New Popes

[Setheus]

The Conclave

At least 15 days (and no more than 20 days) following the death of the pope, the church's cardinals gather in Rome for a conclave to elect a new pope. Unless circumstances prevent it, the conclave takes place in the Vatican palace, where the cardinals gather and vote in the Sistine Chapel. Officially, the cardinals are forbidden to discuss possible papal successors before the death of a pope, although private conversations do occur.

Once in Rome, the cardinals stay at the Casa di Santa Marta in the Vatican Grounds, located several hundred yards from St. Peter's Basilica. John Paul II's Universi Dominici Gregis ("Of the Lord's Whole Flock") provided for such modern accommodations -- a far cry from the spartan rooms in the Papal Palace issued to the cardinals in earlier conclaves.

Secrecy is of utmost importance during the conclave. No cardinal may leave without consent, and all the telephones are disconnected and the TV sets taken away. Radios, recording devices, newspapers and cameras are all forbidden, and no letters or documents are allowed in or out unless they are inspected by both the secretary of the conclave and a commission charged with guarding its integrity. The cardinals take an oath to observe the rules laid down by "Romano Pontifici Eligendo," which enjoin secrecy and forbid the electoral interference by civil authorities. The church holds these rules of secrecy in the highest regard: The penalty for disclosing anything about the conclave that must be kept secret is automatic excommunication.

Papal Qualifications

Contrary to what many people think, there are surprisingly few qualifications for someone to become pope: The cardinals can elect any baptized male to the papacy. Actually, even the requirement of baptism is negotiable -- although once a man accepts election to the papacy, he must be willing to be baptized, ordained a priest and consecrated bishop of Rome (and meet the qualifications of those positions). In recent centuries, however, church practice has been to elect someone from among the College of Cardinals.

Voting

Only cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to vote, and only voting cardinals are allowed into the Sistine Chapel for the election. The first vote is taken in the afternoon of the first day of the conclave. In the following days, they will vote twice each morning and once each afternoon until a pope is selected. If no one is elected within the first nine votes, then they may devote up to a day for prayer and discussion before resuming. They may do the same every seven unsuccessful votes after that.

In order to be elected, a candidate must receive two-thirds of the vote. However, in accordance with a change to papal electoral policy initiated by John Paul II in 1996, if the College of Cardinals is deadlocked after upwards of 12 or 13 days, they can decide to alter the voting process to allow for election by an absolute majority -- 50 percent plus one. The rule change also stipulated that the only method of electing the pope is by scrutiny, i.e., silent ballot -- thus excluding election by acclamation (which almost never happens) and by committee (a technique sometimes used to settle deadlocks).

The actual process of voting is quite elaborate. One at a time, in order of precedence, the cardinals approach the altar while holding up their folded ballots -- rectangular cards with the words "Eligo in Summum Pontificem" ("I elect as supreme pontiff") printed at the top. The elector kneels in prayer before the altar for a short while, before rising. He says, "I call to witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge, that my vote is given to the one who before God I consider should be elected," and places his ballot on a thin, flat plat called a paten. Then he uses the paten to drop the ballot into a chalice.

After everyone has voted, scrutineers count the ballots before they are unfolded. If the number of ballots does not match the number of electors, the ballots are burned without being counted and another vote is immediately taken. If the number of cards does match the number of electors, the scrutineers, who sit at a table in front of the altar, begin counting the votes. The first scrutineer unfolds the card, notes the name on a piece of paper and passes the card to the second scrutineer. He then notes the name and passes it to the third scrutineer, who reads it aloud. The last scrutineer uses a threaded needle to pierce each card through the word "eligo." After all the ballots have been counted, the ends of the thread are tied and the joined cards are placed in an empty receptacle. Then the scrutineers add up totals votes for each candidate.

After the vote, the secretary of the conclave and the master of ceremonies burn the ballots, adding special chemicals to make the smoke appear white or black to those waiting in St. Peter's Square. Black smoke signifies that no one received enough votes to be elected pontiff, while white smoke signifies the election of a new pope.

