Sadly, one of the things that would help tremendously is money, and so far I haven’t found many in the Church with (a) the money, and (b) the motivation to do a proper campaign - radio, TV, internet, social media, etc.

We need to hit on all cylinders—it’s not enough to have Twitter and Facebook accounts, and a nice website, to go ‘all the way.’

In St. Louis, we’re working on a new marketing initiative, but it will be some time in coming, and I’m not sure how much money will be allowed to be spent to actually make it effective.

It is totally true—if the Catholic Church got something viral going, we might be able to draw some much-needed POSITIVE publicity.

Another quick note: I have finally figured out that one needs to separate blocks by two lines to get them to appear properly in comments. Maybe there’s a setting that can fix that annoying behavior?

Amen and amen. Matt, I couldn’t agree with you more! I converted in 2005 due almost exclusively to media evangelization (EWTN). EWTN is not going to reach everyone. Unless someone is predisposed to hear what they’re teaching, it can seem boring and void of any ‘entertainment value.’

That’s where a good ad campaign would come in - We have to remember that, to much of the world, Catholics are lumped into the same ‘weird’ or even ‘cult’ category as the Mormons. A good marketing campaign could help begin restoring the image of the Church to those who know very little about the Truth of the Church. I’m on board, where do I sign up?!

St. Maximilan Kolbe pray for us!

I think a similar campaign by the Catholic Church would be great and would work well. I was recently in Italy and was so impressed with the background of faith of the people. It was so obvious that the Catholic faith meant so much to so many generations of Italians. I have friends who are Catholic and I respect and admire their beliefs. By the way, I’m a father, a husband, and a Physical Therapist for the Elderly. I’m a Mormon.

There’s a Mormon temple being built in Rome this year.  I’m a mormon too.  I love hanging out with Catholic singles when they invite me to their church stuff.  But they rarely do.  It’s funny, it’s like they would rather stay clicky in there own sphere.  Funny tidbit, on that recent religion study on news.  89 percent of Mormons knew Mother Teresa was Catholic.  88 percent of Catholics got it right.

I saw this add when on an About.com page looking at something Catholic. I forgot exactly what it was but I found it odd that when searching for “catholic” I got a Mormon AD.

Amen!  I, like G-man, also converted 10 years ago after tuning into EWTN by accident! The Holy Spirit was definitely working through Mother Angelica! And since then, I have gone through times of being so passionate about my Faith and times of dryness as I was going through changing times in my life.  But one thing has always remained constant…I know that I am HOME in the Catholic Church and will never leave!  Unfortunately, I know that it’s not always so simple for others in a “dry time”.  They are easily wooed and persuaded by those friendly visitors knocking on the door with all of their convincing “knowledge” of the Bible and such.  The less than knowledgable Catholic is easy prey and so easily convinced that maybe these are truths that they are being given…and before ya know it, you have a bitter convert away from The One True Church!  I know because I used to get that knock on the door from time to time.  It was always the JW’s and I always invited them in for a two way discussion, knowing that I was NEVER going to convert, but always hoping that I could plant a seed!!  After a while, the knocks didn’t come anymore! 
Now, I have a different challenge/opportunity.  My brother’s girlfriend and mother of his newborn son is a MORMON.  Not a very knowledgable one, but still believing.  She is having their son blessed in her church at the end of the month and I have, without hesitation yet lovingly, told them that I will not be attending.  Nothing personal against her, but I have read and done enough research over the last 5 or so years to know what many of their beliefs are and to know that I will not be attending any sort of services at their church.  Maybe I’m being a little too over zealous, but my convictions are what they are.  I haven’t been challenged too badly just yet, but to my surprise, I have had some of my very devout Catholic friends tell me that I should go!  By the way, they didn’t bother to ask why I won’t go or what the beliefs are that I find so bothersome.  They just say that he is my brother after all.  By the way, my brother is not Mormon and doesn’t really have a clue.  he’s more pagan than anything else.  Anyway, this just makes me realize that maybe what we need is more ENTHUSIASM, more EDUCATION, and a whole lot more APOLOGETICS!  We need to be excited about our Faith and that means knowing our Faith AND knowing how to defend our Faith.  And then standing up for it will not be such a challenge or chore!  We would do it willingly regardless of the suffering (always redemptive, by the way)!  The Saints are wonderful examples of just this.  Pick one and follow! :)
Oh, and thanks for letting me get all that out!!! LOL I feel so much better!! :)
God’s blessings to all!

ps…for any Catholics looking to get “fired up” about their faith or any others looking to learn about the Catholic Church, I HIGHLY recommend anything by Scott Hahn!! He and his wife, Kimberly are converts and their love and knowledge of the Church is CONTAGIOUS!!! If you haven’t already, check them out!

I find the Mormon ads silly. I would be embarrassed, if I was these people, to do those ads. I also do not understand how they are getting converts when they are not even a Christian religion.  They do not believe in the Trinity, and do not think Jesus is the son of God.  Truth does not seem to be their best suit.

@JCAPIST: I respect that you find the ads silly, but be sure that you have the Mormon doctrine correct. Mormon doctrine on the Trinity is strikingly similar to Catholic (though of course not the same). Much closer to Catholic Trinity than to the protestant version of the doctrine, actually. And as for whether Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that’s just incorrect. Catholics and Mormons certainly disagree on a lot of doctrinal points, but there’s no question in any Mormon’s mind as to the fundamental and absolute truth that Jesus is the Son of God.

Peace.

Yes, Mormons have come along way since the days of their leaders calling the Roman Catholic Church the “Church of the Devil” and the “most abominable above all other churches” (Mormon Doctrine, by LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, 1958 ed., p. 129). Unfortunately, they have not corrected their scriptures yet, which still say that there are only two churches, “the church of the Lamb of God” (Mormon Church)and all other churches, which are the “church of the devil” (Book of Mormon - 1 Nephi 14:10).  So LDS people who laud those of other faiths are either being disingenuous or inconsistent with their own inspired writ - either of which is completely acceptable in Mormon culture if it promotes a positive image of the LDS religious institution.

PapaJoel…
Note that when Mormon Doctrine was written, Bruce R. was NOT an LDS Apostle. The book WAS corrected very quickly by the LDS Church leaders and that edition is NOT used.  The book was also NOT published by the LDS Church—just as many books on the Catholic faith are not published by the Catholic Church and contain entries not resonant with the Catholic Church.  There are many LDS authors that write about the LDS Church—and these are their own opinions and do not reflect the LDS Church leaders.  Nothing Bruce R. wrote AFTER he was named an LDS Apostle was pulled off the shelves.  There is a difference between before and after.  I have a good friend who wrote some “interesting” things about the Catholic Church—before he was to become a local high official.  It would be very impolite for me to post them (or provide authenticated copies) and claim he was writing as a Catholic Church official. He would be devastated.  Please afford Bruce R. the same courtesy.  The CURRENT copy of Mormon Doctrine is not contain what you imply is LDS Church approved commentary.

Beth,
It’s sad you don’t want to enjoy seeing a relative blessed.  I have attended baptisms and other ceremonies of relatives in other (including Catholic) churches and have enjoyed supporting my family in these settings. Never once did I feel I was being spiritually threatened—I just enjoyed the moment.  Once in a while I even walk up and visit the SLC Cathedral and it’s a wonderful place and very spiritual.  Much the same as with other local religious building.  What you’re really saying, I feel, is you are so fragile in your Catholic faith, that merely walking into another church might cause you spiritual harm.  Go. Enjoy supporting your brother and his girlfriend and his child.

I was Catholic before becoming Mormon. 

Growing up my mother was a very active church attending member. Currently, my 6 other siblings are also Catholic, but only one is active and attends church on a regular basis. My parents and grandparents have all passed on. 

I can say that I have attended services in the Catholic Church when I have been invited by family.. but they have not attended any of mine.

It does sadden me somewhat that my siblings do exactly the same as other denominations do when it comes to information about my faith.  They get their sources from “others” outside of my religion.  In other words.. they never asked me about what I believe or why I believe it.  But I have found that they will often tell me what it is that I believe and for the most part.. their understanding is completely wrong and inaccurate.  So I am sure that this was one of the many reasons for the PR the Church is involved in. 

Even though I was at one time a Catholic, if someone today was inquiring about the Catholic Church and asking me questions about it, I would certainly direct them to an active Catholic to get that kind of information, rather than get it from someone like me who no longer believes in the faith… or someone who is known to be anti-Catholic.  It surprises me how often people will get information on the Mormon faith from anyone other than an active Mormon.

@Beth.  The Blessing of child and giving it a name is not the same as it is in the Catholic Church.  If you want to know more about it.. you can read about it here: http://www.suite101.com/content/lds-baby-blessing-baby-naming-ceremony-for-mormon-church-a251182

This much I can say.  Going to a Mormon Church and attending their sacrament meeting will no more make you a Mormon than sitting in a garage will make you a car.  :-)

@Beth,
Among other problematic teachings, it’s my understanding that Mormons do not baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. I think you are absolutely right to be charitably absent from the blessing of the baby. I know you know this, but it is not a fear of the weakness of your faith, but fear of appearing to condone raising your nephew in a faith that doesn’t align with Catholic teachings.

Just my two cents.

G-Man - you have been misinformed.

Mormon babies aren’t baptized.  The Mormon baby is being blessed not baptized.  Mormon children are baptized at 8.  This is the prayer

“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.”

@G-man
.
As I stated in my post.. it always seems to be people who have the wrong understand of other peoples faith that seem to be the ones voicing their opinions.
-
Here you state that this is a “problematic” teaching yet… we don’t teach that.  See what I mean?
-
2nd of all.. it does amaze me that you somehow have given Beth the authority to “raise” her brother’s child as if she has any say so in the matter.  Is the blessing of a child something that the Catholic Church does not condone?
-
I know that the Mormon faith does not baptize babies. In other words.. it does NOT “condone” that ordinance and finds it very offensive. Yet there are Mormons that have attended Catholic baptisms of babies and in no way feel that they are condoning the actions that disagree with Mormon teachings.
-
Just to give you an example.. it states in our scriptures:

“Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach:
repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable
and capable of committing sin;
yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized,
and humble themselves as their little children,
and they shall all be saved with their little children.
And their little children need no repentance,
neither baptism.
-
Behold, baptism is unto repentance
to the fulfilling the commandments
unto the remission of sins.
But little children are alive in Christ,
even from the foundation of the world;
if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God,
and a respecter to persons;
for how many little children have died without baptism!
-
Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism,
these must have gone to an endless hell.
Behold I say unto you,
that he that supposeth that little children need baptism
is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity;
for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity;
wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought,
he must go down to hell.
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.”

A Mormon can tell you what we believe.. and why we believe it.  If you really want to know the truth.. just ask one.  :-)

@MrNirom,
“...you somehow have given Beth the authority to “raise” her brother’s child as if she has any say so in the matter” - Wrong. I’m simply saying she has every right to be charitably absent. That’s not raising the child.
If my brother gets divorced and plans to remarry, he may invite me to the wedding, but I know Christ taught that divorce was wrong. It would be my obligation to tell him that he was going against Church teaching, and I would be wrong to participate in that ceremony in any way.
In both cases we are dealing with issues of very serious spiritual consequence that go much deeper than the social implications of just go and have a good time - or you might hurt your brother’s feelings, etc.
When you belong to the One true Church founded by Christ, and you believe in her teachings, you tend to take your obligations to those teachings pretty seriously. In other words, I really don’t need to know much about the LDS to know that if I were Beth, I would be concerned about my brother and his children’s eternity.

@G-man

Just to understand here.. you are telling me that a way to show concern is to NOT attend the blessing of a baby?  Because if she did attend this blessing, this baby’s eternal soul is somehow lost?  And so in the same logical thinking.. by NOT going to this baby’s blessing.. the child will be saved?

Also.. I would love to see where Christ taught that divorce was wrong.  In Matthew 5 it states:

It hath been said,
Whosoever shall put away his wife,
let him give her a writing of divorcement:
But I say unto you,
That whosoever shall put away his wife,
saving for the cause of fornication,
causeth her to commit adultery:
and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Does not the Catholic Church honor divorce and have people remarry?

Here is a little video on Church teaching on divorce: http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=1597

The short is that Jesus does teach that divorce is wrong (your scripture is addressed in that video i linked). In fact, sacramental divorce is impossible. A valid marriage lasts until the death of one of the spouses. Period. No matter what. (What God has joined, let no man put asunder -Mark 10:9)

And I don’t think anyone was claiming a baby’s eternal soul will be lost by somebody else attending a ceremony. I think they are saying that in some cases it can be prudent to not attend things that are spreading/promoting/validating error. Simply by attending something and joining in celebration for something that promotes error is, in at least an indirect way, supporting it and participating in the validation of that error. It’s a complex matter where many other factors should be taken into consideration, but “not attending” can be the right thing to do.

Finally, without getting into too much detail about what Mormons believe, it’s safe to say that Mormons believe a lot of things that are very foreign to traditional Christianity. And even some things that conflict with the fundamentals. Yes, Mormons believe Jesus is the Son of God. What they won’t tell you is that they believe Jesus is a separate God - united under one Godhead (by virtue of the same purpose). This is fundamentally huge. And it’s one of the main reasons why many do not consider Mormons to even be Christian. It’s all fine and good to believe in Jesus Christ. But when that Jesus Christ is a totally different Jesus Christ than the one of historical Christianity, then it is natural to question it.

So for Catholics, when a Mormon is baptizing in the name of “the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” they may as well be baptizing in the name of the Father and Charlie and his friend Joe. I don’t mean that flippantly, but they just aren’t the same persons that Catholics believe they are. This is why Mormon baptisms are not recognized as valid, for example.

Mormons also believe there are many other gods that have similar reign over other planets, etc. I’m not trying to debate these things here or to put them down. But it’s important to recognize, despite considerable efforts by Mormons to downplay them, that there are some fundamental differences in their beliefs that do not jive with historical/traditional/Catholic/ or even mainstream protestant Christianity.

That said, with this post, I wanted to compliment the Mormons for their latest campaign and many of the other things that they do so well. I think there is a lot to be learned from them in this regard.

Neither Catholics nor protestants can claim they are right based on historical or traditional practices. If that were the case, Jews and Muslims could claim to be correct because of their history and traditions.

Regardless, I grew up in a small Canadian town with roughly a third Catholic, a third LDS (Mormon), and a third Protestant. Outside of each other’s doctrine, I just never found a reason strong enough to decline their invitations to special events and activities. Publicly we worked together, prayed together and played together. To this day, I still consider them among my best friends and many of them made me a better man for having known them. I could never shun someone’s personal invitation to something they held sacred and humble. That would just be mean and thoughtless. The Savior would never do that. By all scriptural accounts, I’m guessing He would go and if He thought they weren’t doing the right thing, He’d take the time to reach out and teach them. You can’t reach out when you’re pushing someone away with your arms folded in contempt. That’s just sad. Pathetic. You’re missing the boat.

By the way…

I’m a Mormon; A member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Interesting comments.  Question:  Does not the LDS teach that God was once man?

“As God was man is
as man is God was.”

LDS conversion rates have flatlined and convert retention is low. The Mormons know PR but they don’t know how to get back to their fast-growing ways.

@Matthew Warner

I am the first one to admit there are differences in doctrines.  For if we all had the same doctrine we would be of one Lord, one faith, one baptism.

Now Matthew.. you did the same thing that so many other people do.  You said: “What they won’t tell you is that they believe Jesus is a separate God - united under one Godhead (by virtue of the same purpose).”

Why do you think Mormon’s won’t tell you something?  We have stated on many occasions that we do not believe in the creeds of the trinity.  We do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are ONE God.. but three individuals making up one Godhead.  We do not believe in or understand the “God” you worship.

Just so we can be crystal clear on what we do believe, a talk was given by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in which he said:

In the year a.d. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.” How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”?

It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion. We extend to all the same respect for their doctrine that we are asking for ours. (That, too, is an article of our faith.) But if one says we are not Christians because we do not hold a fourth- or fifth-century view of the Godhead, then what of those first Christian Saints, many of whom were eyewitnesses of the living Christ, who did not hold such a view either?

We declare it is self-evident from the scriptures that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are separate persons, three divine beings, noting such unequivocal illustrations as the Savior’s great Intercessory Prayer just mentioned, His baptism at the hands of John, the experience on the Mount of Transfiguration, and the martyrdom of Stephen—to name just four. “

So as you can see.. because of Doctrinal differences, we too do not recognize your baptisms either.  Because we are not in line or linage as a church that was “reformed” from the Catholic Church.. where mainstream protestant Christianity comes from.. we would not and do not believe what you do, or what they do.  We are not a reformational type church.. but we are a restored church.  There is a big difference.

It is a fact that differences are what separate us.  So putting those aside.. it does not mean that by me going to a baby baptism of a Catholic couple that I am condoning that baptism or the doctrines of the Catholic Church, what I am condoning is a love of God for his children no matter how far I think they digress off the path.

There is no other Church in the world like the Catholic Church. So all those who are not of your faith, you can ignore. If you want to alienate yourself from the rest of God’s children, I suppose you have the right to do so.

Does the fact that I believe there are more Gods than one.. but worship only the Father.. going to send me to hell?  I suppose in some faiths the answer would be yes.  Honestly.. what would happen if you got to the other side and realized.. gee wiz.. I believed the world was flat.. but it’s not.  Or I believe that God was one being.. but he’s not.. Do you think that God will punish you for your misbelief? 

Yes.. we will differ.  We will always differ.

Terroll Williams wrote, Mormon doctrine on the Trinity is strikingly similar to Catholic (though of course not the same). Much closer to Catholic Trinity than to the protestant version of the doctrine, actually.

There may be some Protestants whose doctrine of the Trinity diverges from the Catholic doctrine, but most Protestant churches’ doctrine of the Trinity is precisely the Catholic doctrine. This is why Catholics rebaptize Mormons, but not Protestants. So I’m afraid you’re mistaken.

I’m also surprised that no one has mentioned the elephant in the room. Had the Mormons endured a scandal on the worldwide scale recently endured by the Catholic Church, this campaign would not work. We Catholics can talk until we’re blue in the face about whether the attention we received on the scandal is fair, but hearts have been hardened. Better, then, to go about our good works quietly, evangelizing when opportune in everyday life.

With patience a ruler may be persuaded, and a soft tongue will break a bone. — Proverbs 25.15

@Robb 76

In answer to your question:

The truths about God that Joseph Smith restored are of paramount importance. In 1844, he taught that “it is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another.”

Ten years earlier, the Lectures on Faith, which Joseph Smith directed and approved, taught that to acquire faith unto salvation one needs a correct idea of God’s character, perfections, and attributes, and that one needs to know that the course of life one is pursuing is according to God’s will. He also added, “If men do not comprehend the character of God, they do not comprehend themselves.” The Prophet explained that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens”; that “he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did”; and that he “worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling.” Through the Prophet, we learn that we “are begotten sons and daughters unto God” and that Christ is the Firstborn. As God’s children, we may become gods ourselves through Christ’s atonement and the plan of salvation, being joint heirs of Christ of “all that [the] Father hath.”

In Romans 8.. the Apostle Paul wrote:
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Just what does it mean to you to be heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs of Christ?

I am fascinated with faiths that begin with private revelation (no witnesses - convenient), no accompanying miracles, and no previous prophecy. To gain some credibility, parts of catholic faith are sprinkled in. This recipe leads a lot of people astray. That is what the devil wants!

What should we do? Learn the faith from proper sources. Learn doctrine, dogma, the catechism, scripture, etc. Start local neighborhood formation groups.

