, etc. I definitely don’t trust them to interpet the Bible for me.

    The Catholics did compile A Bible, but they certainly did not create THE Bible. 40 writers over the course of 3000-4000 years wrote the Bible.

    I am not a Protestant in that I affilliate myself with a sect or denomination that was a result of breaking away from the Catholic Church. I’m a restorationist. Not a Reformist.

    As for Matthew 16:18-19, you must read it in context. Verse 16 is where Peter makes his confession that Christ is the Son of God, the real “rock” on which the church was founded.

    Personally I think the Pope is mentioned in 2nd Thessalonians 2:3-4.

  20. mdvp Says:

    What I’m saying is that there is one church, there is one correct teaching of the Bible, and the Catholic Church provides than. You can read the bible, but to interpret it fifferently than it should be (the truth, like it or not, is not apparent upon reading the Bible) divides the Church. Again, Matthew 16:18-19 (see below.)

    Infant Baptism: “Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).”

    Also, doesn’t Paul say baptism has replaced circumcision? In that case, it would be done to infants, right?

    Would you say that the Bible says baptism is restricted to adults?

    Would you ask someone to pray for you if you were seriously ill? That is like praying for Mary’s intercession.

    Without the Church, though, you would not know which books were the true bible. That is wahat the Council of Rome did. They compiled a list of of verifiable and viable books of the true Bible.

    But your denomination probably came from one who boke away from the Church. I always thought it was a bit odd to be a ‘restorationist’ Christian when nothing needs to be restored.

    And your interpretation of Matthew 16 seems odd.

    15″But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”

    16Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

    17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

    Jesus is praising Peter and telling him that he will build his church upon him. I don’t really think you can spin that.

  21. Braden Says:

    Christ touched the infants, but never baptized them. I believe children are innocent and heavenbound, do you? Just because circumcision was performed in infancy doesn’t mean baptism was (in fact, it never was in the scriptures). Infants cannot repent of their sins because they have none (Acts 2:38). Mary can’t intercede for me or anyone else. Only Christ can. I would certainly know which books were the true Bible without the RCCh. The original church of the first century must be restored since I don’t believe that the Catholic church is the original church that Christ established. I am not a part of denomination, I am a part of the New Testament Church of the Bible (and no that’s not the name of my church). In Matthew 16, look at verse 17, Christ says “for ‘this’ was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in Heaven.” What is that “this”? Is it not Peter’s confession that Christ is the Son of God? Is it not also “this rock”? The Catholic Church has been terribly corrupt over the years. Why do you think Martin Luther was so angry after his trip to the Vatican? So why should I trust an organization that at one time had 3 popes simultaneously to interpret the Bible for me?

  22. mdvp Says:

    You have the free will to do what you want, including judging organizations by long dead figures who happened to be in them and on your perception of them. There are sinners in the church as with everywhere else. The legitimate pope of that time was the pope in Rome. Where was adult only baptism displayed in the scriptures? In fact, there is no mention of baptism for children of believers, just converts. It does not say when or whether children of believers should be baptized, so we can assume that if they were bringing even infants to Jesus, that infants could be baptized. If the kingdom is theirs and they should be brought to Jesus, this means they should be baptized. Yes. but then Jesus says ‘you.’ I will give you the keys, you are peter, which means ‘rock’, on this Peter, rock, Jesus built his church.

  23. Braden Says:

    The baptism of Christ could not be performed until after His death, burial and resurrection. Colossians 2:12 says that we are buried and raised with Him in baptism. Therefore, it would be impossible for such a baptism (other than the baptism of John) until Christ had already been crucified and raised from the dead.

    The words for “Peter” and “rock” are different. Peter is the masculine form and “rock” is the feminine form in the Greek language. Besides, if Peter WAS the rock, why didn’t Christ say “and on you I will build my church?” Instead, he said “this rock,” meaning the confession of Christ as the Son of God, the centerpiece for all Christianity, thus the foundation of the Church. Why would Christ choose to found His church on a fallible man? Why not a pure and undefiled truth?

    There are no accounts of infants actually being baptized in the Bible, nor of anyone being baptized by a way other than immersion, which is what baptism literally means. Sprinkling didn’t come along until much later. What’s odd is that while you correctly say that the kingdom belongs to children, Catholicism teaches that children are born with the sin of Adam. How could an unbaptized infant inherit the kingdom of Heaven if it is born in sin?

