Mormons And The Catholic Church

[ACW]

Mormon was shown our day and wrote the scriptures specifically to us. He was commanded to do so. Unless someone believes that God takes little care of His people, why would they think his sending scripture to correct wrongdoing is "too convenient" to be true? Are we to think the same thing about Jeremiah? It was too convenient that Jerusalem was struggling with issues that a prophet just happened to come around warning the people about? I guess the prophesy about them getting carried away captive to Babylon was also too convenient? And the Isaiah prophecy about Cyrus? Well, that was way too convenient, so we can just dismiss that completely. That's probably why the Essenes didn't accept Christ as the Messiah despite preparing for 200 years for his coming. They must have thought, "Hey, man, this is way too convenient. God doesn't work like this. He must be a fraud."

Charles T. Russel

L. Ron Hubbard

Sun Myung Moon

All of these men also claim to be Prophets and Called of God and such, are we to believe them all as well? Of course not! For one thing it's not possible to believe all their claims, as I'm sure they contradict each other. So what are we therefore to do? Use the promptings of the Spirit and our own judgement yes? Well, you can do what you like with yours, but mine says THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But seeing as I have nothing else to go by then what I see and what the Holy Spirit tells me, I'll just have to trust it. I can do no less.

I don't believe L. Ron Hubbard claimed to be a prophet or called of God considering he was a science fiction writer. He started the church of Scientology which has nothing to do with God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

[tag]

You gotta remember, there are only two kingdoms; that of the Lord, and that of Satan. When all the dust settles, there will be only two kingdoms. If you are not in the kingdom of Satan (and it is hard to get in, you have to be a son of perdition) you will be in the kingdom of heaven

Now, here on earth, I think we are quick to draw the lines when they may not exist as we know them. When I was a baptised Catholic (pre LDS) I was a member of the Kingdom of the Lord. Many in the church are, although them may have been "blinded by the craftiness of men" or are held from the truth because "the do not know where to find it". I may not have been baptised yet, but I was a member of the kingdom. After conversion and baptism (although those came in the opposite order), I had the ordinances of salvation and hopefully am still a member of His kingdom. I feel there are a lot of other Catholics that are members of His kingdom, just as I feel there are many LDS who are not yet members. Everyone will have his or her genuine chance to accept or reject, and to get the ordinances. It is a plan of Salvation, not a plan of damnation and to get out of the kingdom of heaven, we will have to prove to the Lord we do not beling. We are not under the rule of a God who is out to damn us, but out to save us. His work and his golry is to bring to pass the inmortality and eternal life of people. We are not the judge, and we do not draw the lines. There are a lot of good, nobel and great Catholics, just as there are a lot of good, nobel and great Mormons, and good Baptists - - - well, okay, I know at least one good baptist (but I hope there are more!!).

[Pax Romana]

I don't believe L. Ron Hubbard claimed to be a prophet or called of God considering he was a science fiction writer. He started the church of Scientology which has nothing to do with God, Jesus and the Holy Ghost.

I don't know if he ever called himself one or not, this is true, but I put him on there because many who follow his teachings do consider him a prophet. Not because what he taught had anything to do with God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

[Pahoran]

Mormon was shown our day and wrote the scriptures specifically to us. He was commanded to do so. Unless someone believes that God takes little care of His people, why would they think his sending scripture to correct wrongdoing is "too convenient" to be true? Are we to think the same thing about Jeremiah? It was too convenient that Jerusalem was struggling with issues that a prophet just happened to come around warning the people about? I guess the prophesy about them getting carried away captive to Babylon was also too convenient? And the Isaiah prophecy about Cyrus? Well, that was way too convenient, so we can just dismiss that completely. That's probably why the Essenes didn't accept Christ as the Messiah despite preparing for 200 years for his coming. They must have thought, "Hey, man, this is way too convenient. God doesn't work like this. He must be a fraud."

Charles T. Russel

L. Ron Hubbard

Sun Myung Moon

All of these men also claim to be Prophets and Called of God and such, are we to believe them all as well?

No they don't (didn't.)

Russell and the JW's follow the most woodenly literal form of sola scriptura.

Hubbard made no claims of prophecy in any meaningful way.

The Rev. Moon claims to be a reincarnation(!) of Christ(!!)

