Catholic to Mormon to Catholic?

[C2M2C]

I’m sure there are others who know more than I can offer, but I’d like to add, as I’ve stated before, it’s better to search for God’s will than to seek a Church or doctrine that “feels comfortable” or convenient to one’s lifestyle. It’s all about obedience to God.

Thanks. It’s not about finding what’s comfortable, as I have stated before I am looking to find what is right.

I have been looking into Apostolic Succession which is obviously a cornerstone for Catholicism, and found that all of these other churches believed in the same doctrine. I haven’t had time to dig yet but wanted to put it out here and see what the response was.

I’m walking out the door. I’ll get back later.

Thanks again.

 

[runandsew]

Another issue that I have been contemplating and one that is bothering my wife. As Mormons we claim to have the Priesthood as conferred upon JS by Peter, James, & John. Having that authority, we claim to have the power to anoint the sick and give blessings of healing. I have blessed my kids many times when they were sick to then see them shortly thereafter rebound miraculously. My wife says she can’t imagine not having the Priesthood in our home. My response is that if the LDS church is not true, then I don’t have the Priesthood; never did, never will.

Reconciling what seemed to be a miracle, and in other cases answers to prayers is something that has been difficult for us to understand. Mormons claim that all men can be blessed by the power of prayer and can have the spirit of God with them to guide them from time to time, but that it’s only righteous Mormons who have it with them all the time. My guess is that the Catholic answer to this is what the Mormons would say? I was blessed by my faith to pray but not because of the Priesthood that I thought I had and thought I was exercising?

Miracles also occur and prayers are answered within Catholic and Protestant churches and households.

All Christians are “priest prophet and king”.

Catechism 1546
Christ, high priest and unique mediator, has made of the Church “a kingdom, priests for his God and Father.” The whole community of believers is, as such, priestly. The faithful exercise their baptismal priesthood through their participation, each according to his own vocation, in Christ’s mission as priest, prophet, and king. Through the sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation the faithful are “consecrated to be . . . a holy priesthood.”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Another issue that I have been contemplating and one that is bothering my wife. As Mormons we claim to have the Priesthood as conferred upon JS by Peter, James, & John. Having that authority, we claim to have the power to anoint the sick and give blessings of healing. I have blessed my kids many times when they were sick to then see them shortly thereafter rebound miraculously. My wife says she can’t imagine not having the Priesthood in our home. My response is that if the LDS church is not true, then I don’t have the Priesthood; never did, never will.

Yes, you are following the logical steps that have been followed a thousand times. And no one here takes these things less serious than yourself.

Though I will say, a lot of decision making going on at your house appears to have a lot of fear behind it. Why fear the Truth of Jesus Christ?

But, to answer this question. Catholics believe that our baptism does more than Mormons believe. We have the shared belief that baptism is required for the remission of sins.

Catholics believe that baptism joins us to the Body of Christ, which is, His Church. It is a mystical union, that you can think of as a “sealing” if that helps you conceptualize what Catholics believe. Though, we have no rite that performs a sealing, we understand these are graces of our baptism.

We belong to God, quite literally. By virtue of our baptism, we share in all that belongs to God. Salvation, certainly.

Jesus is our High Priest, and just as we share in His saving grace, so to do we share His priesthood. We call this the “universal priesthood”. A baptized person exercises this priesthood through prayer. We offer prayers for healing. A baptized Christian, male or female, can bring healing and other miracles to their home and their lives, by calling on the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

Again, the article on Priesthood at New Advent is very descriptive. It is long, and I recommend you read all of it, and follow the links in the article in order to understand how a Catholic understands the priesthood.

Also, if you are ready to delve in, Lumen Gentium is a much more recent document than the old encyclopedia, and explains in depth all of the Catholic Church’s teachings on the all the subjects you are hitting on.

Reconciling what seemed to be a miracle, and in other cases answers to prayers is something that has been difficult for us to understand. Mormons claim that all men can be blessed by the power of prayer and can have the spirit of God with them to guide them from time to time, but that it’s only righteous Mormons who have it with them all the time.

Unfortunately, this is one of the more damaging teachings of Mormonism. Catholic teaching and belief is that God’s Love is extended to all of us, at all times. Even in our doubt and our struggles. God is always there.

If/when a person goes through a time of spiritual “dryness”, we hold no belief that God has left that person, or is withholding anything from them. Quite the contrary, we believe God withholds nothing and has given us everything. What further proof do you need than God became Man, suffered and died for all? Certainly, we (humans as a whole) can never be worthy of this sacrifice!

