An EV comments on the ongoing struggle between Catholics and LDS.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mudcat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I can just imagine how these Evangelicals would react if a group of Mormons showed up at their sacred space and protested the Evangelical Protestant religion, handing out tracts and shouting insults at them with bullhorns. It's clear from their behaviour at this event that they would not react with the same grace and dignity that the Mormons did. I imagine the response would be rather violent.
Well…looking at the history of the church, I have to say that you are quite correct. We won’t know for sure, however, because we don’t do that sort of thing, as a general rule. When some Mormon DOES something like that, it makes headlines. (shrug)
<So, after witnessing what I did that day at the birthplace of Joseph Smith in Palmyra, I don’t know what on earth the OP is talking about when he cites “angst” between Catholics and Mormons. There were no Catholics shouting at the Mormons that day. Just Evangelicals.
This is true. I don’t THINK I’ve ever seen a Catholic at one of those…demonstrations. On the other hand…have you paid attention to the sidebar of this forum? You will see three books being advertised there. The selection changes everytime you access the page, and every time you access the page there will be an anti-Mormon book, if not two or three,

You’ll also find anti-Islaam, anti-Jehovah’s Witnesses and anti-Oprah Winfrey books up there. 😉

(edited addendum) I just looked. I saw one anti-Muslim book, one anti-Jehovah’s Witness book and one Anti-Mormon book. a threefer!!! (grin)
 
I confess I have not read through all the pages and pages of responses to the original post, so I’ll just comment on the topic, itself.

Like some of the responders to this topic, however, I will say that I was aware of no particular “struggle” between Catholics and Mormons. I think we generally tend not to give each other much thought, to be honest.

As a Roman Catholic, I do not believe in the authenticity of the Mormon religion, of course. I think Joseph Smith’s alleged revelations are all a wild story made up by a disturbed man, to be frank. Obviously, not one iota of the story of people sailing from Jerusalem to America is true; neither the rest about Christ coming to America. Sheer nonsense, of course

Nevertheless, I have no animosity toward Mormons. In fact earlier this Summer I went to the LDS’s annual pageant in Palmyra, New York, where the LDS Church has its roots. I was invited, in fact, by a friend who happens to be a Catholic priest. We both went out of curiosity, just to see what it was all about.

The very first thing that struck me, upon arrival, was all the Evangelical “Christians” who had showed up to protest the event in the loudest, most obnoxious way. They handed out pamphlets against Mormonism to all attending (most of whom would have been Mormons, of course), and two of them stood there at the entrance of this place revered by Mormons shouting at everyone through bullhorns! And the things they were shouting could not possibly have been more insulting, incidentally; there was no finesse in their approach, at all. There was certainly no charity in any of it, that’s for sure…or class.

I don’t know what they might have been thinking, showing up like that, and shouting insults over bullhorns at Mormons on the Mormons’ own turf! It was so unpardonably rude and ill-mannered, for one thing, and so appalling a thing to witness. I felt so badly for these poor people, having their religion mercilessly mocked by a bunch of self-righteous jerks on their own sacred space. The Mormons, however, handled it with grace, serenity, and dignity. Each LDS person I encountered in fact, to a man, was the model of hospitality, warmth, and friendliness. Not one tried to shove his religion at me, either.

The Evangelicals, by contrast, could not have been more shockingly rude, boistrous, insulting, and altogether un-Christian in their demeanor. I was, as I say, utterly appalled by their disgraceful behaviour. It was absolutely disgusting.

I can just imagine how these Evangelicals would react if a group of Mormons showed up at their sacred space and protested the Evangelical Protestant religion, handing out tracts and shouting insults at them with bullhorns. It’s clear from their behaviour at this event that they would not react with the same grace and dignity that the Mormons did. I imagine the response would be rather violent.

So, after witnessing what I did that day at the birthplace of Joseph Smith in Palmyra, I don’t know what on earth the OP is talking about when he cites “angst” between Catholics and Mormons. There were no Catholics shouting at the Mormons that day. Just Evangelicals.
Thank you for your fair comments. I entirely agree with your assessment of the situation. I am a Mormon of course, and I certainly believe it is true; apart from that I have no disagreement with the observations you have made or the sentiments you have expressed. Mormons and Catholics get along fine as far as I am concerned. I have no quarrels with Catholics or Catholicism; and I don’t think that they (the genuine Catholics) have a quarrel with me.
 