The mormon faith is definitely “out there.” This is in the category of New Age as far as I am concerned.

The marketing ads should be viewed as an attempt to revive a dying patient. Just ignore it.

I’m a cradle Catholic but I remember hearing about the Mormons since the days I was in the service.  A group of young Mormons would entertain and were known to spend 2 years in the service of their faith.  The general impression was that they were young, enthusiastic and very nice people.  I also understand that the Mormons are pretty strict about having their followers tithe (rumor? don’t know).  These kind of things work well for bringing in new converts and providing funding.
    On the other hand, there are many people in the public eye (such as senators Durbin, Leathy, Kerry etc. and Spkr Pelosi that are believed to be catholic and therefore reflect a faith that has some that do and some that don’t follow the Church teachings.  That and some organizations that pretend to be catholic and provide erroneous statements about what the Church is and stands for.  Can you think of any Mormons in the public eye that present heretical beliefs about their faith. 
    Unfortunately, in today’s world, many people run on erroneaous “facts”, including the main stream media, and do not do a good job of informing their conscience.  If they did, PR would matter less than substantive theology and faith.  Good for the Mormons not how about the Catholics doing a better job.

I’m 19 years old, a soldier in the U.S. Army, and an Infantryman. And oh yeah, I’m a Mormon.

I think that what the LDS ad campaign is getting at is something that this conversation could also use: that is, people of different faiths are normal people who happen to believe something different than you do.  And (as has been said earlier in this conversation) if you ever have questions about what that faith believes, ask a member of that religion.

There is truth in all religions, and all believing (or not believing) people deserve to be respected.  I have learned much about faith from friends of several different faiths, including mormon, episcopalian, catholic, and evangelical.  I think that we can all step down from our online soap boxes and just live our lives as genuinely as we know how, learning from and supporting friends of many different faiths, even while holding firm in our beliefs that the church to which we belong is the one true church of God. While I desperately want my friends and family to obtain salvation (through the true church), I think that the best way for me personally to share my faith is by living it the best way I know how and reaching out to them when I feel it is welcome, appropriate, etc.

As a Catholic growing up, I served Mass regularly, and because we were a small farm community, went to Catechism once a week in the next town.  With a strong and abiding faith, I still had many friends who were not Catholic.  Each of the three churches in town invited my graduating class to special Sunday programs to honor us.  There was a discussion among my Catholic classmates about attending the other church’s programs.  As some have here expressed, they did not want to ‘legitimize’ the other programs.  I asked my parish priest if it was okay to go, and he responded that it was.  I went, and my other friends were most grateful.

I echo Tom Turner’s experience.  My wife and I converted this year, and while we have been befriended by some great people in our parish, most of the people there took no notice of us. My sponsor (an RCIA instructor) never heard of EWTN and dissents from Church teaching where it conflicts with secular conventional wisdom.  Most of the recently confirmed teens here don’t know and don’t care what the Church teaches. Millions of Catholics vote for explicitly pro-abortion candidates.  The Catholic Church is not a mere cultural inheritance but God’s plan to unite all people in Christ.  We have too many people merely going through the motions and no slick ad campaign will fix that.  We need rescuing from muddle-headed relativism and we need catechesis.  Growth and increase in numbers are not the same thing.

@Rick

    You said: I am fascinated with faiths that begin with private revelation (no witnesses - convenient), no accompanying miracles, and no previous prophecy.

    I guess you can erase the teachings of the Apostle Paul for he surely started with a very private revelation.  Who else but him witnessed it?

    And I suppose you think that there were no miracles to be had in the Mormon Church.  All one needs to do is read in the journals of the people who lived it and experience the vast number of miracles that are seen and enjoyed by many.  There are many good books and websites out there on the subject if one is interested.  Here is just one:  http://www.fairlds.org/Misc/Miraculous_Events_in_Early_Church_History.html

    One can not help but sprinkle in some of the Catholic faith.. because we believe there are parts that do have some truth to it.  Truth can not be ignored.  No sense in throwing out the baby with the bath water.  :-)

    Did the Apostle Peter have prophecy before he had his first one?  Any Prophet who has ever had a revelation from God at sometime would have to say that he had his first one.  So all of them would fall in line with your comment “and no previous prophecy”.  :-)

    Bottom line is that we are all children of our Father in Heaven.  That makes us all brothers and sisters.

This comes from Catholic Answers:

Q: “Why doesn’t the Catholic Church accept Mormon baptism?”

A: “The Catholic Church does not recognize Mormon baptism as valid because, although Mormons and Catholics use the same words, those words have completely unrelated meanings for each religion. The Mormon’s very concept of God is infinitely different from that of Christians—even though they call themselves the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Mormons believe that God is only one of many gods who were once men and that each of us in turn can become what God is now. This process of men becoming gods is said to go back infinitely. But of course none of these gods can be infinite if they are multiple and had a beginning and are actually human beings. In Mormons’ view, both Jesus and the Father are what we would call glorified creatures.

They also believe that Jesus came into existence after the Father, and that the Father and the Son are not one in being. Thus, although they use the phrase “the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,” in their usage this phrase takes on a meaning that is actually polytheistic and pagan rather than trinitarian.

For an in-depth look at this, see the books Inside Mormonism and When Mormons Call by Isaiah Bennett, available from Catholic Answers. For a shorter but equally incisive take, see Fr. Brian Harrison’s two-part series on Mormonism in the April and May-June 2003 issues of This Rock.”

Q: “What does the Catholic Church say about the practices and beliefs of Mormonism?”

A: “While individual Mormons may be persons of good conscience, Mormonism itself is a belief system that would reduce the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from being the three Persons of the one, true, and infinite God to being three limited, finite deities among an uncounted multitude of deities, all of whom merely reshaped small parts of a preexisting cosmos.

Mormonism teaches that human beings may, by practicing the tenets of its faith, become gods and goddesses themselves, with their own planets full of people worshiping them.

While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is blasphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.”

Q: “Your articles on Mormonism frequently mention the book Doctrine and Covenants. What is it?”

A: “Doctrine and Covenants, to quote its explanatory introduction, purports to be “a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on earth in the last days.”

The introduction goes on to say,

Although most of the sections are directed to members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the messages, warnings, and exhortations are for the benefit of all mankind, and contain an invitation to all people everywhere to hear the voice of the Lord . . . speaking to them for their temporal well-being and their everlasting salvation. The book of Doctrine and Covenants is one of the standard works of the Church in company with the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Pearl of Great Price.

That’s what the Mormon Church claims it is. In reality, Doctrine and Covenants is a compilation of messages from Joseph Smith designed to bolster his image as a prophet. Although he claimed to be receiving direct revelations from God, these “revelations” often contradicted others given in the Book of Mormon and elsewhere. They were simply a convenient way for Smith to get the things he wanted (such as many wives—see Doctrine and Covenants section 132:1–62) without argument or interference. After all, who would want to argue with God?”

Q: “I heard that the current Mormon “prophet” gave an interview in which he waffled on the key teaching of Mormonism—that men can become gods. Is this true?”

A: “Yes, it is. Shortly after Easter 1997, the San Francisco Chronicle printed an interview with Gordon B. Hinckley, who has been the president and “prophet” of the Mormon church since 1995.

In the interview, he was asked: “[D]on’t Mormons believe that God was once a man?”

“I wouldn’t say that,” the prophet responded. “There’s a little couplet coined, ‘As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.’ Now, that’s more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don’t know very much about” (“Musings of the Main Mormon,” April 13, 1997, 3/Z1).

There’s something wrong here, as even Latter-day Saints admit. Hinckley appeared to dismiss the traditional Mormon belief that God was once a man by using the demeaning terms “little,” “couplet,” and “coined.” What he failed to point out was that the couplet, coined in the late 19th century by previous Mormon president and prophet Lorenzo Snow, was a succinct summary of the doctrine taught by Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and the founding theologians of Mormonism (see Doctrine and Covenants 130:22).

When asked how he receives divine revelation, to which he is supposedly entitled as God’s prophet on earth, Hinckley said, “[W]e have a great body of revelation, the vast majority of which came from the prophet Joseph Smith. We don’t need much revelation. We need to pay more attention to the revelation we’ve already received.”

Discussing abortion, Hinckley said his church permits it in several circumstances, including for the mother’s health. This is a change to a more liberal, politically correct position than what Mormonism has held to this point.

When asked about euthanasia, Hinckley declared that “no, at this point at least, we haven’t favored that” (emphasis added). Mormons may well wonder if this leaves the door cracked open to future divine permission to kill their sick and elderly.

Ultimately, the past doctrinal transformations of Mormonism give no confidence that there will not be equally drastic revisions to Mormon doctrine in the future. There may be more stages yet to come as Mormonism reinvents itself to fit the culture around it.”

Q: “I have a Mormon colleague who does not drink Coke or other soft drinks. He said his religion forbids it. Is this true?”

A: “Yes, by a circuitous route Mormonism has ended up forbidding all caffeinated drinks to its members, including the popular soft drinks.

On February 27, 1833, Joseph Smith reported a revelation known as “the Word of Wisdom,” which is now enshrined in Mormon scripture as Doctrine and Covenants 89.

The elders of the early Mormon Church used to meet in a room over Joseph and Emma Smith’s house in Kirtland, Ohio. After a good deal of pipe-smoking, they would take large chews of tobacco and spit all over the floor. Smith’s wife was none too pleased with having to clean up the mess, and Smith quieted her by “inquiring of the Lord” (see Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses 12:157-158).

The resulting “revelation” allegedly was given “not by commandment or constraint,” but as advice or counsel that henceforth members should not use tobacco, alcohol, or “hot drinks,” interpreted as coffee and tea. Later prophets deemed this to refer also to cold coffee or tea and eventually extended to cover caffeinated colas as well.

Grains and vegetables were especially commended. According to the Word of Wisdom, meat was to be eaten sparingly, and then only in winter and times of famine. The “revelation” promised that those who followed it would “find wisdom and great treasures of knowledge.”

Mormons tout the Word of Wisdom as a case of God protecting them from health problems stemming from alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine (all of which were already under attack for health reasons in 19th-century America). Yet the Mormon God was apparently not farsighted enough to inform his followers of the dangers of salt, fat, and cholesterol.

At first the “Word of Wisdom” was presented only as advice, not as having the force of law. But the “advice” from God soon took on the status of a commandment.

Observance of the Word of Wisdom was sporadic, even by Smith and other early leaders. By 1930, however, it had become more rigorously enforced. It is now enjoined “by . . . constraint” and not merely as advice. Prior to a candidate’s baptism, he is interviewed by a senior missionary who asks him questions, including about his compliance with the Word of Wisdom. For example, has he refrained from all alcohol, tobacco, coffee, and tea? For decades now members have been asked in their yearly interviews with church authorities if they keep the Word of Wisdom. Failure to do so—except for the meat prohibition, which has silently fallen through the cracks—bars one from attending the temple and from church leadership positions.

In the Mormon view, this has grave consequences, for unless a Mormon does his “temple work” he is unable in the next life to achieve godhood. Joseph Smith may have been able to use alcohol, tobacco, and coffee, even after the “giving” of the Word of Wisdom, but no Mormon today can, on pain of becoming a second-class citizen in theafterlife.

Of course, the Mormon prohibition on certain foods is in marked contrast to the biblical and Christian view. While Paul does urge moderation (Phil 4:5), and while periodic abstinence from foods can be a healthy spiritual discipline (Dn 10:2-3), the Bible stands fast in maintaining that all foods are to be received with thanksgiving: “For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving” (1 Tm 4:4). Specifically, as a matter of Christian liberty, Paul commands us not to have food laws imposed on us on religious grounds: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink” (Col 2:16). This includes even alcohol, so long as moderation is observed. Rather than condemn the consumption of alcohol, for example, the Bible clearly permits and even advises it (1 Tm 3:8, 5:23; Ti 2:3; 1 Pt 4:3; also Dt 14:24-26; Prv 31:6-7).”

Q: “A Mormon missionary has been trying to argue for the Book of Mormon by discussing “the stick of Joseph” and “the stick of Judah.” What on earth is he talking about?”

A: “He’s referring to a verse in Ezekiel. The passage reads:

The word of the Lord came again unto me, saying, Moreover, thou son of man, take thee one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, and for the children of Israel his companions: Then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, the stick of Ephraim, and for all the house of Israel his companions: And join them one to another into one stick; and they shall become one in thine hand. (Ez 37:15-17, KJV)
This is one of several passages Mormons try to conscript to prove the Bible spoke of another inspired work of scripture that was to be brought forth in the “latter days.”

Mormons rely greatly on the Ezekiel passage as a proof text to demonstrate not only the possibility of divine scripture aside from the Bible, but also the Book of Mormon’s doctrinal equality with it. They assume that the “stick of Judah” is the Bible, while the “stick of Joseph” is the Book of Mormon. In these, the latter days, the two have been joined together, forming the bulk of Mormon scripture.

Mormonism’s professed literal interpretation of Scripture does not extend to hundreds of passages it rejects as corrupted or that it skews to suit its own purposes. In the case of Ezekiel 37, Mormons not only neglect the plain sense of the words but also ignore their true interpretation, given by God—in the very same chapter.

First, the Hebrew term translated as “stick” (aits) is never used anywhere in the Old Testament to mean “book,” “scroll,” “writing” or anything similar. It is variously translated as “wood” or “branch,” “timber,” or “tree.” Needless to say, the Book of Mormon was allegedly written on metal plates, not scrolls or sticks.

Second, the correct interpretation of this symbolic action of the prophet is given just a few verses later. Ezekiel is to take the two sticks, put them end to end and hold the joined ends in his hand. He thus displays to the people a “single” stick, once again united. This is to show that the scattered remnants of the Southern kingdom (“Judah”) and Northern kingdom of Israel (“Joseph”) will be returned from exile, restored to their land, and made one nation again. “They shall be no more two nations, neither shall they be divided into two kingdoms any more at all” (Ez 37:22).

With divine impetus, Ezekiel first spoke this parable of redemption then enacted it. Only Mormonism can manage to mistake “timber” for “scrolls” and “nations” for “metal plates.”

Take a look at the passage in a more modern translation:

The word of the Lord came to me: “Son of man, take a stick and write on it, ‘For Judah, and the children of Israel associated with him,’ then take another stick and write upon it, ‘For Joseph (the stick of Ephraim) and all the house of Israel associated with him,’ and join them together into one stick. . . . Behold, I am about to take the stick of Joseph (which is in the hand of Ephraim) and the tribes of Israel associated with him; and I will join with it the stick of Judah, and make them one stick, that they may be one in my hand. . . . I will take the people of Israel from the nations among which they have gone, and will gather them from all sides, and bring them to their own land; and I will make them one nation in the land, upon the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; and they shall be no longer two nations, and no longer divided into two kingdoms.” (Ez 37:15-22, RSV)
As the text makes clear, this is a prophecy of national reunification, not about the appearance of hidden scriptures.”

Q: “On those Mormon TV commercials, they say Jesus spoke of having “other sheep” and that this somehow supports the Mormon church. What are they talking about and what is the real story?”

A: “They’re quoting from John 10:16, where Jesus says, “And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.”

Mormons claim that these words of Christ were fulfilled when, after his death and resurrection, he visited the Americas to establish a church among the “Nephites.” These “lost sheep” were supposedly the descendants of Hebrews who had fled Jerusalem and journeyed to America at the time of Jeremiah. The Book of Mormon purports to be the religious and historical records of these ancient “Christians” (as the Book of Mormon records they called themselves, even before the coming of Jesus), written and preserved by American counterparts of Hebrew prophets.

Under the rubric, “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34), the Mormon church finds its rationale for the above interpretation and argues that God deals fairly with all his children. Since Christ was sent to Palestine to teach and establish a church among the Jews there, it was only right that he come also to the Americas and establish a church there as well. As so often is the case with Mormon arguments, if they prove anything, they prove too much. The “God is no respecter of persons” principle, both in Acts 10 and elsewhere (Rom 2:11), is applied in a specifically Jewish-Gentile context, showing that God treats all groups fairly. Thus a Mormon could not limit the “no respecter of persons” principle to just those who are members of the house of Israel (Old World or New World Israel). It includes all men, everywhere. If, because of this principle, he had to come to North America and start a church to be fair to the people there, then he would have to visit every continent, and all the peoples on those continents, and start new, independent churches everywhere, in order to show that he is no respecter of persons.

The logical alternative is to say that God shows his grace by starting a single, unified church—somewhere—and that this church is to receive all men, Jew and Gentile. By having a single church, when it expands, men will have no doubt about which one they are to join. Until the time that this church reaches them, they will be judged based on whatever knowledge of God they have—however much or little that may be—and their willingness to follow his truth if they had known what it was.

In reality, the “other sheep” Jesus mentions are the righteous Gentiles, who did not belong to the “fold” of God’s chosen people, Israel, but who would respond to the gospel when preached to them. While Christ’s earthly ministry served the Jewish people almost exclusively, his great commission to the apostles before his ascension sent them into all the world to preach, baptize and thus unite his believers in one fold (Mt 27:19). Because “he that heareth you heareth me” (Lk 10:16), to hear the gospel from the lips of his disciples is to hear Jesus himself.

The understanding of the “other sheep” as the Gentiles who would come to believe in Christ is the natural understanding of the passage. Mormons sometimes ask Christians, “If the ‘other sheep’ weren’t in the New World then who were they?”

A Christian often will be perplexed at the fact the question was asked at all and respond, “Well, they’re the Gentile Christians, of course. How could anyone think the text suggests otherwise?” The New Testament has a running theme of how salvation comes from the Jews to the Gentiles. It appears across multiple books, in all of the gospels and most of the epistles. Jesus’ statement about gathering other sheep in the future is simply one more instance of the gospels dealing with this theme.

The fact that Mormons often do not spot the obvious, face-value interpretation of the text reveals how little Mormons have been exposed to the historic understanding of the passage and how little they have been encouraged to think through its rationale. They have not tried to understand the New Testament as a whole, integrating and understanding its individual passages with other passages and with the general historical backdrop. Instead, they have had the interpretations of certain alleged proof texts force-fed to them in a way that keeps them from knowing of the existence of other, more plausible interpretations.”

Q: “Mormon missionaries have been bugging me to read their Book of Mormon. I don’t plan to do so since it is false scripture, but I would like to know what the book is about when I talk to them. Can you give me an overview?”

A: “The Book of Mormon comprises 15 books, each allegedly written by an ancient American prophet. It professes to be a religious and secular history of Hebrews who fled Jerusalem and certain persecution in 600 B.C. Lehi, an alleged prophet and contemporary of Jeremiah, led his wife, children, and their spouses through the Arabian wilderness to the shores of “the large waters.”

After much hardship and contention, the righteous son Nephi built a ship and the company sailed to a new “promised land,” but not before having obtained a collection of brass plates on which was recorded not only the Pentateuch (or first five books of the Old Testament) but also a record of the Jews from the beginning down to that day. All the while, Nephi had been making metal plates of his own and engraving on them a record of his family’s labors.

Upon arriving in the Western Hemisphere, and after the death of Lehi, Nephi’s brothers Laman and Lemuel rebelled against Nephi, forcing him and his followers to separate from them. Because of their unbelief, the Lamanites (as the followers of Laman andLemuel were called) were cursed with a “skin of blackness”—which here means a darker, American Indian skin tone, not a Negro complexion—and became persecutors of the Nephites. At Nephi’s death in the mid-sixth century B.C., his younger brother Jacob took up the story and the plates. Several other alleged prophets followed Jacob, maintaining written records of the Nephites or “American Hebrews.”