    As for the scriptures, I believe that 2nd Timothy 2:15 and 3:16, 17 give me the right to interpret the scriptures for myself. I don’t need a fallible hierarchy to do that for me. I know that many denominations interpret the Bible incorrectly. But when I see the Catholic church doing it as well, I can’t find myself relying on them to interpret it for me. However, I do believe we can know the truth of God’s Word because He is not the author of confusion (1st Corinthians 14:33).

    The Catholic Church also persecuted people like Galileo for his “blasphemous teachings,” even thought we later found out that he was correct. I don’t see consistency in the Catholic Church. Therefore, I prefer to stand on Christ who does not change (Hebrews 13:8, James 1:17).

  24. jens Says:

    Scott,

    I realize what you mean about right and wrong being basically the same as good and bad for a believer. If you are certain that your faith is the ultimate judge then what the Bible says is good also must be right. However, as a thought experiment think of how it would be without that rightness. I think it is important to do this for a couple of reasons. First, that most people in the world don’t share your beliefs (2/3rds or so I think), yet we all must coexist so it helps to understand where they are coming from. Second, I think if you think about it we can agree that there is quite alot of morality that need not be arrived at through the Bible but is easily understood simply through understanding ones self and then extrapolating that to others.

    For example: If you are sick you know it’s bad, thus, when another person is sick you empathize. When another person is hurt by word or deed you empathize because you are able to understand how this would effect you and thus you are able to sympathize. Out of this easily comes a natural moral code based on, essentially, the Golden Rule. When you think about it you can cover most of human behavior with this code. I won’t say it covers everything, humans are very complex, but it covers quite a bit.

    Because of this I don’t buy the argument that you need a religious text to be moral and have a solid sense of good and bad. I’m sure for some people it helps alot to have that burden of decision off of their shoulders, as evidenced by all the various religions out there.

    The danger to me, in being so sure of ones righteousness, is that even without enmity toward them you immediately bring yourself above those who do not believe what you do. You have said in so many words that their way of living is disgraceful, that they are unable to act morally enough or be good enough. It also absolves you of the possibility that your faith is not the only right one. There is a very real logical possibility, given human frailty and misinterpretation Gods speaking to them, that the many monotheistic religions are similar for a reason. That they are all human manifestations of a God attempting to communicate with us and being misinterpreted as if playing a game of ‘Telephone’. Again, belief is not logic so people are entitled to their beliefs, however it sets the stage for Genocide when you proclaim that you are above someone else due ot your beliefs. It becomes a slippery slope that we’ve slid down too many times in history.

    It boils down to the question, “If someone is born and dies without knowing God is their soul then condemed to Hell?” Apparently for children we’ve decided the scripture says they are innocent and go to Heaven. However, adults don’t get that special treatment. In the end it is similar to condeming a man to death who cannot understand his sentence.

    Lastly, I have to take issue with your statement about Muslims. By quoting that text, which Osama Bin Laden has quoted so many times it is scary, you essentially are saying that he is right in his interpretation of his religion? I find that strangly ironic since most of the worlds population, Muslim and non-Muslim thinks he is wrong. If he were right I think he would have a larger safe haven then the backwaters of Pakistan. After all, if he is right, it would be an honor to fight the US and die in the process. I don’t see the majority of Muslims jumping on that bandwagon.

    So, based on Surah 9:1-5, a few paragraphs of their text, you have condemed their faith. Unfortunately I think you have made the same mistake I did with the Old testament. The quote in verse 5 is to kill all the POLYTHEISTS within the borders who have overstayed the agreed upon terms of their stay. Read the below:

    http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/the-slayer-verse-95/

    That quote is limited in time, justification, and geography. It was an order to kill Polytheists (Not Americans), within the borders of a kingdom (Not worldwide), for overstaying an agreed upon safe period (not all out war forever upon them). Incidentally these groups had clashed before, it wasn’t like they didn’t have enmity stored up simply from their different religions (in fact, similarly, the Amalekites had attacked the Isrealites since they left Egypt so there was lot’s of pent up agression there not related to religious difference)

    In many ways it is akin to the order to kill the inhabitants of Canaan. God didn’t say to keep killing those who didn’t believe, instead he limited it to a certain group of people who were wicked and the fighting was to end when they were all dead. One can argue the justification for the killing, but the scope is pretty hard to question.

