There are only two Churches...

[_Drifting]

...at least that is what the Book of Mormon teaches us.

1. The Church of the Lamb of God.
2. The Church of the devil.

You are either in one or the other.
So, my question.

Is Christianity (not the Mormon bit) in category 1 or 2?
If it's in 2 why do Mormon's want to be Christian?
If it's in 1 Mormonism cannot be the only one true Church.

 10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

(1st Nephi 14)

[_cinepro]

The current LDS teaching on this is very ecumenical, along the lines of any good Christian church is part of the Church of the Lamb of God. Obviously, in the past we had more specific ideas about this.

Even today I know people who very specifically think the Catholic Church is the "Church of the Devil".

Stephen Robinson has a good article about it here:

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1988/01/warri ... nts-of-god

[_Drifting]

The current LDS teaching on this is very ecumenical, along the lines of any good Christian church is part of the Church of the Lamb of God. Obviously, in the past we had more specific ideas about this.

Even today I know people who very specifically think the Catholic Church is the "Church of the Devil".

Stephen Robinson has a good article about it here:

http://www.LDS.org/ensign/1988/01/warri ... nts-of-god

From the article:

In Doctrine and Covenants 86:3, [D&C 86:3] the Lord identifies the whore, Babylon, as the apostate church: “After they [the Apostles] have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign—behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness.”

Clearly, whatever denominational name we choose to give it, the earliest apostate church and the great and abominable church that Nephi and John describe are identical. The fact is, we don’t really know what name to give it. I have proposed hellenized Christianity, but that is a description rather than a name.

The historical abominable church of the devil is that apostate church that replaced true Christianity in the first and second centuries, teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scriptures. It dethroned God in the church and replaced him with man by denying the principle of revelation and turning instead to human intellect. As the product of human agency, its creeds were an abomination to the Lord, for they were idolatry: men worshipping the creations, not of their own hands, but of their own minds.

[_Yoda]

Another question--From what I understand, many orthodox Christian churches accept the baptism of members of other sects as valid as if they were baptized into their own sect. (i.e. a Protestant baptism would count as a Catholic baptism, etc.) However, if a baptized member of the LDS Church wishes to become baptized into say, the Catholic church, he/she would have to be rebaptized into the Catholic church. Is that correct?

Of course, LDS are the same. A person who is a baptized member of the Catholic church, or another church, would have to be baptized by an LDS preisthood holder because we believe that the LDS priesthood is the only priiesthood which carries proper authority to baptize.

Again, I can see how we are viewed as arrogant by people outside our religion. I also think it is rather amusing that the PR group and Church leaders (President Hinckley, in particular) have worked so hard in the past 10 years to be accepted as mainstream (i.e. Orthodox). Maybe we view the term mainstream and orthodox differently, but, in the world of the Christian religion, it seems to be the same.

If this is the case, then we are really trying to be part of a club that we have no business belonging to if we are following the teachings revealed to Joseph Smith. When Joseph asked which Church he should join, the Lord told him, "Join none of them; they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

That is a pretty strong statement, and I think, an offensive one, to other Christian sects. Now, we are campaigning to be a part of them? It is like wanting to be accepted by the people in the tall, glorious building for partaking of the tree of life. (For those of you who are not LDS, this is a dream told by Lehi in the Book of Mormon).

[_Drifting]

Another question--From what I understand, many orthodox Christian churches accept the baptism of members of other sects as valid as if they were baptized into their own sect. (i.e. a Protestant baptism would count as a Catholic baptism, etc.) However, if a baptized member of the LDS Church wishes to become baptized into say, the Catholic church, he/she would have to be rebaptized into the Catholic church. Is that correct?

Of course, LDS are the same. A person who is a baptized member of the Catholic church, or another church, would have to be baptized by an LDS preisthood holder because we believe that the LDS priesthood is the only priiesthood which carries proper authority to baptize.