Throughout these centuries, and reflecting the same theme sketched for Israel by Old Testament authors, the Nephites enjoyed periods of material prosperity when they followed the Lord’s voice and languished in misery when they didn’t. Much of the book is a dull, repetitive recording of bloody battles waged between Nephites and Lamanites.

Evil kings, corrupt judges, “secret combinations” (or “gangs” of robbers), persecution of the righteous, their subsequent apostasy and restoration, massive genocide—this is the stuff of the Book of Mormon. There are occasional discourses on religion, most of which remind the reader of the words of Old Testament prophets, the Sermon on the Mount, or the teachings of St. Paul, despite the chronological problems this poses.

Towards the end of the Nephite-Lamanite record we find inserted, out of chronological sequence, the “Book of Ether.” These 15 chapters are said to be the record of yet another group of Hebrew émigrés, these dispersed at the Tower of Babel. Following the “brother of Jared,” who had had a vision of the “spirit body” of Jesus Christ, these righteous ones built barges and sailed for the promised land of America.

The “Jaredites” soon split into factions, warring with one another throughout a succession of kings, prophets, murder, and intrigue. Some of their prophets predicted the coming forth of the Book of Mormon and the establishing in America of the New Jerusalem.

The forces of good and evil ultimately arrayed themselves in a final battle. Millions were killed; indeed, every single Jaredite but one was slain. The prophet Ether recorded the devastation on twenty-four metal plates that were later discovered by Nephites and appended to their own writings.

Without doubt, the high point of the Book of Mormon is recorded in Third Nephi. This book allegedly covers the period from A.D. 1-35. Raids, murders, government upheavals, tempests, earthquakes, and fires allegedly preceded the appearance of Jesus Christ on the American continent. According to Mormonism, Jesus Christ showed himself to the people of America in the year 34 and established a second church, paralleling the one in the Old World.

The Book of Mormon story ends early in the fifth century. By the fourth century war and carnage had consumed both the faithful Nephites and the reprobate Lamanites. After gathering hundreds of thousands of warriors to the Hill Cumorah (located in New York state), the Nephites were utterly massacred by the sword by an even greater army of “dark and filthy” Lamanites (Mormon 5:15; Mormons frequently identify contemporary Native Americans as descendants of these Lamanites).

The only survivor was Moroni, the son of the Nephite prophet Mormon, from whom the book takes its name. To him his father had entrusted the centuries-old records of God’s American prophets, to which Moroni himself added a few concluding chapters. Before dying in 421, Moroni allegedly placed the gold plates in a stone and cement box and buried it in a hillside near present-day Palmyra, east of Rochester, New York.

In Joseph Smith’s day, several burning theological issues occupied the attention of scholar and layman alike: the nature of religious authority and priesthood; the necessity of baptism; the validity of infant baptism; the administration of the flesh and blood of Christ. Smith found the 13 pages of the book of Moroni that just “happened” to resolve the theological disputes of the day.”

Q: “I heard that the Mormon church teaches racist views, but a Mormon I know told me that this isn’t true. What’s the story?”

A: “Like many people of his period, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, harbored racist views. New York, where he grew up, was still a slave state at that time. In an environment where Negro slavery was tolerated, it was easy for Smith to look down on black people, and his disdain for them was incorporated as doctrine into the Mormon scriptures he allegedly translated.

For example, many passages in the Book of Mormon speak of dark skin as a curse for sins, as opposed to the “white and delightsome” appearance of the righteous (2 Nephi 30:6, cf. 1 Nephi 12:23, 13:15, 2 Nephi 5:21, Jacob 3:8-9, 3 Nephi 2:14-15, Moses 7:8, 12, 22). A passage in the “Book of Abraham” (1:26–27), that spoke of the Egyptian pharaohs as having Negro ancestry, thereby disqualifying them from God’s priesthood, was used by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to deny the Mormon priesthood and temple privileges to anyone with any amount of Negro ancestry.

These passages in Mormon scripture served as the basis for every Mormon prophet since Smith to teach that blacks were cursed for their supposed sins before earthly birth. Brigham Young, Smith’s successor, also underscored the racist stand of Mormonism: “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” (Journal of Discourses 10:109).

Throughout the civil rights movement in the 1950s and’60s, Mormon apostles continued to teach the LDS doctrine on people with African ancestry and other persons of color. Mark E. Petersen asserted that people are born black because of their inadequate performance in the pre-existence.

Bruce R. McConkie maintained “Negroes are not equal with other races” in spiritual matters and that this is God’s law, not man’s. The future prophet Spencer W. Kimball claimed that in just 15 years from the time of their conversion he had seen Indian people who accepted the Mormon gospel become “white and delightsome.”

But the civil rights movement had its effect the LDS Church. Black leaders urged boycotts of the state of Utah and all Mormon Tabernacle Choir products. The NAACP brought discrimination charges against the Utah Boy Scouts for prohibiting a black member from assuming a senior patrol position. College athletes refused to play Brigham Young University teams. Groups protested at the church’s twice-yearly general conferences in Salt Lake City.

Mormon leadership finally acknowledged that many, perhaps most, of the converts to the Church in Brazil had some degree of black ancestry. While their donations helped build the São Paulo Temple, they were not permitted to attend it.

By 1978, increased social repudiation of racism, coupled with Mormon evangelization in areas with large populations of racially mixed ancestry, led to one of the most drastic reversals in Mormon belief and practice: Those with Negro blood were allowed to attend the temple, and worthy black men could also hold the priesthood.

Dated June 8, 1978, and released the following day, President Kimball’s “Official Declaration—2” (as it is now called in the Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants) came after “extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple.” He presented the changed doctrine to his counselors, the Twelve Apostles, and other leaders, who approved it unanimously. The day has come, he said, when the Lord now grants to “every faithful, worthy man in the Church . . . the holy priesthood . . . [and] the blessings of the temple.” The declaration was presented to the general membership and ratified pro forma on September 30, 1978.

Though this opening of the priesthood to all races moved the Mormon Church into a less racist position regarding its practice, Mormon teaching remained unaltered. The new “revelation” did not change the previous Mormon teaching that people are born black because of their sins in the pre-existence.”

Q: “Why are religious groups such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses called “cults,” while other groups, such as Fundamentalists and Calvinists, are not? Don’t all of these groups teach cultic doctrines?”

A: “The word “cult” has fallen on hard times. Used authentically, it refers to a grouping of people for some religious purpose; it can also refer to specific ceremonial, liturgical, and prayer activities carried out within a particular group. Vatican II, for example, refers to the “cult of the saints,” meaning the honor and devotion Christians show to Christians who are now reigning with Christ in heaven. Used this way, “cult” carries no pejorative connotations.

In the last few decades an unfortunate phenomenon has sprung up, primarily among Evangelical Protestants who have appropriated the word and used it to categorize religious groups with whom they disagree. Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have become “cultists,” and their religions are branded as “cults.” In popular jargon “cult” implies more than just a religion with odd tenets. It carries the implication that the group has a hidden agenda, uses deception and mind control techniques to keep its members in line, and may be satanic in origin. Calling someone a “cultist” has become a handy stick with which to beat members of minority religions. Some Fundamentalists call the Catholic Church a cult.

Of course, some religions are cults, but it’s a matter of prudence whether to trumpet that fact. If you want to evangelize adherents to such religions, you must avoid approaches that will alienate them. Be firm but charitable. Don’t throw around the terms “cult” and “cultist.” With a little restraint you’ll more likely get your message across. If you start by telling a non-Catholic that he’s a member of a cult (even if he is), it’s unlikely that he’ll listen to anything you have to say.”

Q: “Who are the “other sheep” Jesus mentions in John 10:16? In a TV ad the Mormons say that verse refers to Jews who allegedly migrated to South America around 600 B.C.”

A: “Jesus said, “And I have other sheep, that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, one shepherd.” Most Catholic biblical scholars, following the teaching of the early Church Fathers, agree that the “other sheep” are the Gentiles, to whom the gospel was sent after the Jews rejected Christ (Rom 11:11-12).

During his public ministry Jesus confined his proclamation of the gospel to the Jews (Mt 10:5-6, 15:24), and initially this remained the focus of the apostles’ preaching, although Jesus had foretold that the gospel would eventually be carried to “all nations” (Mt 28:19, Acts 1:8). This opening up of God’s blessing even to Gentiles was foretold in the Old Testament (Ps 2:7; Is 2:2-6).

Paul explained this to Gentile Christians:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called the uncircumcision by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands—remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near in the blood of Christ. (Eph 2:11-13; cf. Rom 3:22; Gal 3:27-28)”

Q: “Last year I left the Mormon church and became a Catholic. I want to bolster my faith with more knowledge, especially on the subject of the nature of God so I can do a better job of explaining this to my Mormon family members. They constantly challenge my Catholic beliefs, especially that there is only one God. What do you recommend?”

A: “Start with Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity, which contains a lucid and compact explanations of this subject. Then loan your relatives the book and offer to discuss it with them after they’ve read it. During the discussion cite these passages as biblical evidence there is only one true God: Isaiah 44:6; 45:5-6, 18, 21-22; 46:9. Cite these passages to show God is omnipresent: Psalm 138 (139):7-8; Wisdom 1:7; Jeremiah 23:24; Ephesians 1:23.”

Q: “Mormon missionaries condemned as unbiblical the Catholic custom of paying priests and bishops. They said the Mormon Church has no paid clergy, claiming this was the pattern of the first Christians. How can I answer them?”

A: “Start your next discussion with 1 Corinthians 9:11: “If we have sown spiritual seed for you, is it a great thing that we reap a material harvest from you? If others share in this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?”

Paul says that even though he would have been justified in being paid for his ministry (v. 18), he chose to forego payment in order to eliminate a potential source of criticism from his detractors. He explains in verses 14 that “the Lord ordered that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.”

Other verses to examine are 2 Thessalonians 2:6-10, Romans 15:26-27; and 2 Timothy 2:6.”

Q: “Mormon missionaries visited my home recently and, among other things, condemned as unbiblical the Catholic custom of paying priests and bishops. They were quite proud of the fact that the Mormon church has no paid clergy, claiming they follow the pattern set by the first Christians. I was uncomfortably silent because I had no idea where to look in the Bible for verses that support the Catholic position. Are there any?”

A: “Yes. Start your response with 1 Corinthians 9. In verses 7-12 Paul takes up this very topic, asking,

Whoever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating its produce? Or who shepherds a flock without using some of the milk from the flock? Am I saying this on human authority or does not the law also speak of these things?

It is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is God concerned about oxen, or is he not really speaking for our sake? It was written for our sake, for the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher in hope of receiving a share. If we have sown spiritual seed for you, is it a great thing that we reap a material harvest from you? If others share in this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?
He goes on to specify that even though he would be completely justified in being paid for his ministry (v. 18), he chose to forego that right in order to eliminate a potential source of criticism from his detractors. He explains in verses 13 and 14, “Do you not know that those who perform the temple services eat what belongs to the temple, and those who minister at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.” Also see Romans 15:26-27, 2 Thessalonians 2:6-10, and 2 Timothy 2:6.”

Q: “Why do you lump Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Pentecostals with non-Christian groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons?”

A: ” We don’t. We know the difference. You don’t find us saying, for example, that Mormons are Protestants (or, for that matter, Christians). But when the groups you mention use the same arguments against the Catholic Church or share common methods of proselytizing, it’s fair to discuss them together.”

Q: “I understand Mormonism is polytheistic because it teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate gods. When I recently told a pair of Mormon missionaries they were polytheists, they heatedly denied it, claiming their church teaches the doctrine of the “Godhead” of the Trinity and worships only one God. What’s up?”

A: “The answer to your question is: Yes, Mormonism is essentially polytheistic. But let’s make sure we’re straight on our terms. In Catholic lingo, “Godhead” is another way of saying Trinity in that we understand the Godhead as one God comprised of three divine Persons—not three distinct gods. Polytheism means the worship of a plurality of gods.

Some Mormons, recognizing their theology is polytheistic, prefer to soften it by referring to their religion as “henotheistic,” which means the belief in many gods but the worship of one chief god.

For Mormons, “Godhead” means a spiritual partnership that exists among the three “gods” of this planet: God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. (Mormons usually don’t say “Holy Spirit.”)

Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon Church, declared: “I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a spirit; and these three constitute three distinct personages and three distinct gods” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 370).

In fact, Mormonism teaches that God the Father is essentially a “perfected man” and is limited by a body of flesh and bone and thus is limited to time and space. He happens to reside on a planet near an uncharted star called “Kolob” (Abraham 3:3-9).

Since Mormons worship both God the Father (Doctrine and Covenants 18:40) and Jesus Christ (3 Nephi 11:17; 2 Nephi 25:29), and since they believe the Father and Jesus are two separate gods, they truly are polytheists.

For an added, bizarre twist, turn to the Pearl of Great Price to see this doctrine contradicted: Moses reportedly says, “For God [the Father] said unto me: ‘Worship God [the Father] for him only shalt thou serve’... Call upon God [the Father] in the name of mine only begotten [Jesus] and worship me’... Depart from me, Satan, for this one God only [the Father] will I worship, which is the God of Glory” (Moses 1:15-20).”

The ultimate error of Mormonism is that of pride.  Joseph Smith was full of it when he basically used his newly created influence in town to force out his detractors, take over the local printing press, and in essence, get himself appointed mayor.  Unlike christ and the apostles, he seemed more interested in temporal power and influence than personel holiness.  I suppose his fixation on getting more young wives might have clouded his judgement.  If you look at his life, it is much more similar to that of Elizabeth Smarts kidnapper, than to Christ and the apostles.  How many times did he flee in fear of persecution.  While Christ and the apostles were willing to suffer and die for the faith, J.S fled.  Of course, his ignominious death in a prison, with a gun in his hand, after shooting some others first, cannot be compared to that of Chris, the apostles and even Catholic martyrs down the ages.  But this isn’t even the most glaring problem withmormonism.  Their greatest error is to reduce God to war is comprehensible by the human mind.  Here is God, creator of the universe, reduced to his being in what we can understand?  That is the ultimate pride in front of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God.  scripture tells us how God is beyond our understanding, yet Mormons tell us that the trinity cannot be believed because it’s beyond our understanding?  Of course, all the ‘restorationist’ religions were more about the cult of personality of the ‘restorer’ than they were about truth.  Of course, when you don’t have 2000yrs of faith history, and you want to make your own unique religion, I suppose you need to resort to some fanciful ideas and writing.  Let’s not even get into the pseudo history of the book of Mormon.  Fundamentally, Mormonism is mostly just silly.  Why have a cartoon religion, when you can have the one which can show historically it’s been around for 2000 yrs.  I will take the one established by Christ 2000yrs ago over one ‘restored’ from Joseph Smiths imagination and cunning.

Cleave to the rock of Christ, and the rock whom he left for us, the successor of Peter.

I am an engineer, a father of 8 a business owner and a Catholic.

In Christ

I’m a firefighter, a husband, and father.  I love snowboarding, hunting and I’m proud to be an American.  And…I’m Mormon.

Wow, that was quite a data dump. Copy and paste was working a bit overtime. :-)
I have hesitated joining this mostly civil and rational exchange between God loving and Christ following people of different faiths.  My reason for jumping in is that I was saddened by the person opting out of attending a relatives baby blessing. I was raised in similar circumstances, my mother a young Mormon girl and my father a nonpracticing Catholic (agnostic really).  His mother is full blooded Italian Roman Catholic.  Though I saw her attend Mass once in my life, she held an underlying resentment for the faith I was raised in and ultimately chose for my self through scripture study, pondering, and ultimately prayer to my Heavenly Father.  While I respect people who stand on principle and their convictions, I hope that our friend opting out of attending the baby blessing while be equally principled when visiting family and or friends who are living together out of wedlock for visiting their home, as he seems to see it, would give tacit approval of their lifestyle.  While he/she may be justified in both cases, I find that honey attracts for flys than vinegar. If you don’t attend, you are already starting your own personal Catholic PR campain, but not a very positive one.

On a separate note and out of ironic observation, I find that when in religious discussions with my Evangelical friends, they usually single out Mormons and Catholics as not being true Christians.  Their rational for the Mormons is that we truly believe that God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct individuals united in one Trinity to bring to pass the Immortality and Eternal life of man.  To those not of my faith this seems odd and strange.  But to me it makes perfect sence. Genisis 1:26 teaches me that there where more than one person in whose image I was created. “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:...” In a very simple way, this tells me that I look like my Father in Heaven and His Son, Jesus Christ.  It would seem that “polytheism” as some have expressed it can be found in the King James Bible from the very beginning.  Another thought to consider is that through Christ, all mankind will be resurrected with a glorified body.  Just has Christ arose on the third day and manifest His physical body to loved ones and His Apostles and disciples, we all shall be resurrected.  My question to my friends who believe in the Holy Trinity or nature of God as set forth in the Creed of Nicia, where does Christs physical body go when he is acting as the Father? Or as the Holy Ghost?

The reason my Evangelical friends often say that Catholics are not true Christians is their worship of Saints.  It was plainly stated in the comments above that “you should pick your Saint and follow Him”.  It has also been stated many times that Mormons believe that man may become like his Father in Heaven, or as a God. This somehow seems very foreign to my Catholic family members and friends yet they believe in the Saintification of good and Holy men and women. They will then idealize and pray to these Saints to intercede with God on their behalf.  Isn’t the Catholic Church, in essence,  diefying certain men and women based on their good works?  Is that so very different than believing that i might one day become like my Father in Heaven through my obediance and ggos works? Why would I want to “pick my Saint and follow him” when the only perfect Being to have lived on the earth was Christ? Would it not be better to pick Him and follow?
Should I not pray to the Father in Christ’s name? Is there any better intermediary than the Son of God?

So it is interesting to me that I find myself defending the “Christianity” of my fellow Catholic friends and family even when they have distinct doctrinal differences that I dont understand, only to read on a Catholic website how, as a Mormon or a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, I’m not a Christian because I believe Christ has a perfect and glorified resurrected body that is His for eternity?  Personally I believe what defines us as Christians is not necessarily our doctrine about Christ, though important, but rather as Matthew 7:16 states so simply and eloquently, “and by their fruits ye shall know them.”. I know many wonderful Catholic, Protestant, and Evangelical people who I consider good Christians because, though imperfect,  they strive to live Christ-like lives. So go to your brother’s baby blessing, show your good fruits, and perhaps you will win a convert to the Truth, as you know it to be.

As for the question answer things above, it’s know wonder there is so much confussion about Mormons. I found many blatant errors that are so easily corrected if you would just ask your Mormon friend for the answer instead of leaders of another faith.  BTW, how can you know if a book is evil or false if you don’t read it? And by the same tolken, how do you know if a book is Holy and true if you don’t read it? In both cases you are relying on someones else’s opinion.  I say read and pray on it. Ask God if what you are reading is true.  That’s the ultimate PR campaign. Forget slick marketing and new media, use the media God gave each of His truth seeking children, ask Him who knows all truth for your answers and not the arm of flesh.  I believe that is the real reason the Church of Jesus Christ continues to grow throughout the world.

Happy Thanksgiving to all for we all have much to be grateful for!

Dear Catholiccan,  In all my 45 years of life I don’t believe I’ve heard such ignorance and such a revision of history as it stands.  My dear brother, now that you have read perhaps the most hateful rendition of the history concering Joseph Smith, I would kindly ask that you read from those who were there, say by his wife or mother or closest friends or John Taylor who was in the prison with Joseph and then try to reconcile the two versions.  Perhaps you will replace bitterness with understanding and ingorance with knowledge.  I hope that when the day comes for you to leave this mortality, you should live long and be healthy, that when someone whats to learn more about the life you lead, they will seek your history first from your friends and family and not from your bitterest of enimies.  May we afford Joseph Smith the same consideration.