But even if you were right, what would your argument come down to? A mere appeal to prejudice; "damnation by association," demagoguery at its worst.

Of course not! For one thing it's not possible to believe all their claims, as I'm sure they contradict each other. So what are we therefore to do? Use the promptings of the Spirit and our own judgement yes? Well, you can do what you like with yours, but mine says THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But seeing as I have nothing else to go by then what I see and what the Holy Spirit tells me, I'll just have to trust it. I can do no less.

You go right ahead and do that.

And since we don't live in a Catholic-dominated country, like modern-day Slovakia, or pre-Garibaldi Italy, or pre-Napoleonic Spain, we are fortunately free to do the same.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pax Romana]

Mormon was shown our day and wrote the scriptures specifically to us. He was commanded to do so. Unless someone believes that God takes little care of His people, why would they think his sending scripture to correct wrongdoing is "too convenient" to be true? Are we to think the same thing about Jeremiah? It was too convenient that Jerusalem was struggling with issues that a prophet just happened to come around warning the people about? I guess the prophesy about them getting carried away captive to Babylon was also too convenient? And the Isaiah prophecy about Cyrus? Well, that was way too convenient, so we can just dismiss that completely. That's probably why the Essenes didn't accept Christ as the Messiah despite preparing for 200 years for his coming. They must have thought, "Hey, man, this is way too convenient. God doesn't work like this. He must be a fraud."

Charles T. Russel

L. Ron Hubbard

Sun Myung Moon

All of these men also claim to be Prophets and Called of God and such, are we to believe them all as well?

No they don't (didn't.)

Russell and the JW's follow the most woodenly literal form of sola scriptura.

Hubbard made no claims of prophecy in any meaningful way.

The Rev. Moon claims to be a reincarnation(!) of Christ(!!)

But even if you were right, what would your argument come down to? A mere appeal to prejudice; "damnation by association," demagoguery at its worst.

I really don't actually care what any of those men claimed, or didn't, it really wasn't the point of me listing them. The point was this, and apparently you missed it. A lot of people have claimed to speak the truth over the years. It's up to people to decide whether they are willing to accept those truths or not. Because, believe it or not, every single person on this planet with ANY belief system whatsoever believes that they have the One and Only Truth. So just because YOU believe Joseph Smith, does that make him exempt from my discernment with what I regard as the Truth? Hardly. THAT is egoism.

Of course not! For one thing it's not possible to believe all their claims, as I'm sure they contradict each other. So what are we therefore to do? Use the promptings of the Spirit and our own judgement yes? Well, you can do what you like with yours, but mine says THIS IS NOT CORRECT.

Could I be wrong? Of course I could. But seeing as I have nothing else to go by then what I see and what the Holy Spirit tells me, I'll just have to trust it. I can do no less.

You go right ahead and do that.

And since we don't live in a Catholic-dominated country, like modern-day Slovakia, or pre-Garibaldi Italy, or pre-Napoleonic Spain, we are fortunately free to do the same.

Regards,

Pahoran

[koakaipo]

haha, pax, I think many of us on this thread were trying to show love for Catholicism. That alot of us don't feel any need to demonize this church. I dont' think this thread overall is very adversarial in nature, most people are basically saying they don't subscribe to that line of thinking in regads to whores and this that and the other. In many ways we take this position cause we too know how it feels to be treated like we are creepy. I know I do. Just wanted to point out that I may have missed a post that did otherwise, but that most people are basically saying that we don't look at the Catholic Church in terms of the babylon title. It's all gravy in that respect.

[Pax Romana]

haha, pax, I think many of us on this thread were trying to show love for Catholicism. That alot of us don't feel any need to demonize this church. I dont' think this thread overall is very adversarial in nature, most people are basically saying they don't subscribe to that line of thinking in regads to whores and this that and the other. In many ways we take this position cause we too know how it feels to be treated like we are creepy. I know I do. Just wanted to point out that I may have missed a post that did otherwise, but that most people are basically saying that we don't look at the Catholic Church in terms of the babylon title. It's all gravy in that respect.

I'm aware of those posts, and believe me I appreciate it- the whole thing I was trying to defend was a bit towards the begining, essentially calling Infant Baptism a practice against God.