Well…looking at the history of the church, I have to say that you are quite correct. We won’t know for sure, however, because we don’t do that sort of thing, as a general rule. When some Mormon DOES something like that, it makes headlines. (shrug)

This is true. I don’t THINK I’ve ever seen a Catholic at one of those…demonstrations. On the other hand…have you paid attention to the sidebar of this forum? You will see three books being advertised there. The selection changes everytime you access the page, and every time you access the page there will be an anti-Mormon book, if not two or three,

You’ll also find anti-Islaam, anti-Jehovah’s Witnesses and anti-Oprah Winfrey books up there. 😉

(edited addendum) I just looked. I saw one anti-Muslim book, one anti-Jehovah’s Witness book and one Anti-Mormon book. a threefer!!! (grin)
I don’t see “Anti-_____” (fill in the blank) books. Rather I see Anti-Anti-Catholic books. or Answers to ______(fill in religious group) questioning Catholicism… oh and Catholic singles ad. 😃
 
This is true. I don’t THINK I’ve ever seen a Catholic at one of those…demonstrations. On the other hand…have you paid attention to the sidebar of this forum? You will see three books being advertised there. The selection changes everytime you access the page, and every time you access the page there will be an anti-Mormon book, if not two or three,

You’ll also find anti-Islaam, anti-Jehovah’s Witnesses and anti-Oprah Winfrey books up there. 😉

(edited addendum) I just looked. I saw one anti-Muslim book, one anti-Jehovah’s Witness book and one Anti-Mormon book. a threefer!!! (grin)
This particular forum or website is not a representative of Catholicism as a whole. These kinds of places tend to be a bit more combative in their approach to religion than the general average. I am not troubled by the presence of those adverts on CAF. I am not prevented from expressing my opinions in this place, and that is what really matters, not the advertising of anti-Mormon books.
 
This particular forum or website is not a representative of Catholicism as a whole. These kinds of places tend to be a bit more combative in their approach to religion than the general average. I am not troubled by the presence of those adverts on CAF. I am not prevented from expressing my opinions in this place, and that is what really matters, not the advertising of anti-Mormon books.
Actually, if you go back and read, there is not a lot of combat here. We post facts, y’all get offended and attack and we respond. You dislike our facts.

Would you like a list of the names Mormons have called us? Diana has called us liars. Pahoran and Muf-something called us a ,ot of names…as did whyme.

So, there is no need to play victim
 
PopeBono:

Thanks for replying to my question. I think I understood you to say you prefer the label “Christian”, for the reason that Christ is the central figure of your belief-system, but that you are used to being called “not-Christian”?

Does that mean you feel enough of a difference between your beliefs and Roman Catholicism that you might accept a separate label, if an appropriate one could be devised? (You can say “No way”, if I am way off base here.)

For example, Roman Catholics believe that Jesus is the fulfilment of Old Testament scriptures but we don’t refer to ourselves as Jews. Does a similar dynamic exist with Mormonism (is it something new and different) or is it more properly viewed as a continuation or correction of Christian tradition?

Forgive my ignorance, but what is prompting my questions is that I only recently became aware of the strong feelings some Mormons have about not being considered Christian. I had figured that Mormons had their own tradition and that it didn’t intersect much with Catholicism, and that no one would be offend by being different. I have no great knowldege of your faith. The only time I was approached by your missionaries was on a very cold December day in Morskie Oko park in Warsaw, Poland. Those two guys were so cold, and so homesick, that once they found out I am American they lost focus of their mission and we talked about everything but theology.

I may be on a fool’s errand, here. There may be no way to reconcile the label problem. I can just be more sensitive when I talk to folks how each side feels.
We are followers of Christ and we would like to be accepted by mainstream Christians as followers of Christ and therefore Christians I think our biggest angst is in being called non-Christian because it sounds like we do not believe in Christ. We like most people thrive to be accepted, it is difficult in the workplace, schools and neighborhoods for people to talk about us as we are nice people who have great family values but that we are not Christians.
We do not expect people to accept our doctrinal beliefs. I am aware that many people find strong disagreements with our doctrine. 95% are in line with Mainstream beliefs but we do believe in continued modern revelation that is not found in mainstream Christian Churches and that is hard for people to come to terms with, which I have no problem with what someone else believes about us.
Ultimately I look at all of the laws and commandments, the official doctrines and theories and put them at naught if we do all those things but fail to understand the purpose behind them all and fail to live the two great commandments.
 