On another note.  The “polytheism” question keeps being presented.  I find that curious coming from those who, in my limited understanding, pray to multiple enternally significant persons, like the Virgin Mary, or any number of Saints while I, as a Mormon and acussed “polytheist”, only pray to God the Father and end in the name of the Son, just like Christ taugh.  I don’t pray to the Holy Ghost and I don’t pray to Jesus just as Jesus didn’t pray to Jesus or the HG or his grandmother, I only pray to God the Father.  I am eternally grateful to my Saviour for atoning for my sins on the cross, a gift that I shall never be able to repay but will nevertheless try through love and kindness to those all around me.

I am a devoted husband and father of three beautiful children, I love to ski, run, backpack and flyfish.  I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ.

This has been an interesting thread.  I am a member of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.
The Catholic Church is truth and I believe, without reservation, all she teaches.  We pray to Saints asking their intercession.  Look, if St Paul or St Peter lived on either side of you and your spouse were quite ill, would you not seek their prayers on her behalf? Of course you would.  Holy writ informs us that those members of the Church
Victorious are more alive now then they ever were here.

I believe that the LDS church, based on their own teachings is not a Christian Church.  I also believe that it is likely that there are Christians who are members of the LDS Church.

May God bless us all.

Robb
US Army-Retired

Dear Robb,
this has indeed been an interesting thread.  To answer your question in a simple word…no I would not pray to Peter or Paul for intercession on behalf of my sick wife unless of course they were in fact my neighbors, but then I would ask anyone who is my neighbor to pray for my sick wife. It’s not that I don’t believe that St. Peter and St. Paul or any of the other early Apostles aren’t very much alive today with physical resurrected bodies I might add, but what does it say about my personal faith in God when I think I must or should pray to those who have passed on to petition a blessing on my behalf from the Father when I can ask the same thing of Him directly in faith.  In other words why buy from the wholesaler when I can purchase directly from the manufacturer?  See 1 James 1:5,6.  Of course I will ask and frequently do ask family and friends for their prayers on behalf of others or myself. Example, we pray for all our service men every morning and night, but I would never think to pray (or worship as I see it) to a Saint for help when I can ask directly of a loving Father in Heaven.  My Catholic grandmother tried hard to explain it to me but I just never could grasp it.  Dense in the head I guess. :-). Thank you for your service to our country! Cheers!

If mormon children are baptized at age 8, is there a reception afterward? Is kool-aid served?

@Rick

In answer to your question about kool-aid being served after the baptism of 8 year olds.. I guess I would have to say Yes. The same kool-aid that is served at Catholic receptions after baby baptisms.  :-)  I am assuming that it is good.. no?

No, we serve Diet Coke. ;-D

Scott,

It’s funny you should mention James 1.5,6 but not James 5.14-18. Peter and Paul are, presumably, righteous men, would you not agree?

Let’s see… I’m divorced with no children, love baseball, am diabetic, like to play piano and write songs, was once jailed for a crime I did not commit, work for a Fortune 100 company, have declared bankruptcy twice- ...and I’m a Mormon.

It seems the Church rejected my profile in its PR campaign.

I know Mormons who have been divorced four times, have succeeded at suicide, who did not graduate from high school, who got their girlfriends pregnant, who are fighting cancer, who are gay, who have done jail time, and on and on. But none of those people were featured. Neither are the ones still practicing polygamy (I don’t know any of those personally, but they are out there.) I know one family with 7 adult children whose divorce total now has reached 10. Yes, the PR campaign makes it look like we are all living the American dream and never stop smiling. But in reality, life has its ups and downs, and Mormons are no different.

Oh, yes, the term “cult” certainly has had better days. There was an organization called the Cult Awareness Network whose purpose was to assist families whose loved ones had joined a dangerous cult. Of course, I don’t need to mention that some cults are truly dangerous. So if someone had a family member who had joined one of those cults, they could call the Cult Awareness Network. They sustained themselves by donations from people who wanted to help. Then, the Church of Scientology used their strategy of filing multiple frivolous lawsuits to drain their finances, and eventually they went bankrupt and their assets were auctioned off. Guess who bought them? The Church of Scientology. Now, if you call the Cult Awareness Network and tell them you are concerned about a family member who has joined a cult, a Scientologist answers.

Anyway, back to Mormons… Mormons believe in the literal resurrection of all men (and women.) Mormons also believe that when you are resurrected, your body will be perfect- if you are disabled, you can now walk and run. If you are blind, you will now see. If you are homosexual, in the resurrection you will be heterosexual. That’s right, Mormons believe that all homosexuals will be resurrected as heterosexuals. That is God’s plan. There has never been an explanation as to why God created homosexuals in the first place. That is one revelation that hasn’t been given yet.

One of the things that attracts converts to the LDS Church is the idea that you can be reunited with your family in the hereafter. In the Temple, Mormons are “sealed” to their spouse, their children, their parents. You have to be married in the Temple, which is where you can be married “for time and all eternity” (years ago, it was near impossible to get a divorce from a Temple marriage, but times have changed.) To get a Temple recommend, you have to be obeying all the Church rules, such as paying your tithing. Mormons are very secure with their place in the Celestial Kingdom (the highest degree of Heaven) if they have done these things. What is implied is that if you are active in the Church and keep all the rules, on Judgment Day, it will be a slam dunk. Mormons don’t worry about Judgment Day, it’s just not an issue. The Church has it all worked out. Mormons have complete confidence in their eternal destiny.

One of the things about Mormonism that makes it different from many other churches is that the Church leadership makes its rules and says it is from “The counsel of the Lord.” So, when a person hears for example that the Church is going to take a certain political stand, it’s not considered to be coming from Church leadership, it’s directly from God. Other churches can’t pull this one off, but our belief that our leader is a Prophet of God and speaks for Him, implies that we should never challenge anything that comes from Church leadership. It would be like opposing God. That gives the leaders a sort of “Teflon” quality that Reagan had in politics- nothing can stick to them. So, things like Polygamy or a history of racism or marrying 14-year olds (Joseph Smith married two who were that age) are simply not questioned, after all, who are we to question God or disagree with Him? Either the Church is true or it isn’t, and if you believe the Church is true, you don’t question the idea that Polygamy was God’s idea, not Joseph Smith’s or anyone else’s.

When I first converted, I was told a Mormon/Catholic joke. It goes like this: Two Mormon missionaries were walking down the street and passed a Catholic Priest. The Priest greets the missionaries by saying, “Hello, Sons of the Devil.” To which the missionaries reply, “Hello, Father.”

By the way, the times are off by an hour. I posted my comment at 11:02 PM on Saturday, November 20. Somebody didn’t adjust this website from Daylight Savings Time. Spring forward, Fall back.

An earlier comment about the “Word of Wisdom” intrigues me.  Isn’t it true that Utah has the healthiest citizens of this fair land?  You use the following quote rather interestingly: “Specifically, as a matter of Christian liberty, Paul commands us not to have food laws imposed on us on religious grounds: “Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink” (Col 2:16).”  Yet it was the practice of the Catholic Church to abstain from meat on Fridays, and Lent.  Hmmmm…
Regarding an unpaid ministry, isn’t it true that the Pope of the time decided that having married priests posed a problem with the wealth of the Vatican, as the families of deceased priests would inherit the income accumulated during the priest’s ministry?  Rather than go to Rome, it would remain in the estate of the priest.  Consequently, celibacy was created by the ‘infallible Pope’.  Now that particular decision has come back to haunt this Pope because of all the scandal of abuse of priests who use boys instead of wives to satisfy their ‘animal lusts.’
When I was in fifth grade in parochial school I asked my very well informed lay teacher why Latin was used instead of English.  Her reply was that the Church was ‘universal’ and that we could go to mass anywhere in the world and understand what was happening.  Other questions were answered by the mantra of the “infallibility of the Pope”.  Then came the Ecumenical Councils, Vatican 1 and 11.  Amazing how so many long-held beliefs were turned upside down.  So when the infallible Pope says it is now okay to eat meat on Friday, or that a baptism performed by an Anglican or Lutheran priest is recognized it is now okay.  But if a Mormon ‘Prophet’ says that all worthy males may now hold the Priesthood it is simply bowing to the times?
After the Vatican Councils I searched my heart and soul to reconcile the infallibility of the Pope with all the recent changes.  In high school and college I had studied many different religions and philosophies.  Most, if not all, tried for the betterment of mankind and social structure.  But my faith was strong until the Pope became a man and not an infallible being.
Then I searched what I knew and came up with a determination:  The Judeo-Christian traditions of this country resonated with me.  This settled, I took stock of the Protestant religions, and realized that they were precisely that ‘protesting’, and that they didn’t have a leg to stand on.  That left the question of whether Christ was the Messiah, my Savior and redeemer.  If not, that left the Jews in the right.  Knowing that Christ exists led me back to being a half-hearted Catholic.  But over the course of several years I became acquainted with many Mormons who impressed me with their sincerity, sense of family and Word of Wisdom.  All but one of the members of my family smoked, to which I was allergic.  They all drank, some heavily, a few alcoholics.  Some of these were truly ‘mean’ drunks.
While in the service, I had the good fortune to have a room mate who was LDS.  He and I would often turn out the lights and lie in our bunks discussing our respective religions.  While neither was convinced of the the others, we had a great respect for each other.  After he went to Viet Nam, I came across more Mormons, went to church with them them a few times and welcomed the peace I felt in their presence.
I still defend Catholicism to members of my faith who have some of the misunderstandings that you have about ours. God bless us all as we seek to attain the presence of our Heavenly Father.
I am Larry, 66, a husband, father, and grandfather and I am a Mormon.

Cliff writes: “One of the things about Mormonism that makes it different from many other churches is that the Church leadership makes its rules and says it is from “The counsel of the Lord.” So, when a person hears for example that the Church is going to take a certain political stand, it’s not considered to be coming from Church leadership, it’s directly from God. Other churches can’t pull this one off, but our belief that our leader is a Prophet of God and speaks for Him, implies that we should never challenge anything that comes from Church leadership.”
And I said the Pope is “infallible”.
Chris and I share much in common, more than he can suspect.  I trust that we are both on a path to a better life.  There are many others of all faiths who are seeking for the better in this life, and in the next.  Again, God bless us all as we seek to attain the presence of our Heavenly Father.
The Pope calls all the Cardinals in Rome together and with tears in his eyes tells them all:  “I have good news and bad news. The good news is that Christ has returned again to the earth.  The bad news is that he is in Salt Lake City.”

The clock is off.  Fall back.

Yes Jack, I would agree that Peter and Paul were righteous men as were the other Apostles and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.  Did I say something to make you believe otherwise? BTW, James 5:14 is in fact how we generally bless the sick in our church, but I’m not quite sure why it seems funny that I didn’t mention it, though it does seem to support the point I was trying to make. Thanks for pointing it out.  Cheers!

To think/say that the Catholics have not impacted the media effectively is to ignore totally the immense work of a saint amonst us…Mother Angelica
and the world wide TV network known to all as EWTN!! God be praised for this miracle of miracles he has performed in our midst through the most unlikely of persons, a cloistered nun who was handicapped all her life by
incredible circumstances and health! Please consider this modern miracle when you are discussing the Church and the media. Also our current Pope has just stated that the Catholic Church is NOT about NUMBERS or POWER!
Something also we should meditate upon when considering media matters!

I might also add to the above: If you do not receive EWTN in your area here
is an apostelate for you…Get going! The network has gone world-wide and is received in many countries around the world in several langauages. It is also a website (EWTM.com) unparalleled in the Catholic Church. If this isn’t the greatest evangelical website, reaching millions of people around the globe, you tell me what tops it! And best of all you can be sure it is authentically Catholic ...unlike what passes on some so-called Catholc websites. It is a 24/7 call to holiness that should not be overlooked or
underestimated. What the Mormon church is doing is a drop in the bucket when you compare this with their website. Please give EWTN credit for the modern day miracle that it is…read Raymond Arroyo’s autobiography of this saint for the times, Mother Angelica!

Hi, I’m Cliff and I’m a Mormon.

“Hi Cliff!”

Yey wait a minute, this is beginning to sound like an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting. Oh well…

I am really enjoying this discussion, and I am finding myself relating to the Catholics in here, which comes as a surprise.

I do not have a Catholic background. My mother always used the term “hate” very casually, and she would say she hated Catholics, hated Irish, hated Italians, hated Democrats, etc… but she really didn’t hate anybody. She had friends who were all those things. That was just her manner of speaking, like “I hate math” or whatever.

She was a church-hopper who liked to sing in the choir, so she would end up in almost any Protestant church. I had been to a lot of churches when my parents divorced, my dad moved out, and my mom started dating, leaving me alone with my sister most of the time.

There was a Mormon family down the street, and I found myself wanting to join their family, which didn’t bother them because they only had 7 children and having 2 more was fine with them. I got my next-door neighbor, a Jewish kid, to join the church too. This family would have adopted all the children in the neighborhood if they could.

I had joined so many churches that joining a church didn’t seem like anything that needed to be taken seriously. When they told me they needed me to have discussions with missionaries, I didn’t object, but it seemed unnecessary because I had agreed to join the church as soon as they asked me without ever thinking about it or asking any questions whatsoever. I was 13, agreeable to anything, plus they had a beautiful sister a few months younger than I was. I was already hypnotized. Saying no to the Mormons was not really an option. I didn’t really realize what an impact my parents’ divorce had on me, but my sister and I really needed these people, almost as if we were orphans.

I not only joined the Church, I lived and breathed it. I read every obscure book they had on their bookshelf (Latter-Day Prophets Speak was one of my favorites) and went tracting with the missionaries in my town. I was more dedicated than the other Mormon kids, who were really normal teenagers. I wrote “The Book of Mormon” on one of my school book covers, and then a Catholic kid said to me, “Hey, I don’t write “the Book of Catholic” on my book cover.” I truly sheltered myself in the Church, but I wasn’t a normal teenager and did not have the normal social skills and didn’t relate much because my life had gone off on a tangent.

I guess I should be thankful that the Church was there for me and for my younger sister. Without them, we would have had no lives at all. The Church made it possible to go on trips up in the mountains, ride in an airplane for the first time, and travel to Utah with our adopted Mormon family. The church really helped us through a difficult time, our teenage years. Our dad never recovered; he had lost his business before my mom divorced him and he never really bounced back, just lived alone until he died. My mom remarried and moved out of state. We really had nothing else.

I was probably the easiest convert ever. My own mother hated smokers and would preach to them, ripping their cigarette out of their hands and saying to them, “Is this thing bigger than you are?” before putting it out. So Mormonism didn’t bother her until I started suggesting that she go to Church with us. Then she said, “I never would have given my permission for you to be baptized if I knew you were going to try to get me to join.” That was where she drew the line: Don’t bother me about it.

I really couldn’t believe stories of how some missionaries would go on a mission for 2 or 3 years and never baptize a single person. I was easy. Really easy. I would have been baptized every day if they had asked me.

I’m Cliff and I’m a Mormon.

I have read many comments here, and I’m excited that we are finding our similarities—both those who belong to the Catholic faith and who belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! I know that none of us on here wish to stir people up to anger and contention, for this is what Christ taught.
I only mean to ask all of us, including myself, that we not label people as “Non-Christian” and other potentially-hurtful names, putting others down and lashing out as I have read here.
It is not meet that we should argue. This article is about something positive and has turned into a discussion and contest over ideas and doctrines. If there’s anything that shows our devout faith for Jesus Christ, it’s that we not argue amongst ourselves but include everyone, whether they be Catholic, LDS (Mormon), Protestant, Lutheran, Atheist, poor, rich, proud, whatever.
I truly love our Savior Jesus Christ, and it is unsettling and offends the Spirit when we let what we know to be correct get in the way of the brotherly kindness that EVERYONE deserves.
I will not be responding to any comments hereafter that are replies to this comment in order to keep the Spirit, but please let us all love one another.

In the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Ecumenism is oh so nice.

However, God’s children deserve to hear ringing truth when it comes to the faith. Their eternal life is at stake.

Here is the truth. There is only one true faith. The faith established by Jesus Christ upon the Rock - Peter. This is the one church of Christ.

Anything else is purposefully misleading.

No one has the right to judge who is a Christian and who is not. I live following Jesus Christ teachings, according to what I know is truth, let my actions hopefully bring glory to the name of the one I worship. And Hope in faith that through His mercy and grace He will recognise me as His and invite me in to dwell in His presence. After all “the keeper of the gate is The Only One of Israel and he employeth no servant there” ( scripture found in The Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 9:41). There is really not point arguing with people trying to proof my Christianity , when the only one who can identify a Christian is Christ Himself. I hope By the way I live I can make His name proud and that’s all it matters to me. I am a wife, a mother of three, a health professional and I am a mormon.

“The keeper of the gate is the HOLY One of Israel”

Rick

    I would like to bring to your attention.. as I have to many of the Christian faith.. that this idea that the faith established by Jesus Christ upon the Rock.. was not Peter. 

    This is a misconception and misunderstanding of the scriptures.  I know it may seem that way.. but if you really look at the scripture in context.. you will see that it is not so. Let us go through it together and see if you don’t see something different than what you have been taught.  If you don’t.. then that is fine too.. but at least you had the opportunity to receive it in a way that another faith looks at it.

Lets start with the scripture where this is all coming from.. Matthew 16.

Starting with verse 13, we get the start of the story:

13 ¶ When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

So.. we know from reading the previous 13 Chapters of Matthew (the first two were about his conception and birth) that Jesus has been with his apostles for some time.  They have had many experiences together so far traveling around Israel.

Chapter 3 he was baptized in the River Jordan.
Chapter 4 he fasts forty days and is tempted—He begins his ministry, calls disciples, and heals the sick.
Chapters 5, 6 & 7 he preaches the Sermon on the Mount.
Chapter 8 he travels to Capernaum and heals the servant of the Centurion.  He goes to the house of Peter and heals Peter’s mother in law.  He gets on a boat to head to the other side of the Sea.  He calms the sea after having been awaken by his disciples. When he gets to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes He casts out spirits into a herd of swine.  The people from the near by city hear about this and come and ask him to leave.
Chapter 9 he forgives sins, heals a paralytic, and calls Matthew—He eats with sinners; a woman is healed by touching his garments; and he raises Jairus’ daughter to life—He opens blind eyes, casts out a devil, and preaches the gospel.
Chapter 10 he instructs, empowers, and sends the Twelve Apostles forth to preach, minister, and heal the sick.
Chapter 11 he Jesus acclaims John as more than a prophet—The cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum are upbraided for unbelief after all the mirales that have been performed in these cities— he teaches the yoke of Christ is easy and his burden light.
Chapter 12 Jesus proclaims himself Lord of the Sabbath and heals on that day—He is accused of casting out devils by Beelzebub—He speaks of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, and says an evil and adulterous generation seeks signs.
Chapter 13 teaches why Jesus taught in parables—He gives the parables of the sower, the wheat and the tares, the grain of mustard seed, the leaven, the treasure hid in the field, the pearl of great price, and the net cast into the sea—and tells why A prophet is not honored by his own people.
Chapter 14 John the Baptist is beheaded—Jesus feeds the five thousand and walks on the sea—Those who touch the hem of his garment are made whole.
And finally Chapter 15 The scribes and Pharisees contend against Jesus—He heals the daughter of a Gentile woman—He feeds the four thousand.