The New Pope

After the winner of the papal election is announced, the dean of the College of Cardinals asks the pope-elect, "Do you accept your canonical election as supreme pontiff?" After the prospective pope accepts, the dean asks him what name he would like to go by. Assuming he is already a bishop, he immediately becomes the new pope. The Dean of the College of Cardinals then steps onto the main balcony of the Vatican and declares: "Habemus Papam." ("We have a Pope.") The new pope then appears and delivers his Apostolic Blessing.

Fast Facts

• There is a custom in the history of the College of Cardinals of selecting someone who is very different from the previous pope.

• John Paul II has appointed more cardinals than any other pope.

• There are 117 cardinals under the age of 80, which makes them eligible to vote. John Paul II has selected all but three of those eligible.

• A pope's election cannot be invalidated once he is chosen, even if he bought the election.

• The custom of taking a new name began in 533, when a priest named Mercury was elected pope and felt the name of a pagan god was inappropriate for the successor of St. Peter.

• A few early popes, including St. Peter, may have appointed their own successors.

• In the early church, popes were usually chosen by the clergy and people of Rome in the same way that bishops in other dioceses were elected. This democratic process worked well when the church was small and united, but disagreements led to factions that fought over the papacy.

• After the eighth century, the papal electors were limited to the Roman clergy.

• Pope Leo I (440-61) described the ideal by saying that no one could be a bishop unless he was elected by the clergy, accepted by his people and consecrated by the bishops of his province.

• In an attempt to reform the electoral process, Nicholas II (1059-61) proposed a system whereby the cardinal bishops would meet to nominate a candidate and then invite the cardinal priests to vote on him. In 1179, Alexander III modified this system by including all the cardinals in the election process from the beginning.

• In 1274, Gregory X institutionalized this practice of sequestering the cardinals when he established the conclave. Under his system, the cardinals would be locked in one room, where they would sleep and vote. After three days, their food would be limited to one dish per meal. After eight days, they got only bread and water. Such severe regulations were not always enforced, but conclaves could still be dangerous to a cardinal's health.

• In July 1623, eight cardinals and 40 of their assistants died of malaria during a very hot conclave.

• The last conclave to last more than four days was in 1831. It lasted 54 days.

[Amillia]

Interesting. I like this last pope. His is a hard act to follow ~ I don't envy the next one.

[Lindy]

Why are

Only cardinals under the age of 80 are eligible to vote, and only voting cardinals are allowed into the Sistine Chapel for the election

? I wonder?

[Outshined]

I've also been told that no American is eligible to be pope because the pope can not come from a country that is considered a superpower (Too much political influence).

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Outshined@Apr 4 2005, 04:03 AM

I've also been told that no American is eligible to be pope because the pope can not come from a country that is considered a superpower (Too much political influence).

If that's true, it's an unofficial rule. And of course, until John Paul II, all the Popes had been Italian, going back to before America even existed, let alone became a world power.

Of course, since such a large number of American princes of the church are squishy bureaucrats educated in liberal American universities, it's probably a good thing they're kept away from the levers of power; otherwise, the Catholic Church would probably become the Episcopal Church, water down its convictions, and implode in short order.

[Jason]

sethus,

How does this event in and of itself invalidate the claim to a succession from St. Peter?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Setheus]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 4 2005, 11:13 AM

sethus,

How does this event in and of itself invalidate the claim to a succession from St. Peter?

Because there is no direct line back to Peter.

Giovanni de' Medici became Pope Leo X. Leo was a pirate by trade and this was a political move to gain power for the Medici family. That's how.

Look at it this way. If the rule is that no one can be pope except the pope's son then all who are potential popes must either be his son or the whole thing is a sham since all are "equally" eligable. Right?

[Jason]

Because there is no direct line back to Peter.

What do you mean?

Giovanni de' Medici became Pope Leo X. Leo was a pirate by trade and this was a political move to gain power for the Medici family. That's how.

Bush is a blood sucking oil monger. But he's still president and is the successor to Washington. What's your point?

Look at it this way. If the rule is that no one can be pope except the pope's son then all who are potential popes must either be his son or the whole thing is a sham since all are "equally" eligable. Right?

That doesn't make a bit of sense.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Bush is a blood sucking oil monger.