    I’m sorry but I think by broadening the scope of this quote from the 9th Surah you have, ironically, made the same mistake that Osama Bin Laden and other extremists have made. Which, more ironically still, further justifies my point. All religious texts have parts, which, when taken as a a single entity and not as part of a larger whole, can be used to justify horrible things. Whether it is using ones own faith to justify something awful (Crusades, Osama Bin Laden), or using articles from someone elses faith as a wedge to drive people apart or justify killing them (Inquisition, Your comment that all but the most liberal Muslims are violent).

    Would you argue that the overall point of the Koran is self betterment through self reflection, charity towards others, community, fairness, and ultimately salvation through these things?

    Would you argue that an uninformed reader with lots of political power could use Mathew 10:34 to justify nearly any atrocity in the name of spreading Christs love? (the fact that there is a wiki article on the subject shows that people have, and do, misinterpret it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_10:34) It would be irony at it’s finest for a Muslim to use this verse to denigrate Christians, just as your statement about Muslims is ironic in it’s ability to pull one piece out of context from a huge text and proclaim that then the majority of believers act thusly. I think this justifies my point beyond any argument I could have made.

  25. mdvp Says:

    I suppose you are talking about the Greek ‘petra’ and ‘petros.’ The second was used for Peter’s name because of grammatical necessity, he could not have a feminine name, however, in the second part, petra was the correct word because of Greek grammatical structure and they both mean ‘rock.’ However, they were synonyms, and in the original Aramaic, the words were the same, kepha and kepha, “You are Kepha and on this kepha I build my Church.” Same thing. In any case, it is Peter being given the keys to heaven, I would say it is him that the church is being built on.

    Baptism (The Bible in Greek had it as ‘baptizo’) can mean immersion, but it can also simply mean “washing up.” Jesus told his disciples they would be baptized with the holy Spirit. Three times, Acts 2 says that the holy spirit was “poured out” upon then, not that they were immersed in it after Pentecost. Later Peter speaks of the Spirit “falling upon them” and identifies it with Jesus’s statement.

    If you interpret those as giving everyone the direct authority to interpret as they will, you interpret them very loosely indeed. God may not be the author of confusion, but that is fine, as humans are quite capable of confusing themselves (see Reformation). We can and do know the truth through the Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church. If the church is not the Catholic Church, which is the only church that can claim succession from the days of Christ, then at one point, the gates of hell have surely prevailed against it, contrary to Jesus’s statement.

    Jesus and God have never changed, but in accordance with the Peter and his successors having the key to heaven, doctrine on earth can and inevitably must change. I challenge you and your coreligionists to start an unchanging church, though it would not be needed.

  26. Braden Says:

    You are operating under the assumption that the Catholic Church is the same at the Church that Christ founded, whereas I am not. The believer’s water baptism throughout the scriptures is always immersion. Since all scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness that the man of God may be competent and equipped for every good work, how could I not help but deduce that the Bible itself is all I need? It doesn’t say I need authority from Peter, the Pope, or any authority other than God to understand the scriptures. I don’t see that as a loose interpretation of 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 17 at all. In fact, I’d say it’s quite literal. I don’t believe the gates of Hell have prevailed against the Church at all. It lives on in the lives of Christians who follow the inspired word of God.

  27. mdvp Says:

    That’s fine, though I believe I have thoroughly proved that the Church founded by Christ is the Catholic Church and I would also suggest that it is best to belong to such a Church if you wish to follow the teachings of Jesus thoroughly. You are also using the Bible itself to explain the Bible, rather than the theological experts who decided what was best to use as the Bible and closest to true Christian beliefs, a fundamental flaw. All scripture is God-breathed, but what is truly scripture? What does that scripture mean? I choose the answers that stand out, those of the original Church, as proven by history.

    However, to each his own.

  28. Braden Says:

    How have you proved that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ? Even if hypothetically Peter was the rock in Matthew 16, what would make him the first Pope other than the fact that the Catholic Church simply claims it? Peter never personally claimed to be the Pope in any of his writings. None of the rest of the scriptures acknowledge Peter in that position.

    You correctly state that I am using the Bible itself to explain the Bible. I don’t need the Catholic Church’s theological experts to tell me how to interpret the Bible. Not to mention that there are theological experts in virtually every type of Christendom. What makes the Catholic theological experts any different?

    The Catholic Church is anything but proven by history. In fact, history is not very kind to the Catholic Church. They have always violently and irrationally destroyed almost everyone that ever opposed them. Does that make them the one true church?