Now.. we are in Chapter 16.. and once again.. verse 13 says: When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

He wants to know from his disciples who do all the people think he is.  After everything that he has done.. what are they saying about him?

And their answer is in the next verse..  verse 14: And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

Wow.. isnt’ that interesting.  We know that John the Baptist is dead.  Elias is dead.. Jeremias is dead..  They somehow for some reason think that he is a dead prophet that has come back to life.  So.. now Jesus asks his next question of them:

15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

In the next verse we get the answer from the disciples:

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

So Peter tells him who he is.  He is the Christ… Christ means Anointed One.  And he tells him he is the son of the living God.  Not God.. but the Son of the living God.  Now.. ask yourself this question.  Has Jesus proclaimed this at all in any of his teachings?  Has Jesus ever told the disciples or the people that he was the Christ?.. the Son of the living God?  No.. he did not.  So if he did not teach them this.. how did Peter come up with this???  The next verse tells us:

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Ok then.  Jesus tells us all that it was not him who told him.  He did not hear it from any man on this earth who is living… but he heard it from God himself.  God told him.  Now tell me.. what is it called when man receives a message from God?  It is called REVELATION.  When God speaks to man as he did to Peter.. we would say that Peter received a REVELATION from God.

Now here is the very interesting part of all of this.  Jesus often used the world as his chalkboard.  If you know anything about Jerusalem and the surrounding area, you would know that at the foot of Mt. Hermon sits Caesarea Philippi.  Mt Hermon is one of the largest mountains in all of Iseral.  As you walk up to this mountain it is full of all kinds of rocks and rock formations.

So here is where Christ and his disciples are at as he is asking them these questions.  According to the encyclopedia, Peter is a common masculine given name. It is derived, via Latin “petra”, from the Greek word ?????? (petros) meaning “stone” or “rock”.

According to the New Testament, Jesus gave Saint Peter (whose given name was Simon) the name Kephas or Cephas meaning “stone” in Aramaic.

So here we are at the foot of the largest rock formation in all of Iseral.. Jesus has just told Peter that he has received a REVELATION from his Father in Heaven.  A REVELATION that was given to him.. and him only.  Peter received REVELATION.

The “ROCK” RECEIVED REVELATION.

And what does Jesus now say?:

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

So.. what is Christ building his Church upon?  REVELATION.  Because if the Church is receiving REVELATION from God.. then the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!!  But if the Church is NOT receiving REVELATION.. then the gates of hell will have no problem.  Satan will have the power to change whatsoever he wants to.  If the Church is NOT receiving REVELATION from on high.. then man is esentially left to himself.  Peter has already received REVELATION from God.  And so because he is in this position.. Christ now tells him:

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Peter.. the one who was receiving REVELATION from God.. is now given the power and authority from Jesus to whatsoever he binds on earth.. will be bound in Heaven… and whatsoever he looses on earth.. will also be loosed in Heaven.  The foundation of Christ’s church is not Peter.. the man. The foundation of Christ’s Church is REVELATION.  For without REVELATION.. the Church would not be receiving instructions from God… and the gates of HELL would prevail against it.

Prophets, seers and revelators will come and go.  The only thing that can keep the Church from falling into the hands of Satan is REVELATION.

Posted by CatholicMP on Friday, Nov 19, 2010 5:14 PM (EDT):I saw this add when on an About.com page looking at something Catholic. I forgot exactly what it was but I found it odd that when searching for “catholic” I got a Mormon AD.

In repsonse to CatholicMP: The reason is simple; I was one for 33 years, and
worked for years with the other; both groups I’ve found out, are near 95%
indentical in every aspect ... that is the reason for your searching out
Catholic stuff, and coming up with Mormon stuff. As an author,I’ve written
extensively on both groups, and I found the differences are so slight, that
as I spoke to Mormons (on a daily basis) about their religion, their beliefs, and the origin of those beliefs, etc.; I was amazed that there was almost no
major difference in the two belief bases and systems; from how they view baptism, to praying to and for the dead (e.g. canonized saints and relatives);
to how they view salvation; to their prayers; to life afer death ... both groups are more close than many think.

I’m a Catholic and I will never, never leave Christ’s church, the one founded when he was still alive.  I’ve asked Mormons when this Apostasy supposedly happened but they can’t give me an exact year (gee, I wonder why?).  The apostasy that basically made the Catholic Church, which is 2000 years old, “invalid” or “non existent” (essentially saying that the Christian church disappeared until Joseph Smith reestablished it).  I have had the response of “after all the apostles died” but they weren’t stupid…the Apostles…they passed on to other followers and leaders the teachings of Christ….We also have many great Saints that were martyred for their beliefs in Christ during the early days of Christianity.  One whose death is noted in the bible….Saint Stephen.
BTW, I’m not interested in being the “god” of my own planet.

@eliza

After the Apostles of the Lord were murdered.. there were no more Apostles.  The power or the Keys that had been given to them were lost.  Yes.. the teaching can continue.. but the Revelation of those appointed as leaders ceased with their death.  After Judas died.. the Bible records the calling of another Apostle..  Acts 1

  23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
  24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
  25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
  26 And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

but then that is it.  There were no other Apostles called to replace those that were killed and because there were no more called to the position… therefore the keys and Authority died with the last living Apostle.

In the Bible you will notice that it states the Church was built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets.  In Ephesian 4, the Apostle Paul says:  11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
  12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:  And in 1 Corinthians 12 he says: 28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

I ask.. not to criticize.. but to wonder…  Where are or have there ever been any of these in the Catholic Church?  And why are there none today?  If the Catholic Church is the “original” church as you say.. there is nothing today that even resembles that of the Church in the days after Christ.  And that is one of the biggest reasons that there was the great reformation away from the Catholic Church.  For people saw nothing left that resembled what the original Church was.  Not my words.. but theirs.

You said: “but they can’t give me an exact year (gee, I wonder why?)”

I say:  Can you tell me the date that the last apostle died? If you can.. then that is the date.  Because once the last apostle died.. there was no one to transfer the authority and keys to call a new apostle to fill the empty slot.

You said: “BTW, I’m not interested in being the “god” of my own planet.”

I say:  Interestingly enough the Lord recognizes this.  He has even said: Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.  For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they can not be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.  So see.. you will get what you want.  :-)

I am a divorced single mother of a 4yr old daughter, I am a Document Imaging Sepecialist,  I have only a GED, I do service every week to be an example to my daughter, I am the only member in my family that goes to church, I love computers, nature, listening to good wholesome music, It will be 2 yrs since I converted on Dec 21st,  I am a Mormon.

MrNirom:  Nope, you’re wrong. Saint John, who wrote the Book of Revelation, was NOT martyred (only apostle not to be martyred).  What about Saint Paul and Timothy and Titus and other early Christians mentioned in the Acts of Apostles and other books after the Gospels?  The apostles passed down the teachings of Christ to them.  The apostles knew the church and their followers would be persecuted so they passed on the teachings to others as they sent missionaries around the known world at that time.  When the apostles died, the Church DID NOT DIE with them!  I’ll stick to REAL Church History, thank you.

@eliza

Real Church History?  Think about it for a minute.  The Apostles had the power and authority to call other Apostles to the position to keep the number of 12 going.. just like they did with Matthias.  Why did they not??  If they did.. there would still be Apostles today in the original Church. 

If you read Acts.. you will know how much of a problem Paul had trying to keep the members of the church believing in the Doctrines he was teaching them.  Without the Authority of the Apostles to guide and direct the Church.. the Church members did what they could to keep it together.  But none the less… The Authority after the Apostles were dead.. died with them.

You can believe whatsoever you want to.  Just as the Jews believed that Jesus was not the Messiah because they had over 2000 years of history behind them as well.  :-)

Oh my goodness. OF COURSE the apostles appointed more to follow them and passed on their authority to others. That’s what is called Apostolic succession. It’s recorded historic fact. And Pope Benedict today has this unbroken line of passed on authority all the way back to the Apostle Peter. That, especially, is a matter of historical fact. And all of the Bishops in the Catholic Church also have been given their authority as passed down from the Apostles.

How can anyone seriously believe that the Apostles, in all of their efforts and decades of evangelization, didn’t take a few minutes to pass on their authority so that the Church could continue? Seriously?

That is but one reason the “great apostasy” is absolute and complete nonsensical fiction. Even the idea that God would spend thousands of years preparing his people for His Church…become Man, die for our sins and then found His Church (his bride and his Body)...then promise the gates of hell would not prevail against it and send the Holy Spirit to guide it unto all Truth…would then fall into apostasy less than a generation later is just implausible insanity! Come on people! That…and if we look at history we see that it, in fact, didn’t fall into apostasy at all. And we see that this Apostolic authority was literally passed down to the leaders of the Catholic Church today.

Lord, have mercy. It’s hard to take such historical fiction seriously except the fact that so many people, unfortunately, do.

The “Holy, Catholic (i.e. ‘Universal’), and Apostolic Church” recognizes the “Bishop of Rome”, the Pope, as the sole benefactor of the Keys of Peter.  But what about all the “Orthodox” Christian churches?  Did they have ‘Apostolic’ succession?  Why were they not accorded recognition by the Catholic church until the 1960’s?  If all the “infallible” Popes prior to John xxiii didn’t see fit to recognize other Christians, then why all the big change then?  Was there an ‘Apostasy’ prior to the Ecumenical Councils, or was there an Apostolic succession of the original Twelve?  Who are these Twelve if they exist?
My dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, let me add one thing that my wife is noted for saying:  “If you get to Heaven and find out that I am right, are you going to say ‘I don’t want in’?  Or if I get to Heaven and find out that you are right, am I going to say ‘I don’t want in’?

I just happen to believe that the Pope is not the infallible person I was trained to believe for a couple of decades as a devout Catholic.
Sorry.

@ Matthew,

The 12 Apostles did NOT pass anything on.  If they did.. there would still be 12 Apostles today.  There are not.

The Apostles knew that the Apostasy was coming.  The new Testament is full of scriptures telling it so.  There will always be those that will see it.. and those that won’t.. and those that refuse to.

I too was Catholic once.  I did not let the traditions of my fathers keep me from finding the true Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Just as the Jews did not overcome their 2000+ years of traditions and accept Jesus as the Messiah… there are many today that can not accept that their 2000 years of traditions could also be wrong.

Bottom line is that we are all sons and daughters of our Father in Heaven. He has great plans for us if we will only listen. :-)

There is a big difference between attending a church service and visiting with friends. I was going to say “living in sin” but we are all sinners which is my point. We are all sinners so it is just silly to say that a Christian shouldn’t visit with friends because of their sinful choice. She can and should gently tell them the truth, pray for them and then leave it to God to handle. A church service, a baptism is a different think entirely and I think anyone who is saying otherwise knows it. Beth is correct not to go but she should make sure the parents know why and she should make every effort to show how much she does care for them and the baby. I believe going is a mistake just as I believe attending the 3rd wedding of a cousin being married outside the church is a mistake (no annulment). I didn’t go but only because I couldn’t get there, I didn’t know better at the time. Other family did go and justified it based on “well, its family”. Yeah it is, family dysfunctional and going nowhere good without conversion to the truth. Attending this wedding only said “it doesn’t matter that you left your wife, etc….” and attending the baptism says “it doesn’t matter what church you go to….” which is a heresy. Don’t do it.

I think it is unforunate that the authors point has been pretty much derailed by the Mormon proselytizing that is rampant through these threads. I am not that impressed with much of the new media. It has to be used very carefully otherwise it is superficial which I believe the Mormon campaing to be, superficial and it won’t make much of a dent in the long run.

BTW, St. Paul may have recieved private revelation but he didn’t start a new church/religion.He converted to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.

Catholics beware: the Mormons are trolling on this thread looking to plant seeds of doubt. That is the Evil one. Be careful.

@Ann

Oh.. now we are of Satan?  What really amazes me is the hypocrisy of so many people.  On one hand when it comes to the blessing of the baby..  not even a baptism.. people of other religions try to make such a big point of it by NOT attending.

Yet.. I will bet my bottom dollar that if these two decided to marry in the temple of the Lord where people who are not of our faith are not allowed to enter.. then these same people would cry “foul”. They say: “How could they possibly be married in a place that I can not attend!”

BTW Ann… The Apostle Paul was not directed by the Lord to start a church.  It was already going and he had been persecuting it feverishly.  His vision was to set him straight.  On the other hand.. in 1830, Joseph Smith had a revelation where he was specifically told to start the Church of Jesus Christ.. for it was not to be found upon the earth.

@MrNirom With all due respect, sir, that is completely fallacious logic.

@Matthew

I am not sure what you are speaking about. Show me what and how it is fallacious logic.  Just because you disagree with it does not make false.

@MrNirom - Where to begin?!  I’m not going to get dragged into debating fictitious historical claims without any merit. I just don’t have time. But if you must have an example of one instance of your fallacious logic take this line here:

“The 12 Apostles did NOT pass anything on.  If they did.. there would still be 12 Apostles today.  There are not.”

This is just absurd. Surely you don’t believe this? This is a total non sequitur. In what way does there not being 12 explicit apostles on the earth today prove that the apostles did not pass ANYTHING on? It does no such thing. They passed their authority down to bishops. This is evident with any look at early Church history…and even in scripture itself. And it’s quite easy to understand that they might need more than 12 of them to grow from a Church of a few hundred followers to a world-wide and universal Church of 1.1 billion people.

Like I said, I have absolutely no interest in spending a bunch of time debating the made up history and logically implausible story of the Mormon Church. I don’t mean that with any disrespect. There are just so many more wonderful things to learn about and share that are real. As somebody else mentioned, it’s sad that this is what the comments to this post have come to. It’s just hard to sit here and let well-meaning readers perhaps get led astray by this nonsensical logic. I will think a bit harder next time before I decide to write an article complimenting something Mormons are doing well. Sad.

1 CORINTHIANS 15:33-34
The New American Bible

Sin:528
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

@Matthew

I am surely dumbfounded at your comment and your justification.  You honestly believe that an Apostle of the Lord would “pass” down his authority that he was given by Jesus Christ to a Bishop? That of course is a rhetorical question as I know your answer to that.  My question would be:  Why would he do that?  It has already been shown in scripture that an Apostle would be replaced by a new Apostle… not a Bishop.  I don’t understand the logic of bestowing the Apostleship on a Bishop.. it makes no sense to me at all. The only thing they have in common is the letter “p” at the end of their calling. If it was the right thing to do.. Christ would have done it in the first place and certainly the Gospel writers would have made mention of it.  If Bishops were the same as Apostles.. why did Christ not call his twelve Bishops?

    I say that if one Apostle died.. or left the Church as in the case of Judas.. the Apostles replaced him and the position is now filled.  So through out time if the Apostles were indeed “passing” their authority down the line.. they would do it from one Apostle to another and there would still be 12 Apostles today ruling the Church.  But if the Catholic Church wants to declare that the Apostles decided to pass down their authority and calling to the Bishops.. then so be it.  It is not in scripture that way.. but hey.  It now even makes more sense to me why the Lord had to restore his church upon the earth.

    Somehow and in someway do you feel you can write an article about Mormons and not get any feedback from them? Honestly Matthew.. if you look at the comments.. they are in direct response to other comments that were made.. not about the content of the article you wrote.  What is sad is that you feel it is sad that we have responded.  I have said nothing negative about the Catholic faith.  I have done nothing more than present my take on the way things really happened.  People can choose to research what I have said and find out for themselves.  They certainly don’t need to be shielded.  That is what the REFORMATION was all about.. getting the teachings and word of God in the hands of the people.. not just the religious leaders and clergy of the Church.

    It is too bad that there has to be a disagreement. It would be so nice for the world to have ONE FAITH, ONE LORD, ONE BAPTISM.  But the reality is.. it is not so.

    Free Agency is a gift that God gave to all of mankind.  If you don’t want to write nice articles about Mormons on the internet.. then you don’t have to.  Really Matthew.. if you don’t want Mormons to respond to comments made about their faith, maybe the articles should be made available by paper only to the intended audience… then they would never know what was said about them.

Witchcraft:344
United States Catholic Catechism for Adults

Wow I just posted yesterday. I got like 5 or more responses back. Not on my comment by others. Why are you people getting so angry? We all come from different faiths and have our own belifs. In the 11th article of faith profess our belief in religious liberty, tolerance, and agency. Agency is one of the great gifts of God to His children. It allows all men and women the right to choose for themselves and to earn their own individual salvation. “11. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.” As I said before we are ALL his children. Stop hating each other and prepare for the coming of Christ. All of this hate talk and debating is a waste of time when we can prepare the the ultiment coming of Christ. Fellow mormons state your business and leave it be. If someone wants to argue and debate to tell you your gong to hell or your believing in a fiction faith. Leave it be we have missionaires all over the world doing what Heavenly Father wants and that is preach the ever lasting gospel. Yes we can help but just back out when it becomes to heated up. Obviously they made their minds not to understand or just don’t know how yet. And by stating your business and testimony is just planting a seed. If nurtured it will grow and blossom. If niglected it will dry up and not grow. You have don your job just walk away. And brothers and sisters of other faiths. The ads you see about mormon lives are just ads. I find them pleasig to watch because I MYSELF need improvement. These are people just setting an example, learn from it. We’re are not all perfect I am very far from it. But what is different about me then some other people of my faith or not? I am trying to be a better person. I am trying to set an better example to my young 4 yr old daughter. Just remember what you are doing with your actions and words. The little feet follows your foot steps. You see this world how horrible it is with all the war and crime? It wont end unless WE change. It is never too late to change. All I know is if this hate continues and doesnt stop with US. It will probably never end. Unless we get a smarter generation to throw this in effect at a young age. STOP THE HATE. I sense anger and hate when my fellow mormon brother and sisters are being talked about and laughed at. STOP IT we all will be different we all have our own minds and belifs and ways we want to raise our own children. But besides all the differences we have one thing in common no matter where we live, what religion we are in, what color, or sexuality, our mental state, and deformities, education, rich, poor, demorcats, republicans. WE ALL ARE CHILDREN OF GOD. I can bet heavenly father is shaking his head and covering his face with his hands because of how SELFISH we all are.. Let it go

@MrNirom - I’m sorry if you misunderstood me, but I never said bishops are exactly the same as apostles. And nowhere in scripture does Christ say that there must be 12 living apostles for there to be a Church. These are more false premises you are beginning with to make your argument. Either way, you are just presenting more non-sequiturs and straw men as a result. God bless you.

@Christopher Teesdale

Lets see Christopher.. you took one scripture out of context to make some sort of reference to what is being said here??

The scripture you quoted says: 33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
  34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

The Apostle Paul was speaking directly to the Corinthians about the resurrection of the dead.  You see.. they had been taught about the resurrection.. but now.. they didn’t believe it.  He started this letter to them by telling them just how many people had actually seen the Lord in his resurrected state after his death.  He said talking about Christ:
  4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
  5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
  6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
  7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
  8 And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.

And the purpose of his whole letter is stated in verse 12:<b?

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? </b>

Then he tells them:

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

Then he says to them:

17 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

He then begins to reteach them about why the resurrection is to be accepted.

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

He even asks them about the ordinances that they are doing for their dead.  If they don’t believe in the dead rising.. why are they then baptizing for them??  He asks:

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

He then more or less tells them to wake up:

  32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.
  33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
  34 Awake to righteousness, and sin not; for some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame.

Essentially he is telling them that they have been taught the correct doctrine.. and they should be ashamed for having had the truth and then letting it go.  Especially because he taught it to them!

Then he continues his letter telling more about the resurrection.  About the bodies that will be given.

  40 There are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
  41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
  42 So also is the resurrection of the dead…

He then ties it all together hoping that they now believe him and what he has told them by saying:

  57 But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
  58 Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye stedfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labour is not in vain in the Lord.