I thought the addled-lefty phrase was "oil-sucking blood monger," but maybe my hearing was distorted by the blended odors of patchouli, pot, and unshaven hippie-chick underarms. (I figure if that strong perfume can distort people's thinking to the point where they think giant puppets are an effective vehicle for political discourse, they might affect hearing, too.)

Seriously, though, I agree with your basic point: So what if the Renaissance popes were a bunch of rogues? (I'm actually a bit in awe of their capacity for sensual excess; some of them were legendary for parties whose descriptions make USC's frat row look like Helaman Halls on a Friday night in early May.) As far as I know, all the men (and one woman) who became Popes were legitimately ordained bishops and assigned the Roman bishopric by the people who had the authority to do so.

Here's an interesting thought: If we take the position that a few indisputably wicked Popes don't suffice to break the Catholic Church's apostolic authority -- i.e., if we conclude that what matters is the present state of the institution, not the sometimes-messy process by which it got there, why couldn't an institution whose actual founders were flawed be validated by the good-faith belief and correct teaching of their successors?

Imagine a church that, in its present incarnation, taught the essential core truths of the Christian gospel, that its present leadership firmly believed in those truths, and that it provided an effective vehicle for Christian life and for spreading the gospel. Imagine that it came to light that some of what its founders taught was not true, or that the founders were deeply flawed personally. My question is this: if the Catholic chain of authority were not broken by Renaissance-era rottenness, about halfway between the institution's founding, and the present day, would our hypothetical church, on the other hand, be compromised by a "rotten" link in the chain a little closer to the beginning of it?

[Outshined]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Apr 4 2005, 11:01 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Apr 4 2005, 11:01 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Outshined@Apr 4 2005, 04:03 AM

I've also been told that no American is eligible to be pope because the pope can not come from a country that is considered a superpower (Too much political influence).

If that's true, it's an unofficial rule. And of course, until John Paul II, all the Popes had been Italian, going back to before America even existed, let alone became a world power.

Of course, since such a large number of American princes of the church are squishy bureaucrats educated in liberal American universities, it's probably a good thing they're kept away from the levers of power; otherwise, the Catholic Church would probably become the Episcopal Church, water down its convictions, and implode in short order.

I got to talk to a priest yesterday about it, and you're right, it's an "unofficial" policy, but a firm one, apparently. He said no one from a politically powerful country is ever considered for pope because of the potential for influence. He echoed some of your concerns; that a liberal American pope might make some changes that most Catholics would not approve of.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 4 2005, 07:09 PM

Bush is a blood sucking oil monger.

I thought the addled-lefty phrase was "oil-sucking blood monger," but maybe my hearing was distorted by the blended odors of patchouli, pot, and unshaven hippie-chick underarms. (I figure if that strong perfume can distort people's thinking to the point where they think giant puppets are an effective vehicle for political discourse, they might affect hearing, too.)

Seriously, though, I agree with your basic point: So what if the Renaissance popes were a bunch of rogues? (I'm actually a bit in awe of their capacity for sensual excess; some of them were legendary for parties whose descriptions make USC's frat row look like Helaman Halls on a Friday night in early May.) As far as I know, all the men (and one woman) who became Popes were legitimately ordained bishops and assigned the Roman bishopric by the people who had the authority to do so.

Here's an interesting thought: If we take the position that a few indisputably wicked Popes don't suffice to break the Catholic Church's apostolic authority -- i.e., if we conclude that what matters is the present state of the institution, not the sometimes-messy process by which it got there, why couldn't an institution whose actual founders were flawed be validated by the good-faith belief and correct teaching of their successors?

Imagine a church that, in its present incarnation, taught the essential core truths of the Christian gospel, that its present leadership firmly believed in those truths, and that it provided an effective vehicle for Christian life and for spreading the gospel. Imagine that it came to light that some of what its founders taught was not true, or that the founders were deeply flawed personally. My question is this: if the Catholic chain of authority were not broken by Renaissance-era rottenness, about halfway between the institution's founding, and the present day, would our hypothetical church, on the other hand, be compromised by a "rotten" link in the chain a little closer to the beginning of it?