Again, I can see how we are viewed as arrogant by people outside our religion. I also think it is rather amusing that the PR group and Church leaders (President Hinckley, in particular) have worked so hard in the past 10 years to be accepted as mainstream (i.e. Orthodox). Maybe we view the term mainstream and orthodox differently, but, in the world of the Christian religion, it seems to be the same.

If this is the case, then we are really trying to be part of a club that we have no business belonging to if we are following the teachings revealed to Joseph Smith. When Joseph asked which Church he should join, the Lord told him, "Join none of them; they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

That is a pretty strong statement, and I think, an offensive one, to other Christian sects. Now, we are campaigning to be a part of them? It is like wanting to be accepted by the people in the tall, glorious building for partaking of the tree of life. (For those of you who are not LDS, this is a dream told by Lehi in the Book of Mormon).

Liz, correct me if I am wrong, but if an LDS gets baptised into another religion and that becomes known by the Church don't they get excommunicated?

[_Chap]

Another question--From what I understand, many orthodox Christian churches accept the baptism of members of other sects as valid as if they were baptized into their own sect. (i.e. a Protestant baptism would count as a Catholic baptism, etc.) However, if a baptized member of the LDS Church wishes to become baptized into say, the Catholic church, he/she would have to be rebaptized into the Catholic church. Is that correct?

Of course, LDS are the same. A person who is a baptized member of the Catholic church, or another church, would have to be baptized by an LDS preisthood holder because we believe that the LDS priesthood is the only priiesthood which carries proper authority to baptize

There is in fact a wide acceptance of one another's baptism by mainstream Christian churches.

Here is a typical statement, from a Roman Catholic source:

Roman Catholic Answer
The Catholic Church recognizes all baptisms that are done in which water actually runs on the head of the person, in which the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and done with the intention to do what Our Blessed Lord asked of us when He said that you must be baptized. If any of these elements are missing (sprinkling versus poured water or immersion, something other than water, different words, or no intention) then the baptism would not be considered valid.
Answer
Any Christian baptism performed with water and the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Orthodox, Coptic, Anglican Christians use this formula, as do most Protestants. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians do not use this formula and/or have different understandings of the Trinity than other Christians, so Catholicism does not recognize their baptisms since they do not have the same intention.
Canon 869.1 states
"Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism."
In other words, Christians being received into full communion with the Catholic Church are not re-baptised unless there is some real doubt as to whether or not it was done properly; even then, baptism is 'conditional'. This would never apply to such people as Orthodox, Copts, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans or Presbyterians.

The essential elements are the use of water, and the reference to the Trinity. You will see that Mormons and JWs have to be rebaptized, as do Unitarians, since they are not baptized with a Trinitarian formula. In theological terms, these groups are outliers for most other Christian groups.

[_bcspace]

...at least that is what the Book of Mormon teaches us.

1. The Church of the Lamb of God.
2. The Church of the devil.

You are either in one or the other.
So, my question.

Is Christianity (not the Mormon bit) in category 1 or 2?

2. It's not that any particular church is the church of the Devil (if I had to pin it on one, it would be the pre-Catholic apostate church), it's that their doctrines or lack thereof are the teachings of that church. Political organizations fit here as well, Democrats for example, or any others that might match the description of Gadianton robbers.

If it's in 2 why do Mormon's want to be Christian?

Because we are the modern descendents of the original Christian Church.

If it's in 1 Mormonism cannot be the only one true Church.

That is correct. While there are truths in other churches, their doctrine, if one settles on it, does not result in eternal life.

[_cafe crema]

Another question--From what I understand, many orthodox Christian churches accept the baptism of members of other sects as valid as if they were baptized into their own sect. (i.e. a Protestant baptism would count as a Catholic baptism, etc.) However, if a baptized member of the LDS Church wishes to become baptized into say, the Catholic church, he/she would have to be rebaptized into the Catholic church. Is that correct?