It is our faith that brings us through the dark times of our souls, a knowledge that God has not left us and never will.

O God, you are my God-- for you I long! For you my body yearns; for you my soul thirsts, Like a land parched, lifeless, and without water. (Psalm 63:2)

My guess is that the Catholic answer to this is what the Mormons would say? I was blessed by my faith to pray but not because of the Priesthood that I thought I had and thought I was exercising?

The mystery of faith is something to contemplate, is it not? God withholds nothing, and blesses even those who do not believe. God’s Love has no conditions and contains no boundaries.

In Catholicism, the priesthood, Holy Orders, are given to those who administer the Sacraments of Jesus Christ. And to those who shepherd the Church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

To all:

I have been reading extensively about Apostolic Succession and have found that Protestants claim that the this doctrine is false based on historical fact i.e. there are several churches; The Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Catholic Churches, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglican Church, the Old Catholic Church as well as some Lutheran Churches in Scandinavian countries, all of which differ doctrinally as much as Catholics & Protestants do. So if Apostolic Succession is a true doctrine then why the divide and why the doctrinal differences? If Christ told the original 12 that they were to guide the church under the direction of the Holy Spirit, then who first went wrong?

The Eastern and Western churches are in schism. The Western Church, which is led by the Bishop of Rome whom we call Pope, is comprised of many rites. The Latin (or Roman) rite is just one.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, or just Orthodox Church, is led by a council of bishops. And is also comprised of many rites.

Though we are in schism, the Western Church recognizes the apostolic succession of the Orthodox Church. And recognizes the Orthodox churches (all the rites in communion with the East) as valid churches.

Over time, a few of the Eastern rites have reconciled with the West and are in full communion with the West.

The Oriental Orthodox churches (again many rites within the communion) split off from the main body of the Church in the fifth century. Again, they claim apostolic succession, which is a valid claim.

I could go through the same sort of description for each of the churches you list…at some point in time, they severed themselves from the main body of the Church.

So, I am not sure what you read that described apostolic succession as false, as it is very much a historical fact.

If you are searching for which of all these successions are correct today, I recommend you research the reasons they split and for the churches that reconciled, the reasons they reconciled. Which doctrines they disputed, and then research those doctrines.

And, you will find the irony of the claim you found. For example, the Oriental Orthodox split because the did not accept the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, yet, the Reform churches split off after this council and accept the doctrines of this council.

What it comes down to, in the end, is exactly what you asked. Where is the continuity of Christ’s Church found? This is why the early church writings are a good reference. For example, if you believe an important aspect of continuity are the Sacraments, then reading how the early Church practiced these rites compared to any Church you are investigating today is a valuable exercise. The Real Presence was clearly believed and taught, including in the New Testament. This truth has been lost by most of the Protestant split-offs, as well as Mormonism.

 

[1holycatholic]

The Eastern and Western churches are in schism. The Western Church, which is led by the Bishop of Rome whom we call Pope, is comprised of many rites. The Latin (or Roman) rite is just one.

The Eastern Orthodox Church, or just Orthodox Church, is led by a council of bishops. And is also comprised of many rites.

Though we are in schism, the Western Church recognizes the apostolic succession of the Orthodox Church. And recognizes the Orthodox churches (all the rites in communion with the East) as valid churches.

Over time, a few of the Eastern rites have reconciled with the West and are in full communion with the West.

The Oriental Orthodox churches (again many rites within the communion) split off from the main body of the Church in the fifth century. Again, they claim apostolic succession, which is a valid claim.

I could go through the same sort of description for each of the churches you list…at some point in time, they severed themselves from the main body of the Church.

So, I am not sure what you read that described apostolic succession as false, as it is very much a historical fact.

If you are searching for which of all these successions are correct today, I recommend you research the reasons they split and for the churches that reconciled, the reasons they reconciled. Which doctrines they disputed, and then research those doctrines.

And, you will find the irony of the claim you found. For example, the Oriental Orthodox split because the did not accept the decision of the Council of Chalcedon, yet, the Reform churches split off after this council and accept the doctrines of this council.

What it comes down to, in the end, is exactly what you asked. Where is the continuity of Christ’s Church found? This is why the early church writings are a good reference. For example, if you believe an important aspect of continuity are the Sacraments, then reading how the early Church practiced these rites compared to any Church you are investigating today is a valuable exercise. The Real Presence was clearly believed and taught, including in the New Testament. This truth has been lost by most of the Protestant split-offs, as well as Mormonism.