Wow ~

It does make one wonder how any Catholic can condemn our church for its history! Speaking of historical weaknesses ~ I remember that not long ago (maybe a couple of decades ago) the Catholic church had that exposure of baby skeletons found in the catacombs~ babies of nuns and priests who were supposed to be celebate.

I guess we really can't judge a church by the weaknesses of it's leaders can we?

[Jason]

Wow ~

It does make one wonder how any Catholic can condemn our church for its history! Speaking of historical weaknesses ~ I remember that not long ago (maybe a couple of decades ago) the Catholic church had that exposure of baby skeletons found in the catacombs~ babies of nuns and priests who were supposed to be celebate.

I guess we really can't judge a church by the weaknesses of it's leaders can we?

Amillia,

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would condemn Mormonism for sins of leaders or laypersons. It's the doctrine that's condemned.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 5 2005, 10:53 AM

Wow ~

It does make one wonder how any Catholic can condemn our church for its history! Speaking of historical weaknesses ~ I remember that not long ago (maybe a couple of decades ago) the Catholic church had that exposure of baby skeletons found in the catacombs~ babies of nuns and priests who were supposed to be celebate.

I guess we really can't judge a church by the weaknesses of it's leaders can we?

Amillia,

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would condemn Mormonism for sins of leaders or laypersons. It's the doctrine that's condemned.

Not really. All I have been bombarded with for the last 5 years in computer land ~ is the history of the church leaders ~ JS supposedly creating the BofM and sleeping with other men's wives Etc.

So ~ your comment just doesn't wash with me.

Also, there are doctrines of every church, even Christ's church that caused men to leave ~

John 6: 66

66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

[Jason]

Not really. All I have been bombarded with for the last 5 years in computer land ~ is the history of the church leaders ~ JS supposedly creating the BofM and sleeping with other men's wives Etc.

So ~ your comment just doesn't wash with me.

I was speaking about the leaders of today. And Smith's alleged adultery was justified by doctrine, hence the doctrine to be condemned, not the person.

Also, there are doctrines of every church, even Christ's church that caused men to leave

We see many who turn aside today, true. But we're talking about Mormonism, not Christ's church.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 5 2005, 09:53 AM

Wow ~

It does make one wonder how any Catholic can condemn our church for its history! Speaking of historical weaknesses ~ I remember that not long ago (maybe a couple of decades ago) the Catholic church had that exposure of baby skeletons found in the catacombs~ babies of nuns and priests who were supposed to be celebate.

I guess we really can't judge a church by the weaknesses of it's leaders can we?

Amillia,

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would condemn Mormonism for sins of leaders or laypersons. It's the doctrine that's condemned.

In that case, about 75% of the Church's critics must not be in their right mind.

The problem is that with a hierarchical church like the Latter-day Saints, it's hard to separate the doctrines from the leadership. When the leadership are empowered to pronounce doctrine, it's hard to criticize the one without the other.

As for Joseph Smith's introduction of polygamy, it's also impossible to separate the doctrine from the man. If the doctrine is true (that God may authorize plural marriage, and did in the LDS case), then no problem. If the doctrine is not true, then probably the most likely reason it was introduced was that Joseph Smith got caught fooling around with the hired help and invented the doctrine to justify himself.

And really, if you limit yourselves to what the present Church leadership teaches, you would be hard-pressed to argue that Mormonism does not sufficiently contain the key elements of the Christian gospel. There's nothing in Mormon doctrine that would contradict the Apostles' Creed, and though the Church has expressly rejected the Niceaean and Athanasian Creeds, I would say the only item of the former with which Mormons disagree is the idea that the Son shares one "substance" with the Father.

Is this single difference between Mormonism and creedal Christianity on the unity of the Trinity enough to read Mormonism out of the Christian tradition? I submit that most of the criticism of Mormonism is based on the conviction that Joseph Smith was a fraud, and did not experience the experiences he said he did. My question was whether this would necessarily result in the modern Church also being a fraud, if it did contain the minimum necessary elements of gospel truth to be counted true. "BELOVED, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." (1 John 4:1-2.) The Church teaches this; ergo, there must be at least something of God in its message.