Now there's nothing in the BIBLE that says explicitly that it is. Many Protestants think it is anyway.

There are however, verses in the Book of Mormon that do accomplish this. Fine. I posted that I didn't believe it, (being Catholic and all) and I must've done it such a way that offended somebody or something... and well, it snowballed from there.

[saemo]

There is a lot of complaint that Catholics don't understand Mormon teaching and doctrine. I'd say there is a lot of that going on the other direction as well...Mormons not understanding Catholic doctrine.

Someone made a point that expecting an infant to understand the convenants made at baptism is wrong. That is decidedly from a mormon pov. And I agree! The covenants that mormons are making at baptism are not for an infant, and I take that further and have the opinion that they are not for any child. They are serious promises that I believe no child can understand. And really, to be fair, making those sort of promises should be left to a person to make as an adult. At any rate, mormon baptismal covenants have nothing to do with a catholic baptism.

Catholic baptism of an infant is an act of love by the parents and the church, not an act of condemnation. It is a "sacramental offering into a life of faith". Faith is expected and believed to be something that is taught to the child and will be grown. It is not expected at the child's baptism.

"Baptism is God's most beautiful and magnificent gift....We call it gift, grace, anointing, enlightenment, garment of immortality, bath of rebirth, seal, and most precious gift. It is called gift because it is conferred on those who bring nothing of their own." - Catechism of the Catholic Church. There is nothing expected in return, it is considered a gift from God. This is one difference between a catholic baptism and a mormon baptism

If you are looking for what sin an infant is forgiven, Catholics believe that the fall of Adam amounts to an original sin that is passed on to all humans, that it is a part of human nature itself. Catholics believe that Christ atoned for this original sin as well as personal sin. Catholics believe that infant baptism is necesssary to receive the gift of redemption from original sin, which all are believed to be born with. In addition, it is the gift of redemption that provides the means of forgiveness for personal sin, of which no one accuses an infant of, ever.

Specific to infant baptism, the Catholic catechism states:

1282 Since the earliest times, Baptism has been administered to children, for it is a grace and a gift of God that does not presuppose any human merit; children are baptized in the faith of the Church. Entry into Christian life gives access to true freedom.

1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God's mercy and to pray for their salvation.

As for the topic at hand, I was taught repeatedly, in Primary, Sunday school and seminary that the Catholic church is the church being referred to as the "whore of Babylon" or "the church of the devil". If the leaders of the mormon church do not want people believing what they are taught in primary, sunday school and seminary, then why have it in the curriculum at all? And if you don't believe that you are being taught official doctrine in these courses, that it is merely opinion, then why attend and listen and believe? Why send your children where courses are taught that may or may not contain truth, but only the opinion of the teachers? How does a child know what is being taught to them is truth or opinion?

[koakaipo]

ah...snowballs, aren't they fun? I cause them all the time myself over here! Gotcha.

[Pax Romana]

I'd just like to add to what saemo posted. It's true that Catholics view infant baptism as a gift from God. Not neccessarilly a covenant.

In catholicism, at least with those born in the church- It's Baptism first and then education on what it means to be Catholic, culminating in Confirmation. I would assume that those denominations that don't do infant baptism essentially combine Baptism and Confirmation into one ordinance.

To put it simply, in Catholicism, Baptism is the parents saying- This is our way, we choose it for you

Confirmation is the Child saying- This is what I believe, now I choose it for myself. And THAT is where the covenant comes in.

edit: At least that's how I'VE always viewed it.

(Confirmation ages vary from parish to parish, but the earliest I've seen it happening is 5th grade, the latest is 12th, the average being 8th or 9th)

By the way, for LDS, what's the basis for 8 years old being the age at which one becomes responsible? Is there a scriptural basis for it, or did the Church Leaders decide some other way?

[why me]

I was christened as an infant into the catholic church. Perhaps I did not understand what was happening at that time, but still, as I grew up I appreciated that I was christened (baptized).

However, what I think is overlooked is that in the bible and in the book of mormon strong language is used. When one considers the book of mormon, we need to remember that most of the text was written under an old testament god. And the old testament god is not the god of the new testament. Same god, but different focus.

What was said about infant baptism was said forcefully. However, no god would condemn such a practice as stated in the book of mormon and yet, he may use such language to get his point across.