Maronite Catholics are Eastern Rite (Sui Iuris) Catholics who have never separated from full communion with the Holy See.

 

[C2M2C]

If you are searching for which of all these successions are correct today, I recommend you research the reasons they split and for the churches that reconciled, the reasons they reconciled. Which doctrines they disputed, and then research those doctrines

.

As I’m reading your post I realized that maybe I have gone from one extreme, being told to look for a feeling, to the other end of the spectrum, needing to see it in writing… for better or for worse.

That is what I think I need, to see that the history leads to what is going on right now. I need to see the straight line from A (Christ) to B (the Catholic Church). I struggle with any obvious or possible deviations.

 

[Believe_85]

.

As I’m reading your post I realized that maybe I have gone from one extreme, being told to look for a feeling, to the other end of the spectrum, needing to see it in writing… for better or for worse.

That is what I think I need, to see that the history leads to what is going on right now. I need to see the straight line from A (Christ) to B (the Catholic Church). I struggle with any obvious or possible deviations.

These timelines might be what you are looking for in words:
davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

Or visually:
scborromeo.org/images/fig1.jpg

 

[mfbukowski]

Another issue that I have been contemplating and one that is bothering my wife. As Mormons we claim to have the Priesthood as conferred upon JS by Peter, James, & John. Having that authority, we claim to have the power to anoint the sick and give blessings of healing. I have blessed my kids many times when they were sick to then see them shortly thereafter rebound miraculously. My wife says she can’t imagine not having the Priesthood in our home. My response is that if the LDS church is not true, then I don’t have the Priesthood; never did, never will.

Reconciling what seemed to be a miracle, and in other cases answers to prayers is something that has been difficult for us to understand. Mormons claim that all men can be blessed by the power of prayer and can have the spirit of God with them to guide them from time to time, but that it’s only righteous Mormons who have it with them all the time. My guess is that the Catholic answer to this is what the Mormons would say? I was blessed by my faith to pray but not because of the Priesthood that I thought I had and thought I was exercising?

To me this is weird logic.

“if the LDS church is not true, then I don’t have the Priesthood”
(putting words in your mouth):
But I apparantly DO have the priesthood, Therefore…

What would follow logically is “therefore the LDS church is true”

Instead of what is logical, you go looking for other explanations of why God blessed your kids with miracles even though you believe that your priesthood was not valid. You are trying to rationalize and deny what you know through your own experience.

In my view, you have “itching ears” looking for someone to tell you what happened to you instead of trusting your own testimony. Why would you believe anyone on this post before what God has shown you? Why go to these people for advice?

Regarding celestial marriage, remember again that God honors covenants. You have made a covenant before God that you and your wife would be together for time and eternity.

You will find no other church which will bless that covenant.

What if our church really is true?

Are you really so sure that you can trust the “history” you believe you have found? Are you really so sure that what you are going to is not just as man made as what you think you are leaving?

Somone will be happy to provide you that A-Z priesthood line you want so much. But will it be true? What if you start researching THAT and you find some shaky evidence? I promise you that you WILL find that shaky evidence everywhere if you look hard enough.

Even if you look at our church as nothing more than a man-made training ground for knowledge of Jesus Christ, to learn obedience and sacrifice and what is important in life, I believe you will find no church better. You will find no more committed members seeking Christ anywhere.

And after 2000 years, 10 times the Mormon history, you will find in Catholic history, just as many reasons their succession is shaky at best.

A just God MUST be able to communicate his will if he has one and cares about what church you join.

How could he expect you to find his church unless He communicates his will? Directly to the individual. Rationality enters in, but when God tells me something, I am not going to second guess because it seems irrational. Look at Abraham and Issac. Sacrifice my son? Are you kidding me? What kind of God would do that? He could have rationalized and denied his experience all day long. But did he rationalize? No, he believed and obeyed. He knew God’s voice because he had heard it before and he obeyed.

And what was his reward? All the nations of the earth call him blessed and the savior was born through his lineage. He did it to obey God, not for the reward, but nevertheless, the reward was there.

We never know when we are being tested. We never know what God has in his plan for us.

Abraham didn’t doubt his priesthood or the revelations God had given him. Don’t doubt yours.