@Matthew

You are right.  Nowhere in scripture does Christ say that there must be 12 living apostles for there to be a Church.. even though he did set up the foundation that way.

But you are right.  He didn’t say it.

Peace be unto you, and my peace I leave with you.  I have no contention with the Church of my birth, but the belief in all that I know leads me to be a Mormon. 

@Matthew
Please don’t let contention enter your mind and heart.  We are all children of the one true God.  God bless you and your ministry.

Hey guys? This post was about PR, not about arguing doctrine. Let’s be respectful and polite. We can agree to disagree and be friends? I have friends who are Catholic, and I have friends who are LDS. Let’s find ways to work together not point out our differences. I’m a student, a snowboarder, and a Mormon.

With Judas Iscariot being dead, there were only 11 apostles at the beginning of Acts of the Apostles.  So the remaining apostles chose Mattathias as a replacement for Judas, laid hands on him, and made him one of their number (he’s never called an apostle in the book, but he’s presumed to have the same role).  Note that Jesus did not pick Mattathias while he was on earth, it was the apostles themselves who made this choice.  It’s exactly this process that has occurred ever since when bishops ordain new bishops, and it’s right there in the Bible.  Your argument isn’t with the Catholic Church, it’s with the Book of Acts.

Regarding the PR value of this campaign, it’s dubious in my opinion.  The first few times you hear or see these ads (they’re on the radio too) you think they’re creative and refreshing.  The next dozen times you’re just rolling your eyes waiting for the “I’m Johnny, I like apples, and I’m a Mormon” line at the end.  After that it becomes a joke, as evidenced by the many parodies of these commercials that are starting to spring up on the Net.

I mean, look at this thread for instance.  There are like 20 people following that same “I’m _____, I like to _______, and I’m a Mormon” template in their comments.  Seriously, do you people think that after reading 5 of those sorts of comments readers will be unconvinced, but if you add another 10 of them suddenly the readers will have a good opinion of Mormons?

Evangelization is not about gimmicks, which is all this campaign is.  It would be much easier if it were.  Not that I’m interested in counseling Mormon evangelists—as a Catholic I hope the LDS falls flat on its face in all its attempts to win converts, as Mormonism is a deeply mistaken distortion of Christianity that leads people away from the real thing.

Hi, I’m Chris. I’m 33, I read books on history, I own cats, I like cars, and oh yeah, I’m a Catholic.
.... So what?  Are the people in this thread trying to state that doing a few normal things makes them either a) “normal” or b) theologically correct?  Did Christ send out the Apostles to win the world over with gimmicks?

Hi Chris, I find it so gratifying to be catholic and in the church established by Jesus Christ.

Why would anyone be so arrogant as to start their own version of the church, as in other faiths? I believe it is connected to that singular event in the Garden of Eden. The serpent said to Eve “you too can be like God.”

It goes downhill from there. It begins with disobedience, then the spirit is dead, and blindness results.

Rick,
Hi. I’m Catholic too.  I was just making that comment to point out the goofiness of the various “Hi, I’m Sam. I like collecting stamps, I’m a grade school teacher, and I’m a Mormon” comments.  My response to all of that is: who cares?  Just because a person participates in normal activities doesn’t make their religious beliefs and less whacky.

What I love about religion is how devisive it is.  I’m sure that was what Jesus wanted - a bunch of hair splitting hypocrites who call themselves followers of his teachings.

@crimethink

I am not sure who you are directing your comment to.. but I will assume it is me.

You said: So the remaining apostles chose Mattathias as a replacement for Judas, laid hands on him, and made him one of their number (he’s never called an apostle in the book, but he’s presumed to have the same role).

I say:  If they called him to replace Judas.. and added him to the twelve.. what do you think he was?  A Bishop? 

If you look in the scriptures… and search for the word bishop.. here is what you will find:

  1.
    1 Tim. 3: 1-2
      1 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
      2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
  2.
    Philip. 1: 1
      1 Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:
  3.
    Titus 1: 7
      7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;
  4.
    1 Pet. 2: 25
      25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Now I ask you.  In the Great Catholic and Apostolic Church.. does a bishop have a wife?  Just what was the role of a Bishop in the time period written about?  It is easy to answer.  The Bishop was in charge of the church members in the town he lived in.  Just as a pastor is today.  A Bishop’s authority was running the local branch of the church..not the entire church.  The keys to the Kingdom of God were given to the Apostles.. not the Bishops.  Those Bishops that were left after the Apostles were dead tried to run the church the best they could.  And that is the true history of the Catholic Church.  Create a different history if you want to.

@Rick

The only reason someone would “be so arrogant as to start their own version of the church” is for two reasons.  One.. the church was very corrupt and they didn’t want anything to do with it anymore! As just one example.. The Catholic Church is know for having members pay for a document that said that their salvation was secured. Yes.. you could buy your salvation for you and your family for a price. Where is that in the Bible?  Two.. The Lord himself commanded it.

MrNirom,
To get a greater understanding of the role of the Bishop, you might look at some of the early Christian writings which speak of their role.  For instance the letters of Ignatius of Antioch, the letter of Clement to the Corinthians.  Of course, these are not scripture, but give a broader context of what the practices of the Church were in the time immediately following the Apostles.  btw, Paul is not stating that a bishop “must” have a wife but that he must have only “one” wife, ie, not be an adulterer.  Recall that Paul himself had no wife.
Concerning the reasons for someone to “create their own church” - you give two. A) that the Catholic Church was/is corrupt.  Indeed, this has often been the case among the followers of Christ. However, the sins of the followers of Christ are not a proof that Christ was false, nor is it a proof that his body the Church is false.  Is the Mormon faith and its various members not corrupt?  Is that then a reason to throw out a Church? Looking for a corruption-free church or organization of any sort (or a corruption free individual)is a mission impossible. The second reason you give is B)that God commanded it.  Who says, and why should I believe that person any more than a person who says you should not create a new church?

@CRJohnston

Not to be.. how did Sandra Currie put it.. devisive.. I would like to point out the what the scripture actually says.. not what you think it says.

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach

Are we to assume here that a bishop can not have two wives or more wives?  Was polygamy common at that time that such a statement from the Apostle Paul was made?  If he did not want bishops to commit adultery.. why did he not just say it?  Certainly the way that Paul wrote his letters he would never skirt around an issue like adultery by saying the bishop must be the husband of one wife.  In my opinion.. you are putting words into his mouth.

And BTW.. “There has been some debate over whether the Apostle Paul was married or not. There is no difinitive statement in the Bible either way. However, 1 Corinthians Ch:7 raises and perhaps answers some questions. In verse seven Paul wishes everyone were as he was. He may be talking of his marital state, or he may be talking about his self-control. Then in next verse he says,“To the unmarried and to widows I say this: it is a good thing if like me they stay as they are.” It is hard to read this any other way than that he was not married when this letter was written. However, this does not preclude that he might not have been a widower.”

There is the early 2nd-century writing of Ignatius, in which this early bishop says to the church in Rome, “I do not, like Peter and Paul, issue orders unto you. They are apostles, but I am one condemned; they indeed are free, but I am a slave. (Ignatius, “Romans, Chap. IV,” in Ante-Nicene Fathers, edited by Philip Schaff (Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886)1:103)

This statement gives you the understanding that a bishop had very little authority in comparison to an apostle.  And it becomes quite evident in looking at history.  Even once a single bishop can definitively be identified in Rome, his powers were not at all like what we see in a pope today. The bishop of Rome did not call himself the “Vicar of Christ“ (the first to do so was Gelasius I, 492 - 496). The bishop of Rome did not have the Roman Curia to govern other churches. He did not call for church councils or write encyclicals. Pope Sylvester I (314 - 335) didn’t even attend the first ecumenical Council of Nicea, much less call it (that was done by Constantine the Great).

Furthermore, a disturbing fraction of the church seems to have rejected (or simply ignored) the apostles and tried to assume for themselves the authority to direct matters in the churches. This is attested even in the lifetimes of the apostles. You have Paul pointing out “... that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;” (2 Tim. 1:15) and John’s experience recorded in 3 John 1:9-10:

  I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not.
  Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church.

These rebels would not be worried about the loss of apostolic authority; they had been fomenting it.

Then you bring up the point: “However, the sins of the followers of Christ are not a proof that Christ was false, nor is it a proof that his body the Church is false.”

No one said Christ was false.  But when doctrines of the church are changed by corrupted leaders and then these new doctrines are taught to the people.. this does a corrupt church make.  It becomes obvious that revelation from God has ceased and when the leaders of the church becomes corrupt… then so does the whole church who believes them.  Especially over time.

You say: “Who says, and why should I believe that person any more than a person who says you should not create a new church?”

I say:  Seems that all prophets have had a difficult time with this one.  People just don’t want to listen to what they have to say and they killed them.  Christ himself had this problem when he was creating his “new” church.  I am sure people said exactly the same thing.  Certainly the religious leaders at the time of Jesus did not believe him.  They wanted everything to remain exactly as it was.

There is a lot of information out there if one bothers to take the time to study and find out what the truth is.  Or.. like many… they can bury their heads in the sand and continue with their lives like nothing really happened.  It is all up to the individual to seek and find.  God can only put it out there.. he can’t make you accept it.

MrNirom,
-You stated “If he did not want bishops to commit adultery.. why did he not just say it?”  He did. “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife”
-Concerning Paul’s being married. Is there any proof he was? In Scripture? Anywhere?  He didn’t like to skirt around issues, why didn’t he bring up that he was a husband, etc?
-You quote Ignatius of Antioch as saying, “I do not, like Peter and Paul, issue orders unto you. They are apostles, but I am one condemned; they indeed are free, but I am a slave.”  Having received the laying on of hands from an Apostle, he presided over the flock at Antioch.  He is clearly not a pope or one of the original twelve, and is not claiming to be.  Irenaeus makes apostolic succession more clear in the second century: “We can enumerate those who were appointed by the apostles as bishops in the churches as their successors even to our time” (Against Heresies 3.1). And in the next section, Irenaeus begins to list the successors of Peter at Rome with these words: “But since it would be too long, in a work like this, to list the successions in all the churches, we shall take only one of them, the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome while showing that the tradition and the faith it proclaims to men comes down through the successions of the bishops even to us” (ibid., 3.2).
-All of the arguments about titles “Vicar of Christ”, Roman Curia, etc….  I wonder what the point of your argument is? Look up some info on the organic development of the faith.  Do groups grow in understanding and use new words to describe old principles.  Do things become more complex with time.  Just look at Mormonism - the Mormonism of today is not the Mormonism of 100 years ago.
-You talk about the “rebels would not be worried about the loss of apostolic authority; they had been fomenting it.” Yes, heresies have always existed.
-you say, “But when doctrines of the church are changed by corrupted leaders and then these new doctrines are taught to the people.. this does a corrupt church make.  It becomes obvious that revelation from God has ceased and when the leaders of the church becomes corrupt… then so does the whole church who believes them.”  This could just as easily be said about Mormonism (most especially in terms of ‘new doctrines’).
-You did not answer my final question about “why should I believe that person any more than a person who says you should not create a new church?”  You just bring up something about the fact that prophets have always been condemned…  That’s not an answer. Should we believe the prophet Mohammed? David Koresh? You say that the leaders of the Church were corrupted and corrupted the whole Church with them—why should I believe that you are accurate in that assessment?  I know some of the things that certain Catholics and certain Popes and certain Bishops did were wrong - just as there are certain Mormons, leaders and otherwise, who did wrong things. By what criterion are you making the assessment that the Church was corrupted?  The Holy Scriptures?  Do you trust that the “corrupt” Church gave you the right information?

@CRJohnston

    You said: “If he did not want bishops to commit adultery.. why did he not just say it?”  He did. “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife”

    CR.. please look at the verse before this one.  It says: This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

    Then he proceeds to LIST the attributes that a Bishop must be.  Here.. let me list it out for you.

    If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A Bishop then must: (1 Tim 3:1-7)

1. be blameless,
2. the husband of one wife,
3. vigilant,
4. sober,
5. of good behaviour,
6. given to hospitality,
7. apt to teach;
8. Not given to wine,
9. no striker,
10. not greedy of filthy lucre;
11. but patient,
12. not a brawler,
13. not covetous;
14. One that ruleth well his own house,
15. having his children in subjection with all gravity;(For if a man   know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
16. Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
17. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Then in verse 8 - 13 he talks about the office of a Deacon.

No where in this whole chapter is he talking about adultery.

    Listen.. I am not here to try to convert you.  I just bring up points for you to ponder.. study it out in your own mind and heart.. and see whatever it is you want to see. Don’t take my word for anything.  Go check it out yourself.  Do your own homework.  Then go to God and ask if it be right.  If you ask with a sincere heart.. with real intent.. the Holy Ghost which is the testifier of truth.. will make it known to you.  It is by the power of the Holy Ghost that you can know the truth of ALL things. 

    Unless a person is a seeker.. he will NEVER find.  There are many people who do not seek.  They are happy where they are at.. and that is just fine.  I don’t want to pick apart everything you say.. but just based on what I see here.. in my opinion you see what you want to see and have closed off your mind to the point that you start making things up that are not there.  You wanted to see adultery and you saw it.  But honestly.. it is not there.

    Really.. you asked why you should believe that person.. any more than a person who say you should not create a new church?  And I say.. you shouldn’t just “believe” em.  But you should study all sides of the argument and come to your own conclusion.  And like I said before.. then.. then go and ask God if what you concluded is right.  All I say is this:  Be prepared for the answer you receive.. whatever it may be.  Decide upfront that whatever he tells you.. you will do and you will accept. Even if it seems to go against all reason in your head.  God’s ways are not man’s ways.

    Happy Thanks Giving to you!

MrNirom,
In the discussion about what a bishop is to be, in which you state that the bishop must be married, what the argument is coming down to is I say it is referring to adultery, and you say it isn’t.  This is the whole problem of reading the Sacred Scriptures outside of the context and the history in which they were written.  It is not just “I” who say that it says adultery, but it is the living Church, formed by Christ, which says this.  If there is no authoritative body to help us to understand the infinitely complex work of the Scriptures, we can come to whatever conclusion we want to.
The rest of your post borders on an ad hominem argument against me in which you assume I have not “done my homework” and have not considered these things in any deep way. You also assume that I have not prayed and asked God for guidance in faith and belief and have not struggled with faith.  You may rest assured that I have studied and prayed a good deal. I have read the Book of Mormon. I have also discussed these matter with a number of Mormons. The conclusion I come to is that they are wrong.  You read into this argument that I am uneducated in matters of faith and comparative religion because you want that to be true. This is a dodge from the argument.  The question remains: “why should I believe that person [who says the Church was corrupted and had to be restored] any more than a person who says you should not create a new church?” and what is your criterion for this assessment?
Have a nice Thanksgiving.

@CRJohnston

    I do not know you.  I do not know your back ground.  I do not know the struggles you have been through.  I do know mine and I do know what it took for me to go from being a Catholic to becoming a Mormon.  I do know that the Holy Ghost did testify to me the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. I do know that I was testified to that it is also the Word of God. I do know that the Holy Ghost did testify to me the truthfulness that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet of God.  I know that I studied and I prayed about it and I got an answer. And I know that I have had many answers since then.

    I really don’t know what you want from me.  I have already answered your question but you seem unhappy with my answer.  So let me try to restate it in a different way. DON’T JUST BELIEVE THAT PERSON.  At this point in time you seem to believe the person or entity who says the Church was not corrupt and did not need to be restored.  It would be me, the Scriptures I believe in, and the Holy Ghost that say otherwise.  You have determined that we are wrong.  I say fine.  I say that you are wrong. 

    I grew up with the Catholic Church.  It has been in my family since at least the 1600’s where I traced it back to France.  So for generations my family has been Catholic.  But I can not deny the Holy Ghost.  I can not deny the words of Christ, not only in the Book of Mormon, but in the revelations that were given to the Prophet Joseph Smith.  I can not deny the revelation I received concerning the restoration of Christ’s Gospel.  No one.. not anyone.. could just convince me to leave the Catholic Church and my families traditions just because they said so.  It took the outside influence of the Holy Ghost to make that change.  And… it took me listening to the influence of the Holy Ghost.  Just as many people in the time of Christ were testified to as the Holy Ghost came upon them.. it happened to me.  Most of the Jews did not listen and did not act.  I listened to what he testified to me.  And he continues to testify to me.  I wanted to know the truth.  I was willing to follow where ever the truth took me.  I was willing to give up the Catholic faith and face the bitter disappointment of my family for making such a choice.  I was willing to do whatsoever the Lord asked me to do.  He told me what I needed to do and I did it.  That is all I can say.  That is my testimony.

    I don’t know what your testimony is.  But it is obvious to me that is not the same as mine.  Based on the information you have presented here, I would say that you are going to say that God told you to stay where you are.  What can I say?  I know of more people who have picked up the Book of Mormon.. have read it from cover to cover and have joined the Church just because of it.  As a Christian I stand back and wonder why other religions can not see that Christ is the Son of God and the only way to salvation.  I can see it.  But tell me.. why can they not see it?  Why can not the Muslims, or the Buddhist, or the 100’s of other religions not see that Jesus is the Christ and the savior of the world?  Why did the Jews not see it?  I don’t have the answer to these questions.  All I know is that I have been warned.. and it is my responsibility to warn my neighbors.  And I do that. 

    Like I said.. you want to believe because someone told you that the statement that Timothy made about being the “husband of one wife” is speaking about adultery.. what can I say?  Believe it.  Common sense dictates otherwise.  If a bishop is not married or not to be married.. why use the word wife? A wife is the female that is married to the man.  Why did he say that the Bishop must be the husband??? if he is not to be married to the wife?  Are you reading a different translation of the Bible?  No.. in my opinion the reason you need it to be talking about adultery is because your faith does not allow the males in the clergy.. or bishops.. to be married.  And that then justifies your Churches position on why they are not married.  Because if this scripture were taken that a Bishop should have a wife.. it would question the very authority of many other things that the church has dictated as well.  For me (this is my opinion) this is a cover up in the Catholic Church.  This is just ONE… of the many, many, many reasons that it was apparent to me why it was right for me to leave the Catholic Church.  And I thank God everyday that I listened to what he had to tell me.

How do you know it was the Holy Spirit? There are plenty who have left the Mormon faith by the same Spirit. There has to be something more than a subjective feeling.
You talk about common sense… if it is so common why do so many believe as I do? And if Paul thought it necessary why would he ask others to be what he was not?  And sorry we dont base our discipline of clergy celibacy on this passage.

@CRJohnston

    How do I know it was the Holy Ghost?  How do you know that it was the Holy Ghost that fell upon the people at Pentecost back in Jerusalem?  Just because someone said so?  What do you base your belief in the Catholic Church on??  The teachings of your parents?  The writings of the Church Fathers?  The reading of a Book?  How does one know if they are “filled with the Holy Ghost”?  What.. no subjective feelings allowed??  No feeling it?  As the two disciples that walked with Jesus said : Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?
    People who have left the Mormon Church did not leave because the Holy Ghost told them to.  They told themselves to.  They created some sort of scenario in their minds that caused doubt to enter and then they do what you do.. see what they want to see.  I do not have all the answers as to why people do what they do.  This much I do believe.. we will be judged based on the opportunities that are placed before us and the decisions we make.  We will be judged on the Law that we know. 