[why me]

Let's start with infant baptism; Mosiah 8

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love dcasteth out all fear.

And that was my point. The use of words are strong and yet, in the complete chapter on infant baptism, there are aspects of the new testament god. But it is in this use of words that god hammers home the point. However, the god that I am aware of would not punish an institution that baptized infants if that institutions heart was in the right place. And the catholic church has its heart in the right place: in the heart of god.

Edited to include the word 'not'.

[why me]

I don't believe that the Catholic church was the only organization on the face of the earth in the last 6000 years or more to come up with this idea. Sorry if I squelched your bubble of originality or uniqueness here.

This is a doctrine that was taught by others before the Catholic church. That it happened to be taught again by them is no coincidence I am sure as Christ was always, always, championing the children during His ministry. So who would Satan target when causing apostasy in the early church? What doctrines would he cause the men who followed him to corrupt?

Hammer, I could be wrong, but I do believe you've missed my point.

Let us work under the assumption- hypothetically- the the Book of Mormon is false, that Joseph Smith is not a prophet of God.

He does, however, want to start his own church- for whatever reason.

Now a church needs people. Converts, otherwise it's just Smith standing on a street corner.

Now then, how does Smith go about getting these converts? He does what any good salesman does, he gives people what they want.

People have been against Infant Baptism, but (to my knowledge anyway) there is no place in the Bible that says explicitly DO NOT DO THIS. Therefore, Smith gives the people what they want. And you have the verses that you quoted there.

-End Hypothetical-

Is this what really happened? Maybe, maybe not. Make your own judgements, however, you must allow me to do the same.

Joseph Smith would have gained many more converts if he didn't have the book of mormon. To stress his point home, he just needed to do some good preaching. The book of mormon was a hindrence and not a conduit for growth.

To those who want to claim that he wrote the book, I can only say, that he gained little by writing the book and he would have gained more by not writing it. If as the anti mormons claim JS had charisma etc, he would have done well in forming another protestant sect by some good preaching. Heck, he could have been the 19th century Joel Osteen complete with smile and humor.

However, since he was saddled with the book of mormon, he took his lumps and eventually lost his life.

[Calm]

As for the topic at hand, I was taught repeatedly, in Primary, Sunday school and seminary that the Catholic church is the church being referred to as the "whore of Babylon" or "the church of the devil". If the leaders of the mormon church do not want people believing what they are taught in primary, sunday school and seminary, then why have it in the curriculum at all?

I grew up in the Church, born in 58. I was never taught this anywhere (East, West or Central US as well as other countries), I was taught people had thought this, but were wrong.

Nor is it in the curriculum nor has it been for at least 30 years which is when I started teaching in Primary.

And since Pres. McKay was the one who had the speculation removed from a popular LDS book, I highly doubt it has been in the curiculum for a long, long, long time.

There may have been some teachers that taught it, but there are always teachers going off on their own speculation and not being careful about what was identified as doctrine or from the lesson manual.

[Pax Romana]

Joseph Smith would have gained many more converts if he didn't have the book of mormon. To stress his point home, he just needed to do some good preaching. The book of mormon was a hindrence and not a conduit for growth.

To those who want to claim that he wrote the book, I can only say, that he gained little by writing the book and he would have gained more by not writing it. If as the anti mormons claim JS had charisma etc, he would have done well in forming another protestant sect by some good preaching. Heck, he could have been the 19th century Joel Osteen complete with smile and humor.

However, since he was saddled with the book of mormon, he took his lumps and eventually lost his life.

I suppose that is true enough. Perhaps Joseph was a Prophet, perhaps he merely thought he was, perhaps he stole the manuscript from somewhere, perhaps he was the Devil Himself. There's a lot of possibilities.

I won't claim to know the reasons behind the BoM (whether celestial or otherwise) because I, obviously, was not there at it's creation, anymore than I was for the Bible. It's not a debate I particularly want to get involved in, as I don't know nearly enough to hope to weigh in on it.

-Pax

[why me]

Joseph Smith would have gained many more converts if he didn't have the book of mormon. To stress his point home, he just needed to do some good preaching. The book of mormon was a hindrence and not a conduit for growth.