[ThunderFire]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 5 2005, 01:09 PM

There's nothing in Mormon doctrine that would contradict the Apostles' Creed, and though the Church has expressly rejected the Niceaean and Athanasian Creeds, I would say the only item of the former with which Mormons disagree is the idea that the Son shares one "substance" with the Father.

I believe you are correct in saying that Mormon doctrine (in many ways) does not contradict what is contained in these "creeds", but that is not the issue as many see it. The real issue is in requiring people to submit to creeds. Looking at Joseph's grove experience we find God telling him that their "creeds" are an abomination before him and that while their lips were close to him their hearts are far away. So I do not believe that "creeds" are necessarily bad, but what is bad is requiring people to submit to them in order to show faith. It becomes similar to the "mark of the beast" in Revelation that must be taken upon ones self in order to associate with the group.

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ThunderFire+Apr 5 2005, 01:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (ThunderFire @ Apr 5 2005, 01:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Apr 5 2005, 01:09 PM

There's nothing in Mormon doctrine that would contradict the Apostles' Creed, and though the Church has expressly rejected the Niceaean and Athanasian Creeds, I would say the only item of the former with which Mormons disagree is the idea that the Son shares one "substance" with the Father.

I believe you are correct in saying that Mormon doctrine (in many ways) does not contradict what is contained in these "creeds", but that is not the issue as many see it. The real issue is in requiring people to submit to creeds. Looking at Joseph's grove experience we find God telling him that their "creeds" are an abomination before him and that while their lips were close to him their hearts are far away. So I do not believe that "creeds" are necessarily bad, but what is bad is requiring people to submit to them in order to show faith. It becomes similar to the "mark of the beast" in Revelation that must be taken upon ones self in order to associate with the group.

In Christ I Serve,

Thunderfire

But Mormonism has its own creeds, contained in the questions you have to answer in baptismal and temple-recommend interviews.

It's not the existence of a "creed" itself that's "abominable"; the word "creed" just means a summary of basic doctrine that believers believe in. It's the particular contents of a particular creed that's either right or wrong.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 5 2005, 12:14 PM

Not really. All I have been bombarded with for the last 5 years in computer land ~ is the history of the church leaders ~ JS supposedly creating the BofM and sleeping with other men's wives Etc.

So ~ your comment just doesn't wash with me.

I was speaking about the leaders of today. And Smith's alleged adultery was justified by doctrine, hence the doctrine to be condemned, not the person.

Also, there are doctrines of every church, even Christ's church that caused men to leave

We see many who turn aside today, true. But we're talking about Mormonism, not Christ's church.

Again I don't agree. The doctrine isn't why JS was murdered. It was gossip and jealousy and hurt feelings which brought JS to become the target.

[Jason]

Im not talking about Joseph Smith specifically. I don't have a problem with him per se. I believe he saw angelic beings claiming to be Jesus, God, John the Baptist, etc.

My issue is that I believe these were actually demons posing as God, etc. As Paul said, though an angel from heaven teach another gospel, let him be ananthema.

The issue isn't who was deceived (as I believe) but rather what was taught that should concern all non-LDS IMO.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 5 2005, 04:28 PM

Im not talking about Joseph Smith specifically.  I don't have a problem with him per se.  I believe he saw angelic beings claiming to be Jesus, God, John the Baptist, etc. 

My issue is that I believe these were actually demons posing as God, etc.  As Paul said, though an angel from heaven teach another gospel, let him be ananthema. 

The issue isn't who was deceived (as I believe) but rather what was taught that should concern all non-LDS IMO.

Well if you have had both the demonic possesion experience and the angelic and Christ visitations, you will know the difference. Joseph had both. He knew the difference.

I have had both.

When I was a teen, 13 to be exact, I found a bunch of playboys in my older bothers room and stole one. I read some articles and looked at the pictures until I became very sexually aroused. (sp) I came to a point where I wanted to take off all my clothes and walk out into the summer night.

I was so filled with this 'feeling' that I did just that. I even put the back porch light on. LOL Well I got all the way into the back yard before this 'feeling' totally left me. In all of this long walk to my back yard, I never felt naked. It was weird. But I got to the peach tree and I thought of what I was actually doing, and I was abandoned by the 'feeling'. It took forever to get back into the house ~ and lucky me, there was a neighbor boy watching. Total bummer that~

I have had other experiences of demonic possession, Once with a weegee (sp) board, another with unreasonable anger, and jealousy. I know the feeling when it is coming over me these days and can refute them.