 

[Believe_85]

To me this is weird logic.

“if the LDS church is not true, then I don’t have the Priesthood”
(putting words in your mouth):
But I apparantly DO have the priesthood, Therefore…

What would follow logically is “therefore the LDS church is true”

Instead of what is logical, you go looking for other explanations of why God blessed your kids with miracles even though you believe that your priesthood was not valid. You are trying to rationalize and deny what you know through your own experience.

In my view, you have “itching ears” looking for someone to tell you what happened to you instead of trusting your own testimony. Why would you believe anyone on this post before what God has shown you? Why go to these people for advice?

Regarding celestial marriage, remember again that God honors covenants. You have made a covenant before God that you and your wife would be together for time and eternity.

You will find no other church which will bless that covenant.

What if our church really is true?

Are you really so sure that you can trust the “history” you believe you have found? Are you really so sure that what you are going to is not just as man made as what you think you are leaving?

Somone will be happy to provide you that A-Z priesthood line you want so much. But will it be true? What if you start researching THAT and you find some shaky evidence? I promise you that you WILL find that shaky evidence everywhere if you look hard enough.

Even if you look at our church as nothing more than a man-made training ground for knowledge of Jesus Christ, to learn obedience and sacrifice and what is important in life, I believe you will find no church better. You will find no more committed members seeking Christ anywhere.

And after 2000 years, 10 times the Mormon history, you will find in Catholic history, just as many reasons their succession is shaky at best.

A just God MUST be able to communicate his will if he has one and cares about what church you join.

It is obvious you do not personally understand the profundity of experiencing Jesus Christ in the Eucharist.

 

[1holycatholic]

What if our church really is true?

Mormonism is not true. There are no what ifs.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Regarding celestial marriage, remember again that God honors covenants. You have made a covenant before God that you and your wife would be together for time and eternity.

You will find no other church which will bless that covenant.

How do Mormons reconcile the words of Jesus in Matthew 22:30?

Mat 22:30 For in the resurrection they shall neither marry nor be married, but shall be as the angels of God in heaven.

 

[mfbukowski]

I am just quoting one small section of one of the “timelines” given to you earlier to justify the correctness of Catholic church doctrine. I think it is very instructive and will let it speak for itself.

**"140s *140 Election of Pope St. Pius I (-155).
*144 Marcion of Pontus is excommunicated for heresy (Marcionism): he believed that the God of the Old Testament is a different God than that of the new, and that he is a vengeful God; he denied the inspiration of the Old Testament. Marcionites established a parallel church that survived for several centuries.

150s *155 Death of Pope St. Pius I. St. Anicetus becomes Pope (-166).
*c. 156 Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John the apostle. First recorded instance of devotion to a martyr and the devotion to relics in the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

160s *c. 160 Birth of Tertullian, Church Father. Tertullian apostatized to the Montanist sect and in his later years rejected the Catholic Church. However, in his earlier years, c. 200 AD, he justified Catholic belief against heretics by appealing to the apostolic origin of the Church, whereas the heretics and their heresies were subsequent to it.
*165 Death of St. Justin Martry (b. 100), Church Father.

*166 St. Soter becomes Pope. (-175).

170s *172 Montanus launches his Montanist movement, based on his private revelations. He claimed that there was an age of the Father (the Old Testament), the Age of the Son (the New Testament) and the age of the Holy Spirit, which he would inaugurate and which would announce the end of the world. It denied the divine nature of the Church and preached a very rigorous morality.
*175 St. Eleutherius succeeds as pope (-189).

*c.176-177 Athenagoras writes Embassy for the Christians, aka Apology, a work addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus that shows the reasonableness of the Christian faith and the absurdity of the charges made against Christians. It also defended the notion of the Trinity.

*177 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against All Heresies, a work of apologetics refuting Gnosticism, which claimed salvation through an esoteric knowledge. Irenaeus argues that this belief counters that universal tradition handed down from the apostles, and that the bishops are the successors of the apostles who have the authority to transmit Revelation. To make his point, he lists the succession of popes beginning with Peter.

180s 185 Birth of Origen, controversial Church Father. His writings were, in many ways, productive for the orthodox faith. However, a number of his ideas were problematic or downright heretical. Among them: his excessive allegorism in Scriptural interpretation, his subordinationist tendencies, his belief in eternal creation and final salvation of all souls. His writings sparked complex doctrinal controversies. In spite of the problems, he had many admirers among orthodox Fathers. "*

This is only one very small section. The rest chronicles 2000 years of heresies, schisms and people mutually excommunicating each other. This makes the statments in Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses look like child’s play.