To those who want to claim that he wrote the book, I can only say, that he gained little by writing the book and he would have gained more by not writing it. If as the anti mormons claim JS had charisma etc, he would have done well in forming another protestant sect by some good preaching. Heck, he could have been the 19th century Joel Osteen complete with smile and humor.

However, since he was saddled with the book of mormon, he took his lumps and eventually lost his life.

I suppose that is true enough. Perhaps Joseph was a Prophet, perhaps he merely thought he was, perhaps he stole the manuscript from somewhere, perhaps he was the Devil Himself. There's a lot of possibilities.

I won't claim to know the reasons behind the BoM (whether celestial or otherwise) because I, obviously, was not there at it's creation, anymore than I was for the Bible. It's not a debate I particularly want to get involved in, as I don't know nearly enough to hope to weigh in on it.

-Pax

The thing is Pax, is that all the mormons that I have known have had great respect for the Catholic Church. However, when I was younger (18) and this was many years ago, I did hear the catholic church mentioned as the whore of Babylon. But it was not doctrine but some took it as doctrine. But I also heard that it was communism.

However, the catholic church and its members have always been respected in lds communities. This is of course my own experience. Now, there have been catholics that have stated that mormons are not christians but you will never hear a mormon state a similiar thing about catholics. And if you do hear one say it, trust me, he or she is stating an opinion that is her or his own. The same cannot be said for informed catholics, as presented on the catholic TV station EWTN, referring to the mormon church has non-christian.

The book of mormon is an unique book. It has much doctrine in it and it is not just a rip off of the old and new testament. The section on infant baptism is an example about this. Unlike many protestant sects and their leaders, the lds church and members were not anti-catholic. And that says a lot for that time in history. The catholics were a persecuted minority during the colonial period in US history and they were persecuted by many protestant religious groupings.

[thesometimesaint]

Pax Romana:

"By the way, for LDS, what's the basis for 8 years old being the age at which one becomes responsible? Is there a scriptural basis for it, or did the Church Leaders decide some other way?"

D&C 68: 25

25 And again, inasmuch as parents have children in Zion, or in any of her stakes which are organized, that teach them not to understand the doctrine of repentance, faith in Christ the Son of the living God, and of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on of the hands, when eight years old, the sin be upon the heads of the parents.

[Catholic Girl]

Yes, this is where I recognize that there always seems to be confusion. We are using the same terms, but they have different meanings.

A Catholic baptism for infants is roughly likened to an LDS baby blessing.

A Catholic Confirmation is roughly likened to an LDS baptism.

[Pantsman]

Get in line , pretty much every church especially the ones that popped up in the 1800's called the Catholic Church "the Whore of Babylon". I don't find it a coincidence that Irish and Italian Catholics were immigrating to the US in droves during this time, and there was a huge backlash of the natives in America.

The Church described in Nephi is the Catholic Church it seems, but I think all churches that aren't the LDS Church are the "great abominable whore", that includes Baptists, Catholics, and Lutherans, because they work against the LDS Gospel.

[why me]

Get in line , pretty much every church especially the ones that popped up in the 1800's called the Catholic Church "the Whore of Babylon". I don't find it a coincidence that Irish and Italian Catholics were immigrating to the US in droves during this time, and there was a huge backlash of the natives in America.

The Church described in Nephi is the Catholic Church it seems, but I think all churches that aren't the LDS Church are the "great abominable whore", that includes Baptists, Catholics, and Lutherans, because they work against the LDS Gospel.

The problem here is that when JS was investigating various faiths, the catholic church played no part in his search. He was mainly interested in protestant sects. I do not consider JS to be anticatholic. We also need to remember that he was told to join no church since all were an abomination. It seems that all faiths were condemned.

The great whore was probably not the catholic church. But that being said, I do think that this scripture will come to fruition in the future. At this moment it is only guess work. We need to remember that if the book of mormon was writen by men, this great abominable whore was left up to one's imagination or speculation. Certainly if JS wrote the book, he could have given his own definition to the verse. Or someone could of asked him for more clarification. As it stands, I do think that JS was just as in the dark as all the others. And this would be quie amazing if he wrote the book. (but he didn't write the book).