    I still say that the Pope could be the “man of lawlessness” in 2nd Thessalonians 2 because the Pope, also referred to as “Lord God the Pope,” “exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”

    There’s several other reasons I don’t believe it’s even possible that the Catholic Church could be sanctioned by God. But it’d probably be pointless to discuss them.

    By the way, I think it’s ironic that you are voting for the candidate that agrees with me religiously over the ones that agree with you (i.e. Brownback and Giuliani). But then again, we aren’t voting for candidates based on their religion, which is what my post was really about. I’m voting for Romney even though I am infinitely closer to Thompson religiously.

  29. jens Says:

    Spoken meekly and quietly from the wings by the devils advocate (not literally):

    Isn’t all this comparative religion stuff pretty much a pissing contest? Would either of you debate that the other is a Christian? To say that the Catholic Church is not sanctioned by God would seem to me to be reaching beyond your means and putting words in Gods mouth as well as damning someone else’s salvation. If we can’t agree on what faith is Christian in the eyes of God how can you even begin to fault other religions for their interpretations of a creator?

    Last seen running for the exits before the angry mob can organize….

  30. Braden Says:

    I personally have trouble believing that God would sanction such a corrupt organization as the Catholic church (not just the members, I’m mostly talking the Vatican). I’m not damning anybody. That’s up to God. As for putting words in God’s mouth, the Pope and the Catholic Church do enough of that already.

    If the Catholic Church WAS the one true church, then they would be condemning me to Hell or Purgatory. As far as condemning goes, by the Catholic Church claiming that, they’re no different than I am for saying that they’re not the one true church. I’m not saying all Catholics are going to Hell. And I’m not saying they’re not. That’s up to God, the righteous Judge, to decide. But the Catholic church may not be so gracious towards me.

  31. jens Says:

    Two wrongs don’t make a right. Saying, “As for putting words in Gods mouth, the Pope and the Catholic Church do enough of that already”, sounds an awful lot like a two wrongs make a right justification to me. He said, she said quickly becomes a pissing contest.

  32. Scott Says:

    MDVP and Braden,

    Though I side with Braden’s understanding, we all believe what we want to. The only way that we can reconcile this is to work together to understand, and to first and foremost want to know the Truth. We know that Christ Himself was a debater of religion and so good that He rarely even got a rebuttal.

    Now, I will present my position on the side of Braden.

    First, the Bible can be understood by all readers (Eph. 3:1-5, 1 John 5:13, John 20:30-31) or St. Paul speaking by the Spirit is a liar. Though Scripture is often twisted and/or just misunderstood (2 Pet. 3:15-16). The Bible does claim to be God’s breathe and profits to make one complete even unto every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Clearly, the Scriptures serves as the only source in Scripture to make such a claim. Revelation in the 1st century did give them everything needed unto life and godliness (2 Pet. 1:3) unless the first “Pope”, Peter, lied or made that up. The Faith was once for all delivered in the first century (Jude 3). Were any of these men, who are foundational to all 3 groups, liars or insane in writing this? Evidently, they did not hold the beliefs of today’s Catholic Church nor the Orthodox. See more this if you want at: http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2007/02/11/a-defense-of-2-timothy-316-17/ and http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2007/06/11/who-can-understand-the-bible/ .

    The Catholic Church did not form the 27 book canon of the Scriptures, but confirmed it. “Bishop” Athanasius who voted on the Council of Nicaea stated very clearly that they confirmed the collection passed down to them from the Apostles. The existence of the 2nd century Coptic collection of the 27 books proves the existence of the collection to be before this council. Then looking at the Scriptures themselves, every writing is confirmed to be guided by the Spirit and that it was collected under the oversight of the Apostles. Peter presents his writings, John’s and Peter’s as being “Scripture” (2 Peter 1:16-21, 3:15-16). “Scripture” is from the Greek word “graphei”, which means writing and it is clearly a term used to refer to the OT and NT (1 Tim. 5:18) as written by God’s instruction and collected. See more on this if you want at: http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/ignored-truths-regarding-the-collection-of-the-new-testament-scriptures/ and http://godsbreath.wordpress.com/2007/05/03/who-gathered-the-new-testament-scriptures-together/ .