I couldn’t disagree more. The Book of Mormon is a biblical book. It teaches the same doctrine as the Bible—unless you want to tell me that the Bible is a Protestant Book! The Catholics think that they wrote the Bible; now I suppose the Protestants want to claim that they wrote the Bible! LOL! No way!
Well, I can agree on that: The BoM teaches the same things as the bible, BUT NOTseen from the Catholic interpretation (using the ST = Sacred Tradition), but from the Protestant/Evangelical. There we go. Guess that was also my point.
Neither the Catholic Church (at least not like we know it nowadays) nor the Protestants wrote the Bible. The Bible was written by the early Church - from about 40 AD to 100 AD.
Not taught in the Book of Mormon.
Well, I can also error, but I think I read something like that in the BoM once…
That is taught everywhere, including the Koran and the Bible. Protestants didn’t invent that.
It’s not about inventing. My point is only that the BoM is “more Protestant” than Catholic.
What is that?
You only baptize children when they are at the age of 8 or older, right? It says so in Moroni Chapter 8.
This is Credo-Baptism. The child has to decide him/herself to belong to the Church of Christ, or not, right?
Credo = Latin and mains Faith. So if the Child has faith and wants to live a life with Jesus it’ll get baptized. Same situation in the “Fundamental Evangelical Churches” including the Baptist Church the Pentecostal Churches and the Mennonites.
Don’t agree at all. Evans believe in a faith alone salvation; whereas Catholics and Mormons believe in faith + works salvation.
Well, we Evans ARE aware of works. It says in James 2:20. But it doesn’t say that it is necessary for Salvation.
Mormonism and Catholicism are both ecclesiastically structured religions in which the priesthood plays a crucial role. Not so in Protestantism and Evangelicalism. Mormonism has a lot more in common with Catholicism than with Protestantism or Evangelicalism.
Yes, I can agree on that. In this respect the LDS Church is more similar to the Catholic Church. But despite that, according to the doctrine they are more Protestant.
I don’t agree at all. See above.
Well, (also to diana) switching means for me leaving the LDS Church and heading for a new Church. I am sure that you would feel “more at home” at a Protestant Church than at a Catholic Church or an Orthodox Church!
It is just about the doctrine. In my eyes, and I have studied the Scriptures of the LDS Church!, it is more Protestant than Catholic!

The Bible yes. The Book of Mormon conforms to the Bible without a doubt. That is not an issue. But certainly not with Protwstantism.

Yeah. A point we can agree on.
My only problem with the LDS Church is that the Book of Abraham, and parts of the D&C (like Sections: 2; 13; 77; 85; 87; 108-111; 113-118 etc.) are “not Christian”.

So I proberbly better go with the RLDS Churches (I know in particular the CoF).
They are REALLY with their whole Doctrine “Protestant”. 😉

In Christ,
Esdra
 
I don’t see “Anti-_____” (fill in the blank) books. Rather I see Anti-Anti-Catholic books. or Answers to ______(fill in religious group) questioning Catholicism… oh and Catholic singles ad. 😃
No, Ninja, you see anti (insert belief system here) books.

I understand what you mean by 'anti-anti Catholic books." We DO publish those, ourselves…and believe me, there is a difference between ‘anti.’ and 'anti-anti." ;).

James G. McCarthy wrote a book called “The Gospel According to Rome.” That is definitely an anti-Catholic book. A true anti-anti-Catholic publication would be, for instance, Phil Porvasniks’ “Refutation of James G. McCarthy’s The Gospel According to Rome” It specifically addresses McCarthy’s points/accusations and defends against them.

If “Inside Mormonism…What Mormons really believe” was an anti-anti Catholic book, then it would be a defense against an attack upon Catholicism; defending Catholicism against accusations and charges about Catholic beliefs that are not true, or are misleading.

However, it doesn’t do that. It addresses Mormon beliefs–and, by the way, is frequently untrue and misleading…and that is the definition of an anti-Mormon book, not an anti-anti Catholic book.

…and you would have to look a very long time indeed before you found a book like The Gospel According to Rome written by a Mormon. You’d have to look a lot longer for one that was published by Deseret. Maybe in a millenium or so…(thinking) probably not then, either.

Have you READ 'when Mormons come to call?" That is a script, written so that Catholics upon whom Mormon missionaries call can be armed to attack LDS beliefs–because the Missionaries aren’t going to care whether you are Catholic or not. They are simply going to present what they believe.