But I have also had visitations of angels and dead family members. I have had conversations with the Spirit of Christ and the Holy Ghost (and they are different experiences in identity awareness) So I really can't believe that anyone who has had both could believe JS was totally led by demons.

I know the difference, so does anyone who has experienced it. One experience I had with a spiritual visitation, was so powerful I felt it for months. Not so with the demonic possession. I felt it leave me totally alone with my guilt. I never gained a lasting courage from the demons. Joseph Smith showed constant courage and in the face of all the opposition he faced, that is saying something.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Apr 4 2005, 05:09 PM

Seriously, though, I agree with your basic point: So what if the Renaissance popes were a bunch of rogues? (I'm actually a bit in awe of their capacity for sensual excess; some of them were legendary for parties whose descriptions make USC's frat row look like Helaman Halls on a Friday night in early May.) As far as I know, all the men (and one woman) who became Popes were legitimately ordained bishops and assigned the Roman bishopric by the people who had the authority to do so.

Here's an interesting thought: If we take the position that a few indisputably wicked Popes don't suffice to break the Catholic Church's apostolic authority -- i.e., if we conclude that what matters is the present state of the institution, not the sometimes-messy process by which it got there, why couldn't an institution whose actual founders were flawed be validated by the good-faith belief and correct teaching of their successors?

I don't think the matter is that simple. It is not a question of whether a rather large handful of bad popes suffice to break the apostolic authority of the instituion. Rather, the question is... does a corrupt institution - corrupt over a prolonged period of time, one of whose manifestations of courruption is a number of evil men at it head, lose it's right, by virture of it's ubiquitious and prolonged corruption, to apostolic legitimacy?

My answer: Of course.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 5 2005, 08:53 AM

Wow ~

It does make one wonder how any Catholic can condemn our church for its history! Speaking of historical weaknesses ~ I remember that not long ago (maybe a couple of decades ago) the Catholic church had that exposure of baby skeletons found in the catacombs~ babies of nuns and priests who were supposed to be celebate.

I guess we really can't judge a church by the weaknesses of it's leaders can we?

Amillia,

I don't think that anyone in their right mind would condemn Mormonism for sins of leaders or laypersons. It's the doctrine that's condemned.

Jason,

I know you read or have read the cult-stalker, evangelical websites, of which there are hundreds, that attack Mormonism for any reason that seems handy - you name, they claim it, including JS's or BY's or GBH's alledge improprieties.

Either you don't consider evangelicals to be in their right mind or your misrepresenting the issue.

[Snow]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 5 2005, 02:28 PM

Im not talking about Joseph Smith specifically. I don't have a problem with him per se. I believe he saw angelic beings claiming to be Jesus, God, John the Baptist, etc.

My issue is that I believe these were actually demons posing as God, etc. As Paul said, though an angel from heaven teach another gospel, let him be ananthema.

Yes, yes... facsinating idea Jason - demons you say?

Surely there must be some sort of test for your demon theory. Could you subject these suppose'd demons to an exothermic or endothermic reaction test? Perhaps a neutalisation and electrolysis reduction to test this interesting demon theory of yours?

Now Jason, when you say demon, do you me lessor demons or any class four spectral apparition?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by ExMormon-Jason@Apr 5 2005, 03:28 PM

Im not talking about Joseph Smith specifically. I don't have a problem with him per se. I believe he saw angelic beings claiming to be Jesus, God, John the Baptist, etc.

My issue is that I believe these were actually demons posing as God, etc. As Paul said, though an angel from heaven teach another gospel, let him be ananthema.

The issue isn't who was deceived (as I believe) but rather what was taught that should concern all non-LDS IMO.

Ex,

See my above quote of 1 John 4, to the effect that every spirit that declares that Christ is come in the flesh is of God. Since Mormonism clearly teaches the doctrine of the Incarnation, how could a demonic angel deliver such a message? See also the scripture stating that Satan cannot be divided against himself.