    Second, the history of the Catholic Church, the Orthodox, and the Church of Christ collide all with validity. Why does the Catholic Church ignore the Orthodox Church and the churches of Christ? All look upon the 1st century writings of the Scriptures as a picture of Christ and the Church that He built. The churches of Christ have a written and recorded history in the book of the German holocaust survivor, Dr. Hans Grimm. He believes his fellowship of the churches of Christ is the 1st century church and his history starts in the 1st with a gap to the 4th unto the 20th century. Also see records kept by English scholar Keith Sisman on the history of the churches of Christ in England from in the 8th century and maybe even sooner. The history of the churches of Christ is valid too.

  33. Scott Says:

    Third, these 3 fellowships are separated over authority. The Catholic accept the Pope, the Orthodox accept the Council of Archbishops, and the churches of Christ accept the Scriptures as Christ’s guiding light. Strangely, the Athanasius in the 4th century accept the Scriptures is one guide. Dr. Everett Ferguson, who is one of the most respected scholar on this matter, presents the “Church Fathers” to show the evolution of the hierarchy among churches from the 2nd to the 4th century in his book “Early Christians Speak”. Here’s a summary of the evolution the organization:
    1st – The Apostles (1st century)
    2nd – Just the elders/bishops in each congregation (1st century)
    3rd – (2nd century) a bishop was over elders in a congregation
    4th – (3rd century) an archbishop over local areas of the bishops of each congregation
    5th – (4th century) higher archbishops “Cardinals” in council over all congregations
    6th – (6th-8th centuries ?) the Pope over all.

    From the 1st-6th century according to JW McGarvey, the churches of Christ followed the Scriptures and accepted no additional government than elders shepherding congregations. Unless Paul was again a liar or a lunatic, he presented by the Spirit a picture of church government in Ephesians 4:11 of “apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;”. There is so much more to be seen about this. In the Church that Christ built, a plural number of elders were set in every church to oversee and shepherd (Acts 14:27) and besides this the only government was Christ by His Word. There are qualifications for Apostles, Elders/Bishops/Pastors, and deacons in the Scripture (1 Tim. 3, Tit. 1), but none for priests, archbishops, cardinals, and popes in the Scriptures, which collection Peter oversaw. The Bishops are to be a one woman man with children and that doesn’t sound Catholic (not ideally).

    Matthew 16:17-20 establishes the authority of Peter to have the keys of life while Jesus calls him “Satan” in verse 23. May we also conclude Peter to be Satan? No. There is not one bit of truth to “petra” having to be feminine when the only other feminine words that make up context phrase are 2 articles. “Petra” is clearly separate from “Petros”, and if it weren’t, then there is still no explicit mention of the Pope. The Scripture present so many positions in the Church over and over again and yet the Pope, the highest of all, is not mentioned once. Peter could not have been told to build the Church on himself. In fact, Peter said that the Rock is Christ in 1 Peter 2:7-8. The antecedent of “this Rock” is “this” referring to Peter’s confession of who Jesus is. Peter was not the only one with the keys. Jesus also said that He gave the words of spirit and life (John 6:63) unto all the Apostles (John 17:8) by the Spirit (John 16:12-13). These words the Apostles all spoke (1 Cor. 2:13) in Scripture (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

    Fourth, concerning differing practices, there is not one infant baptism in Scripture and infants can not believe to be baptized (Mark 16:16), nor confess faith (Rom. 10:9-10), nor are they spiritually dead (Rom. 6:4-6), nor repented (Acts 2:38). They do go to Heaven when they die (Matt. 19:14), and they do not need to wash away their sins in baptism (Acts 2:38, 22:16, Eph. 5:26).

    Baptism is always immersion in the Bible even in pouring. Read the Didache to understand the late tradition of pouring “baptism” was to completely soak the one being baptized and this was done for the sick and by man’s invention outside of the Scriptures. In the Scriptures, everyone went into the water like the Eunuch in Acts 8. Baptism is a burial in Rom. 6 and Col. 2 and this makes it clear that it is immersion. There is no sprinkling or pouring in the Scriptures otherwise why did everyone go into the water to be sprinkled or to have a handful of water poured on them. Were they not caring water in the dry deserted areas? Why did the Eunuch even stop his chariot to be baptized (Acts 8)? Why did John stay near large amounts of water when a basin would do (John 3:23)?

    There is no prayer to the dead in the Scriptures just prayer to God the Father.