…and that makes “When Mormons Come to Call” an anti-Mormon book, too, at least in one sense.
 
This particular forum or website is not a representative of Catholicism as a whole. These kinds of places tend to be a bit more combative in their approach to religion than the general average. I am not troubled by the presence of those adverts on CAF. I am not prevented from expressing my opinions in this place, and that is what really matters, not the advertising of anti-Mormon books.
(grin) Z…if you think this is combative, you haven’t been on alt.religion.christian.roman.catholic or alt.religion.mormon lately, have you? 😉 I will admit, though, that the presence of those books on a forum that is SUPPOSED to be dedicated to the civil discussion of non-Catholic religions is an irritant. It’s a great big red signpost saying “beware, in spite of the written rules, we aren’t here to discuss your beliefs, we are here to criticise, mock and belittle them.”

So…every once in awhile I mention it, just to stir consciences a little.
 
Javl, below I am providing ample evidence that an alternative interpretation has a strong biblical foundation. Naturally, we can’t agree on whose interpreation is right, but we can recognize there is evidence.

LDS believe there is no explicit teaching in the Bible that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the LDS do believe the Bible does articulate three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with one purpose.

Genesis shows God the father and his son together from the beginning (but seperate), and that we were created in his image.
“And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.” (Gen. 1:26).
the LORD said, “Behold, the man is hecome as one of us, to know good and evil” (Gen. 3:22).
the LORD said, “Let us go down, and there confound their language…” (Gen. 11:7)
The Bible also contains hundreds of passages which indicate that God the Father, God the Son Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Ghost are all separate, holy, divine beings. Though separate beings, often seen in or manifested from separate places at the same time (Mt. 3:16-17; Mt. 17:1-5; Jn. 12:28; Acts 7:55-56; Mk. 16:19; etc.), the Bible clearly indicates that they are separate individuals who fulfill separate functions (Jn. 5:17-22, 3O-36; 13:3; 14:26-28; 15:26; 16:5-7; Eph. 2:18; etc.). They are united and agree in purpose, functioning for the benefit of those here on earth

The apostle John speaks of the three members of the Godhead and their combined mission, saying, “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one, and there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (1 Jn. 5:7-8).
You do realize that all of these verses are cited by Trinitarians in support of our belief in three distinct divine Persons? If you read this page:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2005/09/holy-trinity-biblical-proofs.html

that was cited earlier, you would notice that many if not all of the verses you refer to are also cited as support for the Trinitarian belief in three distinct divine Persons. We believe that the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, the Son is not the Father or the Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son. They are not attached to each other either (proving your “spirit chimera” analogy false). Jesus prayed to the Father, not Himself. Etc

It seems as if you aren’t really aware of what Trinitarians believe…You seem to be confusing it with Modalism.
 
Diana,
We are obligated to defend our faith when it is attacked. We are obligated to protect our beliefs from cultural drift when among those who consistently seek to undermine them. The only way we can do that is by understanding the beliefs of those who try to impose them on us. It is called self-defense. We have an obligation to teach our fellow Catholics about Mormonism, and the more abrasive forms of that faith. I know that many LDS would rather that we remain ignorant of the deeper Mormon doctrines. Knowing the enemy is the best defense. And, you are not the enemy. The spirit of deception is the enemy.

I refuse to go to the MAD board, because I don’t belong there. Through their hostile behavior, they have made that point clear. I also would NEVER receive LDS missionaries into my home. I go to one other board which is inhabited by people who are primarily moderate in their attitudes. I enjoy communicating with liberal LDS.

Whether you believe it or not, I believe in moderation in all things.
 
If more LDS lived the 11 th and 13 th articles of their faith:

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.

We believe in **being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; **indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things.​

perhaps we would not be having the difficulties we are having now. Now, I am writing generically. If you want to evaluate your own behavior against these standards and the ten commandments, you are welcome to do just that. 😉
 
Hi Jhow,
Honestly, this looks like a disagreement on branding. I defer to the common use defenition of **Christian **, which works perfectly for LDS.