It seems like half the “chruch fathers” were apostates eventually themselves, or at least the church would like you to believe that, even though they had “many admirers among the othodox Fathers.”

Philosophy of men mingled with scripture? You be the judge. 2000 years worth

It is also interesting to me that many of the doctrines which are condemned are precisely what the LDS church believes.

“Esoteric doctrine”, “final salvation of all souls”, “deny the divine nature of the Church and preached a rigorus morality”

Furthermore, I find it interesting that the moment when “devotion of relics” found its way into the church is known precisely.

And this selection was made quickly pretty much at random. I wonder what goodies I missed?

 

[1holycatholic]

It is also interesting to me that many of the doctrines which are condemned are precisely what the LDS church believes.
…]
And this selection was made quickly pretty much at random. I wonder what goodies I missed?

Early 1800’s - Joseph Smith Restores old heresies.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am just quoting one small section of one of the “timelines” given to you earlier to justify the correctness of Catholic church doctrine. I think it is very instructive and will let it speak for itself.

**"140s *140 Election of Pope St. Pius I (-155).
*144 Marcion of Pontus is excommunicated for heresy (Marcionism): he believed that the God of the Old Testament is a different God than that of the new, and that he is a vengeful God; he denied the inspiration of the Old Testament. Marcionites established a parallel church that survived for several centuries.

150s *155 Death of Pope St. Pius I. St. Anicetus becomes Pope (-166).
*c. 156 Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John the apostle. First recorded instance of devotion to a martyr and the devotion to relics in the Martyrdom of Polycarp.

160s *c. 160 Birth of Tertullian, Church Father. Tertullian apostatized to the Montanist sect and in his later years rejected the Catholic Church. However, in his earlier years, c. 200 AD, he justified Catholic belief against heretics by appealing to the apostolic origin of the Church, whereas the heretics and their heresies were subsequent to it.
*165 Death of St. Justin Martry (b. 100), Church Father.

*166 St. Soter becomes Pope. (-175).

170s *172 Montanus launches his Montanist movement, based on his private revelations. He claimed that there was an age of the Father (the Old Testament), the Age of the Son (the New Testament) and the age of the Holy Spirit, which he would inaugurate and which would announce the end of the world. It denied the divine nature of the Church and preached a very rigorous morality.
*175 St. Eleutherius succeeds as pope (-189).

*c.176-177 Athenagoras writes Embassy for the Christians, aka Apology, a work addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his son Commodus that shows the reasonableness of the Christian faith and the absurdity of the charges made against Christians. It also defended the notion of the Trinity.

*177 St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against All Heresies, a work of apologetics refuting Gnosticism, which claimed salvation through an esoteric knowledge. Irenaeus argues that this belief counters that universal tradition handed down from the apostles, and that the bishops are the successors of the apostles who have the authority to transmit Revelation. To make his point, he lists the succession of popes beginning with Peter.

180s 185 Birth of Origen, controversial Church Father. His writings were, in many ways, productive for the orthodox faith. However, a number of his ideas were problematic or downright heretical. Among them: his excessive allegorism in Scriptural interpretation, his subordinationist tendencies, his belief in eternal creation and final salvation of all souls. His writings sparked complex doctrinal controversies. In spite of the problems, he had many admirers among orthodox Fathers. "*

This is only one very small section. The rest chronicles 2000 years of heresies, schisms and people mutually excommunicating each other. This makes the statments in Brigham Young’s Journal of Discourses look like child’s play.

It seems like half the “chruch fathers” were apostates eventually themselves, or at least the church would like you to believe that, even though they had “many admirers among the othodox Fathers.”

Philosophy of men mingled with scripture? You be the judge. 2000 years worth

It is also interesting to me that many of the doctrines which are condemned are precisely what the LDS church believes.

“Esoteric doctrine”, “final salvation of all souls”, “deny the divine nature of the Church and preached a rigorus morality”

Furthermore, I find it interesting that the moment when “devotion of relics” found its way into the church is known precisely.

And this selection was made quickly pretty much at random. I wonder what goodies I missed?

Here’s a real list of popes that goes all the way back to St. Peter. Here’s a second to compare if you’d like. Real being without the extras mfbukowski is throwing in. Why didn’t you provide a source? Afraid of what little goodies might be found? Oh, I forgot, milk before meat or half truths.