    In conclusion, the Scriptures collected by the Apostles present Christ’s words by the Spirit have all authority in governing the Church. The Scriptures are simply the medium of Christ, the Spirit, and the Father in governing the Church.

  34. jens Says:

    Scott,

    That was an impressive show of Biblical research. I’m impressed by the logical flow and breadth of your argument. It would be hard to follow with a convincing rebuttal.

    I would be interested to know your stance on inherent morality from my post above.

    Jens

  35. Scott Says:

    Jens,

    Somehow I missed your last comment. Please, excuse me. Be careful about grouping all “Christians” together. Its best to reference them between their beliefs like Catholic, Baptists, etc. since the beliefs are so broad. Protestants, Orthodox, and New Testament Christians don’t like to be linked to the Crusades. These groups have their own problems.

    First, the Quran is about doing good to other believers of the Quran. It’s easy to find good in the Bible. Can you find something good in the Quran for me toward non-believers? Remember to read the context. The Quran is revered more than most “Christians” value the Bible, and the interpretation that I presented was not my own but of most Muslims. Ask some of your Muslim friends or some on the blogs. So, I don’t think I’m wrong because I usually check my interpretation of other religious texts with those who believe it.

    I’ve read most of the Quran and I find little good. You will find this agreement among many secularists who have also read it. The word for “non-believers” in Surah 9:1-5 includes polygamists and non-believers in general for which Quran claims that Christians “people of the Book” are polytheists, idolaters, and essential not Christians (9:26-36, 73-74; 4:51-52, 171; 5:73, 116, 48:29). The index of M.H. Shakir’s liberal translation of the Quran puts these passages also under paganism and polytheism, so this Muslim scholar has interpreted Christians to be polytheists and nonbelievers. The Quran accepts Christians who do not think Jesus is God nor the resurrected Messiah while accepting the prophet and the Quran thus they must actually be Muslim (3:67-71, 78-91, 113-119,164; 4:171, 5:73). Again, this is not my interpretation. The Quran does speak of taking care of children and widows (4:2-3), but not non-believing ones. The Quran is to be accepted because of the Apostle Muhammad said it though admittedly he did not do miracles to prove himself. I don’t see how I’m wrong here since it is not my interpretation.

    Second, let’s address inherent morality. The Bible talks about inherent morality, a law written on the heart, their conscience, and their thoughts (Rom. 2:15), though the Bible also presents clarity on morality, it is often ignored whether written on our hearts or not. I can’t say that all morality is completely natural to the heart knowing that some people lose this or at least ignore that law. The Bible is to reveal and affirm morality and go unto all godliness for all good deeds and unto salvation (1 John 5:13, 2 Tim. 3:16-17), because being good alone does not get one into Heaven. The New Testament is also to be written on the hearts and minds of Christians (Heb. 10:16). Consciences at some point hold a law or morality. So, where did it come from?

    Now, the Bible also says that those who do not recognize God, thank Him, nor glorify Him will make their heart dark and their reasonings vain (Rom. 1:19-21, 28-32). Evidently, not everyone keeps this law on the heart and everyone has broken it. We’re all guilty and the Bible says we have therefore all earned the punishment of a spiritual death (Rom. 3:23, 6:23). So, what are we to do?

  36. sarah Says:

    Hey, fascinating post. I’ve thought of many of these similarities myself. I’d like to just add a kudos to you for a relatively nonbiased discussion of Mormonism – us Mormons rarely see our religion addressed fairly. Thanks!

  37. Scott Says:

    Jens,

    You do not think that we need a religious text though you admit that we not know the whole of morality naturally. How do you know this is true? What reasonable and moral principle tells you this? What is a text anyways? Is it just cold thin pages? Or is it the words that form the ideas that bring light from the medium of inked symbols on pages? The text is the medium and the words are spirit and life. Philosophy can only take someone as far as complex ideas based on the simple that we have from our five senses, and we must pass over to knowledge given to them beyond this physical world. You say that there is no right and wrong, but how do you know that is right? That’s contradicting. It’s like saying there is no truth, but how do we know that is true? To accept the idea that there is no right and wrong as right is again contradicting. Hasn’t everyone done something against love, truth, and justice? Is this right? I will not put aside love, truth, and justice to accept an idea that is reflexively conflicting.