    Paul thought what was necessary?  To remain single?  NO.. that is not what he taught.  He thought it was better to be single while on mission because having a wife and family would not then get in the way of HIS mission.  Though the Bible does not speak of him being married.. there are many scholars that have determined he was.  It was Jewish Law.  And Paul was a part of that Jewish Hierarchy.  So just because the mention of Paul being married is absent in scripture does not make him never married or unmarried.  And BTW.. I never said that you did base your discipline of clergy celibacy on that passage.  I said just the opposite.  You need to say it is adultery rather than not.  Because if it did say what I say is says.. then it would make the question of why is the discipline of the clergy celibacy what it is?  It is simple to me.  It was a man made decision for your clergy not to marry.. and it was nothing that came from GOD.

@CR, today you said the following:
“You talk about common sense… if it is so common why do so many believe as I do? And if Paul thought it necessary why would he ask others to be what he was not?  And sorry we dont base our discipline of clergy celibacy on this passage.”

Last Sunday I made the following comment, consider it please:
“Regarding an unpaid ministry, isn’t it true that the Pope of the time decided that having married priests posed a problem with the wealth of the Vatican, as the families of deceased priests would inherit the income accumulated during the priest’s ministry?  Rather than go to Rome, it would remain in the estate of the priest.  Consequently, celibacy was created by the ‘infallible Pope’.  Now that particular decision has come back to haunt this Pope because of all the scandal of abuse of priests who use boys instead of wives to satisfy their ‘animal lusts.’”

@MrNirom & CR, I pray that you will both accept each other’s point of view as being firm.  Neither of you will convert the other, so there is no need for contention.  Discussion and trading ideas of Faith can be great bridge builders.  Love one another as the Lord commands us to do.
Larry

I have no ill will towards anybody who does not agree with me.  As a matter of fact.. the difference in beliefs and doctrines are what make us different and unique.

    I am not here to convert anyone.  I am only here to explain to others how I see it.  To tell others why I see it one way rather than the same way they do.  I do not expect everyone to agree with me on all points of doctrine.. but I do expect to be able to give my point of view and explain why I see it the way I do.

    I respect CR and his point of view.. but that does not mean that I can not question him about it.  A discussion is just that.  Sometimes I think people read more into the words than are really there.  When I am writing the words I am saying here.. I do not do it with anger… because I am not angry.  I am not even upset and contention is not my purpose. 

    I make it know to all.. that the words I write are of my opinion.  They are written to convey what is on my mind and in my belief system.  Now… there are points of doctrine that I can agree with.. but often those are not the points that are brought up.  I can disagree with someone and have them disagree with me.. but I do not feel mad or angry at them just for having a different point of view.  What I do not like is being called names or what I call “being spit upon”.  Derogatory remarks of a personal nature are never my intention… but I will call a spade a spade as I see it.

MrNirom,
I did not say that “no feeling” was allowed.  But if that’s all you have to prove the basis of belief - then anyone who “feels” that they are right, and assumes that God is the source of that feeling, is perfectly right.  You perhaps presume that someone who is Catholic or Christian, simply believes because someone told them, and that Mormons believe because God told them. I am sure that you agree with me in considering that to simply be absurd.  I cannot debate the fact that there was a powerful experience of faith on your part. But you cannot so easily discount the experience of those who, let’s say, leave the Mormon faith based on that same attention to the Spirit. You felt the Spirit burning within you, so have I.  But what else?  Who told you of Joseph Smith and is he worthy of trust? Who presented the Scriptures and the Book of Mormon to you and are they trustworthy?  That is the source I am trying to get at in my questions.
I did not say that Paul said it was necessary to be celibate - just as the Catholic Church doesn’t.  It is a discipline that priests and bishops are to follow, but not all.  For instance in the eastern Catholic rites, priests can be married.  Likewise I know a priest who was an Episcopal priest and converted to catholicism, he has a wife and children and is a Catholic priest.  In theory, the practice could change since it is a discipline of the faith and not a matter of unchangeable belief. 
To say that some Scholars have determined that Paul was married means nothing much. Some scholars have concluded that Paul was gay. Who is to know if they are right?  The thing is, nothing from Scripture or the tradition alludes to Paul being married. However from the words of Paul we have only to look at 1 Cor 7:8-9 “I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn”.  Nowhere in Paul’s works does it say that Paul was unmarried simply because of his “mission”. ( we could also consider the words of Christ,Mat 19:12, but that could take us farther afield, this conversation is already getting wide in scope, haha. Also, I suppose we could consider Jeremiah, the Essenes, etc.)  To say that all Jewish people were married is simply not correct.  Perhaps I could say that it is important for you to see that Paul was married because it is important for your understanding of your faith.
You say the discipline of clerical celibacy comes from man and not God.  How do you know that is true?  What about, let’s say, the cannon of Scripture? Who made that choice and how do you know?
Larry,
You make the comment about clerical abuse as a direct result of clerical celibacy.  I was an altar boy for years and all the priests that I served under never touched me or made any sort of advance.  In fact, every priest I have know in my life has never been accused of anything.  It is a horrible, tragic, disgusting shame that some have.  But at the same time - what about members of the Mormon leadership? I have read about accounts of sodomy and sexual abuse by Mormon leaders—does this mean that Mormonism is wrong? Certainly not.  The whole idea of paid clergy and celibacy because of nepotism is only part of the equation.  There is also a spiritual dimension to which it refers (see the Scriptural references above).
Concerning contention: I don’t see much here.  MrNirom and I are just having a friendly discussion and debate.  There is nothing wrong with that—ask Stephen or Paul.  I love MrNirom and I am sure that he likewise loves me.  I very much appreciate his well thought out points and sincerity.

@CR & MrNirom,
Maybe I have stepped in it.  You have both pointed out to me that you are having a discussion, and both are at peace with it.  I am sorry that I misread the interaction.  In fact, I have enjoyed the thought, research, and faith that you have both presented.
CR,
I, too was an altar boy for many years, and never had any bad experiences with the priests with whom I served.  Nor did I ever hear of any situations like that while in school. 
I nearly went to high school seminary at the request of my parish priest, and then again considered the calling while a senior in high school.  I only say this to give you an idea of the depth of my faith.
My comments in these posts are given from the standpoint of one who has the experience of both sides of the “argument”.  Many times I have defended the beliefs of one side to the other, and will continue to do so if presented with the need.
I appreciate your dialog.  It is interesting and informative.  Thank you both.
You both may be aware of the close relationship between the two Churches in Salt Lake City.  They work together on many levels, both locally and worldwide.  The Mormons are one of the largest contributors to Catholic Relief, and they share many cultural and historical interests in SLC.  Both Churches are aware of the needs of people throughout the world who suffer from earthquake, tsunami, and other disasters.
I may differ from the leaders of my Church in that I believe that there are many paths that lead back to our Heavenly Father—although some may be more direct than others.
Please accept my apologies for interrupting your dialogue.  May I say that I share in your love and respect for each other.  Thank You Both.

The plain, sad fact is this: Catholics don’t tithe.

They don’t tithe anywhere near as much as their more orthodox and sincere Protestant brethren, let alone the Mormons.

They don’t do that even in the United States, which is a comparatively wealthy society even during a nasty recession. “From he to whom much is given, much is expected”; one could safely assume that if the average human society tithes as a norm of Christian practice and the poorer human societies give a little less as a norm, then Christians in the United States can be expected to exceed 10% of pretax income as a regular practice.

But even the sincere Protestants average (last time I saw the figures) more like 6-7% of pretax income. And the Catholics? I think it was 3% or something along those lines.

Folks, this is why the churches look like ratty, rinky-dink strip-mall affairs. This is why the media campaign for “Catholics Come Home” is so much smaller and less well-done than that the Mormons are using.

Ever wonder why the music sounds lame at your parish? Do you know that Evangelical churches in the Atlanta area frequently pay their worship musicians $100 to $300 a service, in order to entice good players and to ensure those players are willing to invest the time to rehearse? (I should know, I used to be one before I became Catholic.) Do even the largest Catholic parishes pay anything like that? Why, no: They haven’t the money. The evangelicals also have paid, trained sound technicians and $20K sound systems. Catholic parishes have a 16 channel Mackie board hooked up to something rather like a large 1970’s home stereo, with cheap mics of the wrong type standing not only in front of the singers, but in front of the organ pipes.

There are more reasons than that, of course: The execrable hymnody of the 60’s and 70’s, married to bad arrangements, is also a problem. But good players and good sound engineering can partially compensate such problems in your evangelical churches. Not so at your local parish.

Do you think the evangelicals spend all their money on sound systems and musicians and leave none for the poor? Guess again: The last several such churches I attended before becoming Catholic allocated 10% of their operating budget EACH for foreign missions (not just evangelism but aid) and for local-community aid & assistance.

The large Catholic parishes of the U.S. ought to be doing all the assistance to the poor here and abroad that their evangelical brethren are doing, AND still be able to maintain their churches at the highest level of maintenance, AND be able to hire full time experts for media, for sound engineering, and the like, as the large evangelical churches do.

But they don’t, because they can’t, because Catholics aren’t faithful tithers.

It has nothing to do with guilting people into giving money. It is not a new obligation of the Church. It is simply a matter of: Do you love Jesus Christ enough to repair His house? Do you trust the providence of God the Father enough to trust him with your finances? (Test Him in this, and see if He does not open the storehouses of Heaven for you. I am not talking some “health and wealth” gospel; perhaps you could use the spiritual benefits of a tighter belt. He will see to that; He knows what you need. But grace comes to the benefactors of the Church, who give with a glad heart.)

There are many excuses and counter-arguments you can give if my exhortation angers you. But I have heard them all: Haven’t I thought them all in my own heart? And if you are already giving heroically, then assume I am not talking to you.

But if you are the kind of person who never looks at his paycheck stubs and asks, “What would 10% of this number be?” ...if you are the guy who waits for the plate to come and casually drops in a fiver or whatever you happen to have on you? Then it’s time to “man up.” It’s time to get intentional about it. Give like an adult Christian, not like a three-year-old who can’t calculate 10% of a number. (Evangelicals start teaching their kids to tithe beginning with their earliest allowance, by-the-way. When I was three years old, I got my dollar and gave my dime, every week.)

When Catholics are faithful tithers, we will be able to give God the glory with excellence, rather than in a low-budget half-a**ed kind of way, as is now the case. (And how, really, is God honored by that?)

See Malachi 3:8-12

@Larry

I am sure I can speak for CR in this instance to say.. We are happy to provide some sort of entertainment value to this world.  :-)

@CR

    I know that sometimes the words that I write..  or the words that I have chosen to use.. do not always convey the point I am trying to make.  It sure is clear in my head when I start because I am pooling information from many different sources… but trying to explain the one point without all the additional references.. is difficult and the meaning of what I am saying gets lost somehow or misunderstood.

    Let’s take your question about “Why should you believe that person [who says the Church was corrupted and had to be restored] any more than that person who says you should not create a new church?” The same goes for the faith of an individual. As I have stated.. I was born and raised a Catholic.  My mother took me to Church on Sunday’s, I attended catechism on Wednesday’s after school,  I had grandparents that when they came to visit me, I would often find my grandmother in her trailer on her knees praying the rosary.  I can remember being in high school and for a period of time being part of the Jesus movement.  The love for the lord was strong inside me.  But I can also remember that being Catholic.. was of no additional significance to me.  I lived in a very small community in Michigan that had an air force base attached to it.  So the majority of kids I dealt with came from all over the place and were of many denominations.  I never ever remember thinking or feeling that me being Catholic was either better or worse than anyone else.  It just was.  But then I never investigated the different doctrines to see what the differences were either.  I knew what I was taught and I had no reason to think anything that I was taught was not true.  For the concept of being “lied” to did not enter my mind.  But I also did not think that possibly what I was being taught.. was not accurate.  In other words.. I did not think about why so many different denominations?  I did not think that the baptists would be teaching their people one thing.. the Catholics would be teaching their people another, and the Lutherans would be teaching their people even something different.  It had not occurred to me that all of these religions could not be right.  My brain at that time just did not go there.  Belief was just that.. Belief.  It was what I knew and I knew nothing else than what I knew and was taught.  I had nothing to compare it to only because I had not taken the time to compare.

    It was not until I was in the Army.. and had the opportunity to become friends with other people of various upbringings and places and religions, that I started going to different churches with my friends.  And it was at this time that my mind began to understand that there were differences between what I had been taught and what they had been taught.  I realized that this faith believe this.. and that faith believe that.. and they did not match up! 

    I can remember back in my childhood remembering the feeling I got when the priest would be giving his sermon about Christ being crucified.  And they would be saying how the Jews had done this awful thing and here we had the biggest cross that hung from the ceiling of the church and every Sunday I was reminded of what a terrible thing the Jews did to this man called Jesus.  Every Sunday I had to watch him be crucified and hanging on the cross suffering.  I can remember the name Pontius Pilate because it was drilled into my head what evil man this was. I learned to hate this man for what he had done.

    So as I spoke to other people and attended other Churches.. I was being taught different things.  I would often ask myself.. was what I was taught the right thing?  Or is what they were taught the right thing?  We can’t all be right.  Yes… there are many things that are similar.. but there are so many things that are different!  I realized that I was born into this faith.  I did not choose it.  Had I been born in China.. I would believe in Buddha.  Had I been born in Iraq.. I would believe in Allah and been a Muslim.  Had I been born somewhere else.. I would believe in whatsoever the family I was born into was believing.  I did not choose my religion.. my religion chose me!

    So.. I began a search.  There are facts that I had to consider.  There was the Catholic Church that I was quite familiar with that was saying they were the true Church from the beginning.  Then there were all these other churches that were a break off of the Catholic Church.  They were by products of the Reformation.  This Reformation was a movement that once the scriptures were in the hands of the people.. they started objecting to the teachings of the Catholic Church saying it did not conform to what was being said in the scriptures.  So they broke away and each sect then formed their own church based on what they believed the scriptures to say.  Trust in the (as you put it) “authoritative body” was gone.  They no longer wanted the help of the Catholic Church to understand the “infinitely complex work of the Scriptures”.  They believe it was the Catholic Church that made it “infinitely complex”.  The more complex.. the more the people would need the Church to explain it to them.

    So now as time went on.. more faiths, more churches sprang up everywhere.  Some saying Lo here.. and others saying Lo there.  If a person just stayed in their protective bubble of the family faith and questioned nothing.. then we really would be sheeple.

    I started questioning.  I started asking myself as I did research.. which Church would God give his seal of approval on?  I knew that God did not lie.. and if two churches are teaching something different.. one of the doctrines had to be a lie.. or in other words.. not the whole truth.  One church could not say:  The virgin Mary never committed a sin.. and then other one say.. the only sinless person every to live on this earth was Jesus.  Someone was wrong here. Both could not be right! Now I realize that this doctrine was not important to know or to believe one way or the other for my salvation.. but.. what was the real truth?  That is what I started to want to know.  The real truth.  If a church was teaching something that I found out was not true.. what else could they be teaching me that was not true?  After all.. there is the absolute truth that is out there.  It is either one way or other.. but not both.  And either one is teaching the truth.. which would make the other teaching a lie.  Not that the lie is intentional on the part of the church.. it could be a simple misunderstanding of the scripture.. but none the less.. they were teaching something that was not true.  So like I was saying.. there is an absolute truth out there.  Either the church is true.. or it is not true.  If the church teaches a non truthful thing.. then it is not the true church.  And who is suppose to determine if the church is teaching a non truthful thing?  Well.. who is it that must believe whatever is being taught?  ME.  I am the one.  I have to figure it out.  I can not depend on this “authoritative body” to tell me what to do or what to believe.. they can only tell me what it is they are teaching and why they believe what they are teaching is the truth.  But I can not just “believe” them cause they say so.  Right?  That is the point you were trying to make.  Why should you believe that person [who says the Church was corrupted and had to be restored] any more than that person who says you should not create a new church?”  Same dilemma.

    So at this point in time I started looking at different Churches and what they taught.  What was their history.  I just had to take in a lot of information and process it.  I did notice that there were many churches that taught the same things.. at least on the surface from what I could tell.  But as an example I could go from one baptist church to another and then I realized that just because your baptist… does not mean that all baptists teach exactly the same thing.  This much I did know.  There was the Catholic Church which they are saying is the same church that Christ started and is still going today… and there were other churches that sprouted out of the Catholic Church.  If the Catholic Church had the authority from God.. or his “seal of approval”.. then these other Churches could not have it.  If the Catholic Church did not have the authority.. and one of these other churches did.. then I needed to know how did they get the authority?  I did learn one thing.. God is NOT the author of confusion!  Man is.

    Now every church that is out there that is not Catholic.. says that they are the true church.  Let me rephrase that.. EVERY church that is out there.. <u>Catholic or not</u>.. says they are the true church. Tell me.. what person in the world would knowingly go to and attend and be a member of a church that was teaching and believing in false doctrines?  None that I know of.  So every person out there that is participating in some sort of religion believe that what they are doing is the truth thing and what they are being taught is the truth and the church they are attending is the true church.  Find me on person that says.. “nope not me.. I am attending a church that is the false church”.  I would have to say that the majority of the people of the world.. their religion chose them.  They were born into it.  Anyway.. I digress.

    So now it would become obvious that I believe the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is the true church upon the earth today.  And if I believe that.. then it goes without saying.. that the rest of the world has missed the boat as far as I am concerned. I mentioned before that I needed to know how did the true church get the authority? Suffice it to say that I know that Peter, James and John did indeed visit the Prophet Joseph Smith, laid their hands upon his head and did confer to him the power and authority from God.  They conferred the same authority that they had been given by Jesus Christ himself some 1800 years earlier.  The Keys of the Kingdom.  The power that whatsoever they did seal upon the earth would be sealed in Heaven.. and whatsoever was loosed on earth would be loosed in Heaven. Now.. I could go into great detail and tell you all about my conversion.. the processes I went though.. the studying and praying I did, and the various answers I received.  I can tell you about the spiritual things I saw, the testimonies of what has happened to others I know, etc, etc, etc.  Bottom line is I did not come to this decision lightly.  There were things that happened that all I can say is that I know this beyond a shadow of a doubt.  And I can say with all honesty.. if you had experienced the same thing I did.. you would have made the same decision I did as well.  If I could download what happened to me.. and what continues to happen to me into your brain.. you would be right there with me.  But.. this I can not do.  This is something that each and every individual must do for themselves.

    You have mentioned that other Mormons have left the church with the same spirit that I have that brought me here.  Does that make sense to you?  Really?  That God would honestly tell me one thing.. and tell someone else something different?  Christ spoke about building your beliefs on a firm foundation.  If you build it on a sandy one.. the wind can blow and your whole belief system can come tumbling down.  I have known many of these Ex-Mormons that have left the church because they have told me that for them they no longer believe that the Book of Mormon is an accurate historical document of what happened to a people on this earthly planet.  And because they don’t believe in it.. then Joseph Smith became a liar.  And because Joseph was liar.. then everything he said was false.. and then everything that everyone said about the church is false too.  And so they leave.  Of course they are right to leave if indeed the Book of Mormon is false.  If I found out the Book of Mormon was false.. then I too would leave.  But for me to find out the Book of Mormon was false.. would also mean I would have to give no credit to anything else that has happened to me spiritually or physically.  So.. the evidence that the Book of Mormon was false would have to be so overwhelming true.. that there is no room for doubt… I would then have to say in the end that I had been somehow deceived.  And so great would that deception be.  It would be like the devil was able to appear in the form of an angel over and over and over again.  I built the foundation of my testimony of the Book of Mormon on revelation from God.  That is the same foundation that Christ told Peter he would build his Church upon.. Revelation from God.  I just know with all my heart, mind and soul that this could never happen.  There will never come a time that the Book of Mormon will be found to be false… because it is true.. it is an absolute truth.  Just as the absolute truth is that the earth is round.. no matter that the whole world believed it was flat.. the earth was still round.. so it is with the Book of Mormon.  And then it just goes without saying.  Because the Book of Mormon is true.. so then is the Prophet Joseph Smith.  And because Joseph Smith is a prophet of God.. then everything he taught is also true.  Yes.. people can make mistakes and people can do evil things.  But a Prophet of God will not be allowed by God to deliver false doctrines.  If this were true.. we would have to wonder about every prophet that God has ever called and try to figure out if the doctrines he taught were false as well.  This would cause great confusion!!  And as I have said before.. God is NOT the author of confusion.