[Pax Romana]

However, the catholic church and its members have always been respected in lds communities. This is of course my own experience. Now, there have been catholics that have stated that mormons are not christians but you will never hear a mormon state a similiar thing about catholics. And if you do hear one say it, trust me, he or she is stating an opinion that is her or his own. The same cannot be said for informed catholics, as presented on the catholic TV station EWTN, referring to the mormon church has non-christian.

I'm aware that many catholics don''t consider LDS to be Christian. That saddens me, especially considering we kow what it's like. However, has the Pope, or any other Vatican official ever said anything on the matter?

I know RC doesn't recognise your baptisms, but neither do you, ours.

And I know you're not considered "Trinitarian" Christian, but that's a fine distinction I'm only beginning to grasp.

Sometimes I think people get too caught up in doctrinal red tape.

[thesometimesaint]

Pax Romana:

TTBOMK the Pope has said we are not Christian.

[Scott Lloyd]

Is it true that the Mormon church teaches that the Catholic church is the whore of babylon? If it is, why?

Also, if it is true, what about the other mainline branches of Christianity that are almost "Catholic lite" such as the Lutheran church and what not.

The concept of "Baylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth," is found in the 17th Chapter of Revelation. The 13th Chapter of 1 Nephi in the Book of Mormon contains a similar message to Revelation 17 and speaks of a "great and abominable church" or church of the devil.

Both prophecies of scripture are dualistic in nature. A popular dictionary defines dualism as the theological doctrine "that there are two mutually antagonistic principles in the universe, good and evil." Thus, the image of the "mother of harlots" or the "church of the devil" is a metaphor to symbolize the sum total of evil in the universe.

It is incorrect to state or imply that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regards the Catholic Church -- or any other Christian faith -- as the great and abominable church or church of the devil, as the Catholic Church comprises much that is good, true and righteous, as do all or virtually all Christian faiths. Rather, the position of the Church of Jesus Christ is reflected in this definition that I have quoted in an earlier thread. It is found in the Church publication "Guide to the Scriptures," and it is this:

The church of the devil: Every evil and worldly organization on earth that perverts the pure and perfect gospel and fights against the Lamb of God.

This, of course, is consistent with the concept of dualism that I mentioned above.

[Scott Lloyd]

Get in line , pretty much every church especially the ones that popped up in the 1800's called the Catholic Church "the Whore of Babylon". I don't find it a coincidence that Irish and Italian Catholics were immigrating to the US in droves during this time, and there was a huge backlash of the natives in America.

The Church described in Nephi is the Catholic Church it seems, but I think all churches that aren't the LDS Church are the "great abominable whore", that includes Baptists, Catholics, and Lutherans, because they work against the LDS Gospel.

Your interpretation of Latter-day Saint scripture is quite wrong.

The "LDS gospel" is nothing more or less than the gospel of Jesus Christ in its pure, unadulterated form. I don't see the Christian faiths you mention in the main as working against the gospel of Christ, although they do perpetuate some centuries-old false doctrines.

On the other hand, there are organizations and individuals whose avowed purpose is to oppose The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As I have mentioned in an earlier thread, such endeavors fit the church-of-the-devil archetype as neatly as anything or anyone I can think of.

[emeliza]

Yes, this is where I recognize that there always seems to be confusion. We are using the same terms, but they have different meanings.

A Catholic baptism for infants is roughly likened to an LDS baby blessing.

A Catholic Confirmation is roughly likened to an LDS baptism.

You beat me to it. This was what I was going to say. Same goes for the Presbyterian infant baptism. When my kids were baptized, I was the one that made a covenant to teach them of Christ. When I was confirmed at 14, I made my covenant to follow Christ. Then it switched, when I was baptized into the LDS Church I made my covenants as will my children at that point, if they choose to be baptized in the LDS Church.

the Pope has said we are not Christian.

True, but my understanding is that the Catholic Church believes you must believe in the Trinity and some of the other doctrine to be considered Christian. Their definition is not a loose term of Christian as I take it to be. In an earlier thread I was made fun of because I define Christian in the same manner as the dictionary, where as Catholic, most Protestant and Evangelical churches define it as meeting their specific criteria. Guess the dictionary is not to be trusted. Just kidding. However it explains why they state we aren't Christian and don't except LDS baptism. Shouldn't be a big deal though as we don't accept any other churches baptism.