    “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God…For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, God was well pleased, through the foolishness of our preaching, to save those that believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block, and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

    There’s no enmity from me and most Christians to those of other faiths. We will defend Christianity when it is opposed and attacked. I don’t hate or have ill-will toward those because they have another faith. The Scriptures teach against arrogance and I am not prideful or arrogant or at least I try not to be and am successful most of the time.

    You are exactly right about living disgraceful and not good enough, because you have, I have, and all accountable people have not lived perfectly. Isn’t it strange that Christians are willing to come out and say that we’ve done bad things and our good deeds do not erase them, but then we are called prideful and stubborn? We don’t claim to be better, but forgiven. What about those who are not Christians? They think they can get to Heaven on their own by their own works. They believe that they are better than Christians who have to rely a sinless man dying to satisfy the justice due to them. They make Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection into nothing. Will God over look this sin? Now, you may understand the position of other religions and secularists to God.

  38. jens Says:

    First, thanks for the prior post. I find it interesting, even as I am unconvinced that the Koran is any more exclusive than Christianity. I think I will have to take the position that we will have to agree to disagree. I am not a muslim scholar but I do have several muslim friends, none of which believe what you have stated. I have a hard time believing that the average muslim believes non-believers should be killed. There are 1.3 Billion muslims in the world today, second only to Christianity. If the majority believed that there would be all out, abject, complete and utter genocidal war. As it is we still have a large majority of Muslims who are not fighting and a small minority who are extremists.

    So, you believe that the majority of Muslims believe that the Surah quote you mentioned is how they should live, but they aren’t living that way. in other words, they should be out killing us, but aren’t? I find it hard to believe that they could be so hypicritical.

    I found this article to be very interesting on this subject. It has numerous quotes from early islamic scholars agaist the view that Muslims should fight non-believers.
    http://www.islamicamagazine.com/content/view/159/59/

    Another interesting thing, which contradicts your assertion that Christians cannot be accepted by Muslims without essentially becomeing Muslims, is this article.
    http://www.islamicperspectives.com/Quran.htm

    It talks in some depth about how Islam respects other monotheistic religions and allows for salvation through them. The assertion inherent in that is that Christians not revere Jesus as God. Due to the belief in the trinity you could see that, from a Christian perspective, as excluding Christians who are not basically Muslim. The intent behind the verse is that Christians not worship Christ as a person, as Catholics worship Mary. The warning is against excluding the trinity and making worship of Christ into a worship of his earthly self rather than his Godly self.

    So, you can feel free to disagree, but I think you have extrapolated a belief from Islam that is not felt by most Muslims. Evidence for that is that the majority of the Muslim world is not itching for holy war, it is a minority.

    As for your second post. You again misinterpreted what I said. I can go into greater depth in inherent morality but I used the golden rule as an example. I then said that that does not cover all of morality as simply as I discribed it. I never said that inherent morality could not cover the entire spectrum. I also never said anythign was right or wrong. You keep bringing that into the discussion. I have discussed it in terms of good and bad.

    I find it interesting that you insist on mixing the two despite my insistence that you attempt to view it from my perspective. As I’ve said my perspective does not include an objective right and wrong as yours does. This contradiction that you speak of is an invention you have made and tried to attach to what I’ve said. If you read what I’ve said you will notice that it doesn’t appear in what I’ve wriiten. I think we both agree that love, truth and justice should not be walked away from. My point is that these ideas can be understood organically, without the need for external metaphysics to create right and wrong. Truth of course is related to right and wrong. In my interpretation it would probably be better to understand truth as a preponderance of evidence rather than a metaphysical absolute.

    I understand your beliefs and understand the significance of Christs death and rebirth. I think though, that you make the same assertion I did, in reverse. Mabye we percieve each as trying to be superior to the other by our beliefs when in reality we are simply proving the mutual exclusivity of them. When two things do not interralate it is impossible to say one is better than the other. They are simply different.

    Mabye we are all just a bit to sensitive about it all and should grow thicker skins.

  39. hiutopor Says:

    Hi

    Very interesting information! Thanks!