**Christian (noun): **
  1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior - somebody whose religion is Christianity.
  2. Same as Protestant
**Christian (adjective): **
  1. from teachings of Jesus Christ: CHRISTIANITY based on or relating to a belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Messiah, and acceptance of his teachings, contained in the Gospels
  2. relating to Christianity: relating to or belonging to a Christian organization, especially a church
  3. kind and unselfish: showing qualities such as kindness, helpfulness, and concern for others
I think I understood you to say you prefer the label “Christian”, for the reason that Christ is the central figure of your belief-system, but that you are used to being called “not-Christian”?

Does that mean you feel enough of a difference between your beliefs and Roman Catholicism that you might accept a separate label, if an appropriate one could be devised? (You can say “No way”, if I am way off base here.)

For example, Roman Catholics believe that Jesus is the fulfilment of Old Testament scriptures but we don’t refer to ourselves as Jews. Does a similar dynamic exist with Mormonism (is it something new and different) or is it more properly viewed as a continuation or correction of Christian tradition?
A clean break was required to mark adoption of Christ’s teachings since the Jews rejected him as savior - New labels were desired by all parties.

Since ‘Christian’ is not an RCC trademarked word 🤷 it remains appropriate for both RCC and LDS because both follow Christ’s Gospel teachings, to the best of each faith’s interpretation. The current RCC use of ‘Christian’ severly distorts the common definition by adding adherence to select Catholic interpretation of Gospel, per their Holy Tradition.

The RCC issue here is probably the LDS belief in active public revelation from God, which contradicts RCC Holy Tradition. Naturally, the LDS believe active public revelation is in complete accordance with God’s past behavior and does not contradict the Gospel 👍

If RCC is unhappy with sharing the ‘Christian’ brand /label with LDS, I encourage emphasizing the use of “Catholic” - it identifies unique differences that define and seperate RCC from LDS, Luthern, Baptist, etc.

Net, I feel RCC Gospel interpretation should not preclude other Christians from also interpreting Gospel and being called Christian.
 
I can think of one: We will call ourselves true Christians, and call you guys apostate Christians! That is a distinction, isn’t it? What is wrong with that?

Ha ha! We get called “whore of babylon” a lot by certain other groups, so I guess we could take that jab.

If you want us to be civil and not annoy each other, then I suppose we could call ourselves Mormons and you can call yourselves Catholics. Is that acceptable, or do we need to go further?

Works for me. This is probably how I will talk about this in the future, now that I know you guys feel this way. I can just be more precise in how I discuss it.

Thank you popebono, dianaid, and zerinus for posting. I get a better sense now of how you look at it. To dianaid’s point about motive, in my own case the motive was not to offend, I just thought that your religion was so unique and different that I didn’t expect that you would be attached to the Christian label.

You guys are obviously very engaged in your faith and traditions, so you might expect everyone knows all about you you, but to add some background to this, I grew up in rural Virginia, subsequently lived in Warsaw, Poland and now live in California. It is only here that I am encountering Mormons in any significant numbers (mostly in Boy Scouts, by the way). Your culture is still very exotic to me.

Thank you all again. Cheers!
 
Hi Jhow, Honestly, this looks like a disagreement on branding.
Todd520: You posted while I was typing. Thanks for the response! Obviously, no one holds a trademark on the word “Christian”, but, yes, my question really was a typological question. Two things seemed dissimilar to me but carrying a similar label. Thanks!
 
Hi Jhow,
**Christian (noun): **
  1. believer in Jesus Christ as savior - somebody whose religion is Christianity.
  2. Same as Protestant
thank you, Todd, for proving that LDS are not Christians
 
If more LDS lived the 11 th and 13 th articles of their faith:

Amen Brother

perhaps we would not be having the difficulties we are having now. Now, I am writing generically. If you want to evaluate your own behavior against these standards and the ten commandments, you are welcome to do just that. 😉
 
Look to motive. WHY are some Christians bound and determined to deny that Mormons are Christians? Remember, many of these same Christians deny that Catholics are Christian, or that JW’s are, or Lutherans are, or SDA’s are, or…???
Has it ever occurred to anyone that for 1500 years of Christian history there was only one Christian Church with one set of doctrines and beliefs? I think that might have something to do with defining what the term “Christian” means. We then have the Mormon Church which shows up less than 200 years ago, changes the doctrines known for 1800 years as “Christian”, defines the God-head in such a completely different way that it is unrecognizable as “Christian” to the already existing Christians and then claims the right to adopt their name.
Hmmm…
Once you identify the motive for the denial, you will be very, very close to understanding why those being targeted might be uncomfortable with being told that they are not Christian.
I am aware of Protestants that have been taught that Catholics are not Christians. It really just makes me laugh at their ignorance of Christian history, but it does not make me uncomfortable.
I don’t honestly know…but you are quite correct. From where I stand, there is so much difference between the various Christian faiths in doctrine and dogma that it is assinine for any Christian belief system to decide that any specific doctrine is required for inclusion–other than, of course, believing in the doctrines of Jesus of Nazareth and claiming the name.
Again, the differences between various “Christian” faiths is a relatively recent event, historically speaking, and the Mormon faith is barely a blurb on the screen. As far as non-Catholic “Christians” are concerned I would agree with you. There is little to no unity of faith, but the Catholic Church has been here since the beginning of Christianity and is, by definition, the only church that can legitimately lay claim to the name.
 