Indeed, God is not the author of confusion.  St Ignatius a contemporary of St Polycarp, both disciples of St John the Apostle   wrote that where the Bishop is, the Church is.  He was referring to, the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  You can nuance and twist it until you are blue in the face.  That will not change anything.
The Catholic is truth.  Ignore Her at your peril.  She is the Bride of our Lord.

I wish that I could find any evidence for the historicity of anything mentioned in the book of Mormon.  Lack of evidence that it is ‘not’ true is not evidence.  I have read some mormon apologetic sites in which they try to explain the anachronisms and lack of evidence, (eg. http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html, http://www.mormonbeliefs.org/,http://www.fairlds.org/)  All they give are possibilities… and fairly flimsy ones at that.  If the Book of Mormon is true—give real evidence that any of the things, or events, or places are actual - not just vague whispers of possibilities.  If there is scholarship outside of Mormon circles which uphold any of the facts of the matter—I have not found them.  Please, if they are out there, let me know so I can look at them.  On the bright side, exploring some of these websites did enable me to see an ancient image of “a Mayan riding a pecarry”.  Well worth the search.

MATT

  I think due to our politically correct and tolerant age we Catholics have become a little too polite and indifferent???  After reading some of the early Church Fathers I am quite sure that THEY would not have complimented the Gnostics for their clever advertising campaigns!!  Jesus warned us of false prophets etc..

@CR

As with everything.. the wheels do turn slowly.  There is one person I have dealt with that has written a book.  It is called.. Lehi never saw Mesoamerica.  I have collected all his posting that he has made and uploaded them to a website in a pdf format.  From everything I have read on the subject.. I think this man as struck gold.  Now it just takes more time to move the masses in that direction.  Nothing is done quickly.  Here is the web address for the first portion of his writings.  It goes from Jan 2010 to July 2010. 

http://abgnw.com/LDS/BofM_Geography_Jan-Jul-2010.pdf

He shows in his book exactly what the course of the voyage was.  He shows exactly where they landed.  He speaks about the animals, and the climate and ore etc.  He speaks about the migration from this land of promise where the people built ships and went northward and where they would have gone.  The Nephites and Lamanites are pre Inca.  The are the builders of the land of what the Inca took over.

There has been much evidence found in Arabia concerning the travels of Lehi from Jerusalem going south to Nahom.. and then directly east to what they called Bountiful.  When the Book of Mormon came out, the critics all said that there was no such land like bountiful as described in the Book of Mormon in the Arabian Peninsula.  They were wrong.

@MrNirom, you said:
“I am sure I can speak for CR in this instance to say.. We are happy to provide some sort of entertainment value to this world.  :-) “
  I had said:
“I have enjoyed the thought, research, and faith that you have both presented.”
  I don’t know how many people have been following your dialogue, but I have truly ‘enjoyed’ the discussion.  And I think I can tell by your smiley, you realize this.
  I wish there were a way you and I could go to a private chat room so that we could get to know each other better.  You have such a wonderful way of expressing, for the lack of a better word, the ‘sense’ of our Faith, and our conversion to it.  As I read your testimony, I am amazed at the many similarities in out background, such as a small town in MI.  And CR & I have many similar experiences up to a certain point in our lives.  But my divergence from Catholicism developed in similar ways to yours, as I have briefly written earlier.
  Someone earlier said something about the “inconsistencies” in the Book of Mormon, but I’ll bet he fails to see the inconsistencies in the history of the Catholic Church.  Let me simply say about this that fallible men make fallible decisions.  And that power-seeking, and in cases, corrupt men, make selfish decisions.
  I wish I had the scholarly background and writing skills that you, MrNirom and CRJohnston have.  I only wish that I could express in words the truth of my conversion, the Faith that I have, and the miracles that I have seen.  From my limited perspective, let me just add Matt 7:20: “Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.”

@Larry

Larry.. you can find me on youtube at http://www.youtube.com/user/MrNirom Then we can go private from there.

I don’t feel that I am a very accomplished writer.. but I can say that for the last two years I have been involved with the apologetic side of the Church.  Not in any official capacity.. but I have research so much of the Anti-Mormon rhetoric and have learned that often times they get their sources and beliefs from doctrines that are not ours.  Often times they are tweaked in such a way as to defiantly be misconstrued on purpose.  I have often found that most of them really don’t care what you have to say.  They really don’t read your comments or even acknowledge what you have written.  They could never even accept that I was right when I point out their error and proved it beyond a shadow of doubt.  Those people I have learned to ignore as they are creatures of contention.  The Lord said: And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures and do not understand them.

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.

But this is my favorite scripture!

@Matt,
  I want to apologize for those of us on both sides of what has become a theological discussion, instead of one on the merits of a ‘PR’ campaign.  Those who engaged in honest discussion, however, deserve the compliment of being gracious while defending their individual faith.
  Thank you for allowing the forum to continue in spite of the misgivings you expressed earlier.
Larry

MrNirom.
Interesting website. It is, however, simply more Mormon scholar theory.  I am fairly sure that Mormons believe the historicity of what the Book of Mormon says.  I would like to see something from the non-Mormon world to attest to the events in the book.  The few references on that blog to Non-Mormon scholars are to points such as there was gold and copper work done in ancient mesoamerica and there were mound builders in the north.  I don’t think anyone is debating those facts(except the various Mormon world location theorists)—and these facts do not point to a Semitic Migration to the Western Hemisphere in the centuries before Christ.  His map and landing place are simply his assumptions.  It is like a Map of Moses’ route across Sinai - there is nothing to prove it - it is purely guesswork.
I suppose I will wait while the wheels keep turning.
On a side note of curiosity, is there any Mormon writing on the existence of cats (jaguars and such)?  Just wondering.

CR

I can only give you what I got.  I would think that there are not any non Mormons out there looking for the Book of Mormon lands.  There are just people out there finding things and what we have to do is match up statements that are made in the Book of Mormon to a real world place. 

We do know that according to the Book of Mormon.. where Lehi left from.  Then just looking at the the wind and current patterns.. you could surely figure out where they will take you.  NO?  I suppose someone could actually take a sail boat from there and see where it will take you.  NO?  This much the do know.. the Incas did not make the buildings and such that they were living in.  It was the civilization before them which the scientists have NO idea who they were.  We are saying that… that civilization was the Nephites and Lamanites.  Now.. to find the proof.  But if current scientists have no idea who they were..  we will not be getting much help from them.

I am not sure what the existence of cats (jaguars and such) have to do with anything.  Maybe you could enlighten me on your thought process.

MrNirom,
Good point about the non-Mormon scientists - just wondering.
The cat thing was only a thought.  It seems like most of the precolumbian cultures had a lot of Jaguar and puma, etc, motifs in their art and religion.  For instance the Chavin who apparently occupied the coastal region of modern Peru from around 900BC to 200BC.  I love the picture toward the bottom of this page http://www.lahistoriadelperu.com/2010/04/cultura-chavin.html
Or the Olmecs in Mesoamerica at about the same time who had these images of strange wereJaguar gods. I just wondered if there was any reference to these things in the writings.  Like, “there were weird catworshipers here before” or “we did slay the cat-people” haha. jk.  It doesn’t prove or point to anything, I just thought it would be neat.

CR

I wish I could speak Spanish.  I would love to read the content of the web page.  I think Mesoamerica had the jaguar.. NO?  People often ask why there is no mention of the cats in the Book of Mormon.  And I often say.. because the Book of Mormon lands are NOT in Mesoamerica.

MrNirom,
South America had the Jaguar too.  The Chavin were in the area of modern Peru as I said.  The Inca had a Jaguar God as well and often used the Jaguar in their artwork. http://books.google.com/books?id=xAuXNNuYsIwC&pg=PA135&lpg=PA135&dq=inca+jaguar&source=bl&ots;=-qa6jcVXE1&sig=QsORLPUjdK9x0_ltbYOxZiL3LtQ&hl=en&ei=vUzyTM36AYaZnAfb17WrCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBzgy#v=onepage&q=inca jaguar&f=false
or, for example
http://www.ancientresource.com/lots/precolumbian/chimu_artifacts.html

@R.C. Re: the lack of cheerful stewards. Yep. Thanks.

@MATT
I mentioned earlier the cooperation of the two faiths, here are some articles that show just how deep that relationship is, while allowing that there are differences.
“Mormon, Catholic cooperation making strides”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700086283/Mormon-Catholic-cooperation-making-strides.html?pg=2
“Catholic leader seeks inter-faith cooperation”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700083708/Catholic-leader-seeks-inter-faith-cooperation.html?pg=2
“LDS, Catholics must defend religious freedom, cardinal says at BYU”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700011507/LDS-Catholics-must-defend-religious-freedom-cardinal-says-at-BYU.html
—-By their fruits ye shall know them.—-

I agree that the RCC is in much need of some good PR as the faithful are there, but we’re just not loud or visible enough!  I don’t think commercials are the way to go, but I do see a lot of positive signs that our PR is on the rise!  The Catholic blogs are growing, the loud mouth champions of Catholocism (protestant convert zealots, like Hahn and the others, LOL) are growing in numbers (praise be to God for bringing his faithful Home!)
  Now just imagine if the rest of us started being louder too?  Women wearing mantillas (I chose this example because it is the head convering for a laywoman that is most specifically identified in the secular world as Catholic), scapulars around necks, rosaries in hand…
  What if the FB and Twitter statuses of all of us Catholics shouted out the day’s feast day, “For the sake of his sorrowful passion, have mercy on us and on the whole world” every day at 3 pm, or “... just finished praying the rosary”.
  That would be some good PR.

Interesting article. I’m a Mormon. Just to erase any speculation, the campaign has absolutely nothing to do with Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney isn’t the spokesman for the church and a large percentage of Mormons are not supporters. He’s a good guy. Mormons are more middle of the road in overall political views than people think.

Also, probably not right to refer to another religion as having a strange theology. Mormons think Catholic theology is strange: the explanation for the holy trinity makes zero sense, in simple reasoning. Mormons have no clue why Mary is worshiped. Should we worship the Mother of Mary as well? My point is simply all religions have ideas that will appear strange to others.

I enjoyed the article. Just a note -there’s a typo in the first paragraph: Mormon’s (Mormons’)

whoops, 2nd paragraph and simply Mormons.

Also, i didn’t mean to demean Catholicism in any way- just pointing out how religions see other religions differently.

For those of you who want to compare the Catholic and Latter Day Saints
doctrine you should read the book, “Catholic Roots/ Mormon Harvest, which is a conversion story of a very active Catholic couple who moved next to a
Mormon family and what happened after that. One of the interesting things about the book is how they compared a number of Doctrinal differences between the two churches. They present the Catholic doctrine followed by the Latter Day Saints doctrine and then conclude with their thoughts and commentary on how they came to accept through prayer and study the Latter Day Saints Doctrine. They state that they built upon the foundation of their Catholicism and moved forward. They carried with them the goodness acquired in their Catholic upbringing into their conversion into Mormonism. In short, they added to their existing faith in order to acquire greater faith. I am a Mormon with a number of Catholic friends and
I found the book very helpful to me to know more about the Catholic religion.

mormons are taking aim at catholicism, believing that if they can invalidate catholicism that they can dominate. they are a creepy group of people. isn’t it odd that the Catholic Church needs not try and steal mormons, but mormons are always trying to steal from others? but that’s the difference between a true religion and a cult.

mormons seem to feel the need to constantly be in “promotion” mode. jesus needed not a pr person. the truth of his message carried far and wide and is found in the Bible, not the book of moron.

Do you think there is a conspiracy theory behind everything you write about?  Just because someone posts what religion they are you think that they have some secret motive behind it.  Maybe you should find a different line of work, like being a preschool teacher since you advertised in your bio that you change diapers, I’m sure you had some motive in telling us about that and what degrees you’ve earned.  Whatever religious prejudice you have with the Mormons, keep it to yourself!

HAVE ANY OF YOU FOLKS READ ANY OF THE ARTICLES I OFFERED ON TUE NOV 30?
Here is another chance for both Churches members to see the positive things that go on when peoples of different faiths reach out to work together.
  HERE GOES:
I mentioned earlier the cooperation of the two faiths, here are some articles that show just how deep that relationship is, while allowing that there are differences.
“Mormon, Catholic cooperation making strides”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700086283/Mormon-Catholic-cooperation-making-strides.html?pg=2
“Catholic leader seeks inter-faith cooperation”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700083708/Catholic-leader-seeks-inter-faith-cooperation.html?pg=2
“LDS, Catholics must defend religious freedom, cardinal says at BYU”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700011507/LDS-Catholics-must-defend-religious-freedom-cardinal-says-at-BYU.html
  —-By their fruits ye shall know them.—-

Hi all, I recently walked my (technically) LDS daughter down the isle of a Long Island NY Catholic church. While serving as the “paster” of my LDS church in upstate NY. What I was that day, was a proud and happy father, nothing more or less. As the groom was Catholic, and my daughter inactive LDS, they had suggested a civil ceremony as a compromise (mostly to her parents). We though it would be vastly better to have a ceremony before God, and so it went. I’ve read several comments here that suggest the Mormon church is not Christian, and does not believe that Jesus is the son of God. I have to wonder where that comes from. Battles are won and lost in defining terms. In my world, a Christian is one who believes in and follows the Christ. That’s what Mormons do, in their churches, in their communities and in their homes. For Catholics who do the same, I stand with you.

I was reading an article that was written by one of our twelve Apostles in a magazine we get called the Ensign. (http://lds.org/ensign)  Each month this magazine is received by many members of the Church.  If a person really wants to get to know what Latter Day Saints think and believe.. just read the articles in the Ensign.

In this one article by Elder Russel M Ballard, he brought up a very good point that fits well into the discussion that we have been having here.

He said: “This is our foundation. It was Joseph Smith’s foundation. He said, “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”

We follow Jesus Christ. We try to live as He taught. That’s the basis of our faith and our lives, and that’s the strongest nondefensive position we can take. “

As Christmas time approaches closer.. It is good to reflect with others who have the same belief that Jesus Christ.. the Son of God.. came to this earth to save mankind.  This was the start.  That he be born in human form.  So that all could never say.. “but.. he doesn’t understand…”  For Christ himself was born in humble surroundings.  But without his birth to this planet Earth.. he could not have grown up and began his ministry some 30 years later.  And for just 3 short years.. teach us what he did.  All the other beliefs we share.. or don’t share.. are truly just appendages to fact that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven.  That is the Joy to the World.

As a member of the LDS Church I found the article very interesting. Many of the comments were also very interesting. I’m glad that there was no mis-reporting in the article itself, but I continue to be confused by many who don’t know that Mormons believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Re: PR and sending out missionaries… we are following the directive that Christ gave to go to all the world and preach the gospel to every creature (meaning humans, of course).

As far as the actual PR campaign itself, one thing that might not have been discussed is that the website for the campaign actually allows any Mormon to make their own profile, share their beliefs and such. But it has nothing to do with a potential Mitt Romney campaign, it is simply wanting to share the joy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. We have been defined by others for too long and are simply trying to clarify our beliefs and who and what we are. There are still people out there who think that Mormons have horns or are polygamists or don’t believe in using electricity. Would anyone want to listen to Christ’s gospel from a church that they thought was any of those things? Of course those are the extreme examples, but things as simple as our belief in God as our father, what He is like and why he sent His Son to the earth get shared as well.

I am now 67 and have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of LDS for almost 38 years. Was brought up C of E then became an atheist. After a Spiritual experience I became an agnostic. The last thing I was interested in was becoming a member of any Christian Church, and then my husband wanted to learn, the rest is history. Just as MrNirom I have great difficulty understanding why people, who have received their information from non Church sources, tell me what my Church teaches and get quite heated at times when I point out that it is not so. We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. All we say is ‘Bring us all your truths and we will add to them’ we have more to unite us than separate us. Why would anyone be worried by this?

The Mormon Church is seeing alot of people leaving their religion due to the facts coming out regarding their belief system.

They are now building a grandiose temple in the countryside of Rome, the same area that St. Justin the Martyr spoke of when describing how ancient Christians worshipped in explaining how the Mass was celebrated in Rome to the Roman Emperor.  The document made no impression on the Mormons reading it.

So you have a great disconnect between documented history and anthropology, the cultural history of the Jews vs. sweeping claims made by Joseph Smith.  Joseph Smith knew little or nothing of Catholicism, and his writings appear to have been written instead by several in his group. 

The Mormons essentially believe authority left the Christians when the last apostle died.  And they use very generalized and undocumented references to the New Testament to ‘prove’ their case.  Sweeping invalidation of Christianity, but no evidence of true Christians enduring on their own outside the early Catholic Church.

I visited a Mormon LDS store in 2005 and came across an old book from the 1840’s, an edited version of ‘Pearl of Great Price’, and the language was replicating that of the Restorationist Movement of that era.  Mormons want to deny that or that they have materials still out there that are anti-Catholic.

What is very disturbing to me, however, is that people are rushed into baptism, and after they are received, they then begin to hear the strange doctrines.  Mormons consider that being ‘charitable’.  A bait and switch approach.

Ask Catholics what it is like living in a Mormon dominated town, and you see and hear another experience from the image people usually see.  Go to a Mormon site and see how a non-Mormon is treated vs how a Mormon would be treated on a Catholic forum.  Catholics try to be very charitable, but patience gets weary when they begin to provide ‘evidence’ for their beliefs.

Mormons will use a Protestant Bible but not a Catholic one.

Non-Mormons cannot attend a sealing ceremony of their adult child with a Mormon. I read recently of a Catholic mother crying because she could not attend her daughter’s Mormon wedding/sealing.

So considering Mormonism itself the true church vs the Roman Catholic Church, there is a particular deep seated sense of accomplishment to finally be allowed to build this temple in the outskirts of Rome.

Sorry, I just can’t get all excited by effective media hype.  Are we supposed to be impressed by all this prepackaging of claims to truth?

Honestly I’m annoyed by those ads! Every time I do a search for anything up in the corner is a “I’m blank, I like to blank, and I’m a Mormon”...it doesn’t matter what I search…rockets, cars, how-to’s, musical, etc… .

Also, does anyone else think its interesting that Mormons just jumped to this post and made there presence known? And the poor thing is that they aren’t discussing to further there knowledge, they’re discussing to give Mormonism a better image to people who may not know there faith as well as they should.

BTW, all the ads did was let me know that Mormon’s are Human…most Humans have names and most like to do stuff…. just my $.02 =)

“BTW, all the ads did was let me know that Mormon’s are Human…most Humans have names and most like to do stuff…. just my $.02 =)”

Exactly right, that is “our” evil plan, to let people know that we are just as human as they are..It’s harder to hate or misunderstand people who we identify with. I recorded one of those ads, if that’s the message people take from reading it, I’m happy…Regards, Fred

@Fred

Regards :) That’s the message I get! They’re Humans just like everyone else, they can make errors. So better to trust God in these matters.
Hope ya have a nice day :]