    Bye

  40. Richard Says:

    The True Church
    I would like to chip in and exercise some common sense to any discussion which already presupposes belief in Jesus Christ. This will avoid wasting any time by deviating into other non-Christian creeds, including atheism.
    To have faith in Jesus Christ:
    1. You must believe in his personhood and in his totality – in exactly who he is, what he stands for, what he says, what he requests, what he commands and what he promises.
    2. Everything you believe about Jesus must originate from him if he is to be the way, the truth and the life.
    3. You should be cognizant that you are the recipient of a faith passed on to posterity, and you hold no privilege over anyone through time.
    4. You have the right to receive the true faith in its fullness, even if you are illiterate as most of the world was for the majority of Christian history.
    5. The means of transmitting the true faith, in its entirety, should be readily duplicated by appointees through a line of succession, thus having a living link to a living tradition.
    6. You should make it a personal commitment to prayerfully, fervently, diligently, without reserve, with all your might, locate and embrace that one and only church – for having found it, the truth shall set you free as only Christ can. That church has to be out there, for Jesus said,”I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Come home. He waits.

  41. hkyson Says:

    Here is the English version of an article on science and Mormonism that I published awhile ago in my blog “Interlingua multilingue”:
    ……………………….

    Science and the Mormons

    The Mormons are a religious sect that emerged from Christianity in the United States in the Nineteenth Century. They added to the Bible their own scripture, the Book of Mormon, translated by Joseph Smith from an original text in a language he called Reformed Egyptian. According to the mythology of the Mormons, in 1827 the angel Moroni gave Smith these texts, which were engraved on golden tables. Smith could understand them without learning their language through the divine magic of two special lenses that he used to read them while he translated them.

    Smith and his followers were persecuted by traditional Christians, who forced them to travel slowly and with great sacrifices until they reached what is now Utah, where their descendants dominate the religious and social life of this American state.

    According to the Mormons, the Indians of the Americas came from Egypt more than 2,000 (two thousand) years ago. They used this myth to convert many Indians to their religion. “We were taught that all the blessings of our Hebrew ancestors made us a special people,” said Jose a Loyaza, a lawyer in Salt Lake City, the capital of Utah. “And this identity gave us a sense of transcendental affiliation, a special identity with God.” But Loyaza gradually learned that there was another outrageous irony to his faith.

    He rejected his religion after learning that evidence provided by comparative DNA studies between American Indians and Asians conclusively proved that the first humans that migrated to the Americas came not from the Middle East but from Asia.

    For the Mormons this genetic confirmation of the origin of the Indians in the Americas is a fundamental collision of science against religion. It is in direct conflict with the Book of Mormon, which, according to their religion, is a completely error-free historical work that must be interpreted literally.

    The Book of Mormon is also fundamentally racist. It narrates that a tribe of Hebrews from Jeruselem went to the Americas in 600 B.C. and split up into two groups, the Nephites and the Lamanites. The Nephites carried the “true” religion to the new world and were in constant conflict with the Lamanites, who practiced idolatry. The Nephites were white (in 1980 the Mormons changed the word to “pure”), and the Lamanites received from God “The curse of blackness.”

    The Book of Mormon also narrates that in 385 A.D. the Lamanites exterminated all the other Hebrews and became the principal ancestors of the American Indians. But the Mormons insist that if the Lamanites returned to the “true” religion (Mormonism, quite naturally), their skin would eventually become white like the skin of the Nephites that their ancestors had exterminated.

    But despite these outrageous racist insults, many Indians and Polynesians (who also, according to the Mormons, are the descendants of the Lamanites) converted to Mormonism instead of telling the Mormons to go fuck themselves. (Through some perverse mechanism in human psychology, these converts are like homosexual priests who support the Roman catholic church or other gay people who support any type of Christianity.)

    “The fiction that I was a Lamanite,” said Damon Kali, a lawyer in Sunnyvale, California, whose ancestors came from Polynesian islands, “was the principal reason that I converted to Mormonism.” He had been a missionary for the Mormans before he discovered that genetic evidence proved that the Lamanites were only a religious myth, and he could not continue his efforts to convert others to Mormonism.

    Officially the Mormon church insists that nothing in the Book of Mormon is incompatible with the genetic evidence. Some Mormons are now saying that the Levites were a small group of Hebrews that went to Central America and after many generations of marrying with the natives they met, their Hebrew DNA disappeared into the DNA of their neighbors.

    In 2002, officers of the church started a trial to excommunicate Thomas W. Murphy, a professor of anthropology at Edmonds Community College in Washington, an American state at the extreme northwest of the continental United States.

    His trial attracted a lot of attention in the American public communications media, which ridiculed the church and insisted that Murphy was the Galileo of Mormonism. The general contempt provoked by this publicity seriously embarrassed the officers of the church, and they stopped the trial.

Leave a Reply