Javl, below I am providing ample evidence that an alternative interpretation has a strong biblical foundation. Naturally, we can’t agree on whose interpreation is right, but we can recognize there is evidence.

LDS believe there is no explicit teaching in the Bible that in one God there are three co-equal divine persons. But the LDS do believe the Bible does articulate three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) with one purpose.

Genesis shows God the father and his son together from the beginning (but seperate), and that we were created in his image.
“And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.” (Gen. 1:26).
the LORD said, “Behold, the man is hecome as one of us, to know good and evil” (Gen. 3:22).
the LORD said, “Let us go down, and there confound their language…” (Gen. 11:7)
OK. We both believe, and accept, that these verses in Genesis provides some Biblical proof for the exiatence of the Trinity. No interpretation, no problem.
The Bible also contains hundreds of passages which indicate that God the Father, God the Son Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Ghost are all separate, holy, divine beings. Though separate beings, often seen in or manifested from separate places at the same time (Mt. 3:16-17; Mt. 17:1-5; Jn. 12:28; Acts 7:55-56; Mk. 16:19; etc.), the Bible clearly indicates that they are separate individuals who fulfill separate functions (Jn. 5:17-22, 3O-36; 13:3; 14:26-28; 15:26; 16:5-7; Eph. 2:18; etc.). They are united and agree in purpose, functioning for the benefit of those here on earth.
Again we agree. And again, no interprtation, no problem.
The apostle John speaks of the three members of the Godhead and their combined mission, saying, “There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one, and there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one” (1 Jn. 5:7-8).
And here is where we part company. John says that there are three distinct persons and also says that ***“these three are one”. ***. Yes they are united and one in purpose but not as three separate gods ( re: The First Commandment ). I had given you three examples of scriptural evidence which speaks the loudest for the Trinitarian formula. There is much more evidence, without interpretation, in the Bible. All you have to do is read it for yourself without any predjudicial interpretation. The Trinity has been the subject of much debate and heresies down through the ages and each one has been proven false. You should read the early Church Fathers, plus Augustine, Thomas, and Dominick for more precise information.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
Has it ever occurred to anyone that for 1500 years of Christian history there was only one Christian Church with one set of doctrines and beliefs? I think that might have something to do with defining what the term “Christian” means. We then have the Mormon Church which shows up less than 200 years ago, changes the doctrines known for 1800 years as “Christian”, defines the God-head in such a completely different way that it is unrecognizable as “Christian” to the already existing Christians and then claims the right to adopt their name.
Hmmm…

How correct you are Steve! We believe that less than 200 years ago a 14 year old farm boy had an experience that changed everything the Christian Church had believed about the Trinity when Joseph Smith saw God and the Father together and that they were separate beings each with Physical bodies! That doctrine does not make us not Christians it is only a different belief than yours as to the nature of God and Christ.
If you want that account as well as the massive debate that took place 300 years or so after the death of Christ as to the nature of God then look at this link for our churches official position on the matter:

boap.org/LDS/History/History_of_the_Church/Vol_1

boap.org/LDS/HISTORY/HISTORY_OF_THE_CHURCH/VOL_1

The links may have errors, if so you will want the preface of volume 1

I am aware of Protestants that have been taught that Catholics are not Christians. It really just makes me laugh at their ignorance of Christian history, but it does not make me uncomfortable.

Again, the differences between various “Christian” faiths is a relatively recent event, historically speaking, and the Mormon faith is barely a blurb on the screen. As far as non-Catholic “Christians” are concerned I would agree with you. There is little to no unity of faith, but the Catholic Church has been here since the beginning of Christianity and is, by definition, the only church that can legitimately lay claim to the name.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top