Well as a bit nittiness, the Catholic church never re-baptizes anyone, if a person is baptized by the church it is because they have not been baptized before, if they are conditionally baptized it is because there is uncertainty about the validity of the previous baptism.

[_Yoda]

Another question--From what I understand, many orthodox Christian churches accept the baptism of members of other sects as valid as if they were baptized into their own sect. (i.e. a Protestant baptism would count as a Catholic baptism, etc.) However, if a baptized member of the LDS Church wishes to become baptized into say, the Catholic church, he/she would have to be rebaptized into the Catholic church. Is that correct?

Of course, LDS are the same. A person who is a baptized member of the Catholic church, or another church, would have to be baptized by an LDS preisthood holder because we believe that the LDS priesthood is the only priiesthood which carries proper authority to baptize

There is in fact a wide acceptance of one another's baptism by mainstream Christian churches.

Here is a typical statement, from a Roman Catholic source:

Roman Catholic Answer
The Catholic Church recognizes all baptisms that are done in which water actually runs on the head of the person, in which the words, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and done with the intention to do what Our Blessed Lord asked of us when He said that you must be baptized. If any of these elements are missing (sprinkling versus poured water or immersion, something other than water, different words, or no intention) then the baptism would not be considered valid.
Answer
Any Christian baptism performed with water and the formula "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." Orthodox, Coptic, Anglican Christians use this formula, as do most Protestants. Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Unitarians do not use this formula and/or have different understandings of the Trinity than other Christians, so Catholicism does not recognize their baptisms since they do not have the same intention.
Canon 869.1 states
"Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism."
In other words, Christians being received into full communion with the Catholic Church are not re-baptised unless there is some real doubt as to whether or not it was done properly; even then, baptism is 'conditional'. This would never apply to such people as Orthodox, Copts, Anglicans, Methodists, Lutherans or Presbyterians.

The essential elements are the use of water, and the reference to the Trinity. You will see that Mormons and JWs have to be rebaptized, as do Unitarians, since they are not baptized with a Trinitarian formula. In theological terms, these groups are outliers for most other Christian groups.

Interesting. Thank you for expanding on this, Chap. The LDS Church does reference the Trinity, however:

4. States the person’s full name and says, “Having been commissioned of Jesus Christ, I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen” (D&C 20:73).

Also, do Baptists count in this segment of accepted baptisms?

[_Yoda]

Another question--From what I understand, many orthodox Christian churches accept the baptism of members of other sects as valid as if they were baptized into their own sect. (i.e. a Protestant baptism would count as a Catholic baptism, etc.) However, if a baptized member of the LDS Church wishes to become baptized into say, the Catholic church, he/she would have to be rebaptized into the Catholic church. Is that correct?

Of course, LDS are the same. A person who is a baptized member of the Catholic church, or another church, would have to be baptized by an LDS preisthood holder because we believe that the LDS priesthood is the only priiesthood which carries proper authority to baptize.

Again, I can see how we are viewed as arrogant by people outside our religion. I also think it is rather amusing that the PR group and Church leaders (President Hinckley, in particular) have worked so hard in the past 10 years to be accepted as mainstream (i.e. Orthodox). Maybe we view the term mainstream and orthodox differently, but, in the world of the Christian religion, it seems to be the same.

If this is the case, then we are really trying to be part of a club that we have no business belonging to if we are following the teachings revealed to Joseph Smith. When Joseph asked which Church he should join, the Lord told him, "Join none of them; they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me."

That is a pretty strong statement, and I think, an offensive one, to other Christian sects. Now, we are campaigning to be a part of them? It is like wanting to be accepted by the people in the tall, glorious building for partaking of the tree of life. (For those of you who are not LDS, this is a dream told by Lehi in the Book of Mormon).

Liz, correct me if I am wrong, but if an LDS gets baptised into another religion and that becomes known by the Church don't they get excommunicated?

Yes, that is correct.