You know how silly your argument is about how old the Church is? You realize it shows a doubt in God’s power?

How long did the Mormon Church last before it broke off into sects? The Church of Christ Temple Lot claims all other Mormons are apostates of the restored gospel.

I’m glad to see you take an interest in finding evidence. That’s a new experience for you I bet.

 

[mfbukowski]

Early 1800’s - Joseph Smith Restores old heresies.

“Old heresies” that were true doctrine

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“Old heresies” that were true doctrine

Sources?

 

[mfbukowski]

These timelines might be what you are looking for in words:
davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_catholic_church.htm

Or visually:
scborromeo.org/images/fig1.jpg

Here are the sources. What I quoted was from the first link.

I thought that was clear in my post. These were supposed to show whatever believe85 thought they would show

 

[mfbukowski]

Here’s a real list of popes that goes all the way back to St. Peter. Here’s a second to compare if you’d like. Real being without the extras mfbukowski is throwing in. Why didn’t you provide a source? Afraid of what little goodies might be found? Oh, I forgot, milk before meat or half truths.

You know how silly your argument is about how old the Church is? You realize it shows a doubt in God’s power?

How long did the Mormon Church last before it broke off into sects? The Church of Christ Temple Lot claims all other Mormons are apostates of the restored gospel.

I’m glad to see you take an interest in finding evidence. That’s a new experience for you I bet.

A list of names is hardly even useful. How did they get those posts, who is left off the list and why is where the real “meat” is or are you just showing us the “milk”? Nah, you wouldn’t do that

 

[mfbukowski]

How long did the Mormon Church last before it broke off into sects? The Church of Christ Temple Lot claims all other Mormons are apostates of the restored gospel.

So let me get this straight: your point is that the Mormon church is just as false as yours because both of our churches have had splinter groups? That’s an interesting way of looking at it.

 

[C2M2C]

I am just quoting one small section of one of the “timelines” given to you earlier to justify the correctness of Catholic church doctrine. I think it is very instructive and will let it speak for itself.

I agree; this isn’t the straight line as I mentioned earlier that I was looking for.

But this doesn’t speak to any of the questions I have regarding Mormonism. I have touched on a few of them before and have yet to get an actual answer. Here they are in no particular order:

1- JS used the same seer stones to treasure hunt. This isn’t what the church tells us though
2- Of the witnesses, all of them agree that none of them actually physically saw the plates but that they saw them in a “spiritual” sense.
3- Archaeological evidence. I have yet to be satisfied by any response that has been given including on the Mormon apologetics web site or FAIR or FARMS. I will have to find it again but a BYU archaeologist stated " I fear that what is in the ground will never prove what is in the book". Cumorrah is a big one for me
4- JS became a Mason shortly before instituting the temple ordinances
5- Emma Smith left the church after JS died
6- The church teaches that secret combinations are of the devil yet the temple ceremony is secret. I know we’re told that it’s the sacred nature that should keep us from discussing it- semantics?
7- Temple ceremony changes. I have read your response to this but if the gospel is supposed to be everlasting and unchanging…
8- President Hinckley denying that we believe that we can become Gods
9- If God is unchanging then why is it professed that he was once man and is in an eternal progression?
10- Why are none of the Church’s main doctrines discussed in the bible or BoM? If the BoM contains the everlasting gospel where is the temple ceremony?
11- Profits changing earlier “revealed” doctrine or flat out denying earlier “revealed” doctrine (not just Pres Hinckley)
12- Milk before meat???
13- An Arizona stake sending out a questionnaire about what members thought about the temple ceremony. The object was to find out how people felt because temple attendance was low. Shortly thereafter the ceremony was changed in 1990.
14- why does the church hide it’s history and why do people get excommunicated because they talk about it i.e Sunstone Symposium
15- Solomon Spaulding
16- Mark Hoffman
17- View of the Hebrews

There is a ton more that I will go into later. And yes, none of this disproves Mormonism but it doesn’t help either. I can justify that prayers were answered and that may not have happened because I was LDS. I have read stories all over the internet of people who have miraculously had prayers answered. So it’s not about denying the source but questioning whether or not it happened because of the Priesthood.

And no the Catholics don’t get off clean either. There is so much information that makes me question it’s truthfulness as well.

Which Pope was the right one in all of these excommunications and schisms?

I’ll write more later.

Thanks