Finally, Catholic Answers comes clean with the mormon threat ownership.

[majick275]

I would like to see you be kept honest. You present yourself as a Catholic who is Mormon-friendly and “Outraged at the poor treatment of Mormons” when in fact you are LDS yourself…

If you were an otherwise disinterested neutral third party, you would not focus on all things Mormon on here, and would raise similar objections and concerns about or against Catholic Answers when CA or CAF members started talking about other non-Catholic groups and movements. Yet it is always and exclusively Mormon threads you come to for posting.

not to mention whyme posting on the lds boards (complete with little icon of JS and favorite JS quotes) to get “allies” to come over here to help him threadswarm. (kind of a small swarm but the intent is there)

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

The answer is no, they are not the beliefs of the LDS Church.

zerinus

I thank you. Now I have it from a member that these are not what your church teaches. I can now tell others that have been told directly from a Mormon that these are not their beliefs. And all others on this thread now know this as well. Now that the some of the issues of what turn out to be false have been addressed maybe we can talk about what we share in faith.

Such as we do not believe that God has a physical body, or has wife or is living on some distance plant raising a family.

Non of us believe that the Lord Jesus and Lucifer are brother.

Non believe that we can become gods.

Adam and eve did sin when they ate from the tree and were cast out.

It a good start are there other common beliefs we share?

 

[Gamera]

I don’t think it constitutes anti-Mormonism to focus Catholic attention on errors of Mormonism, but I did feel concern about this portion of the e-mail:

… • Did Joseph Smith develop his teaching on polygamy only after betraying his wife?

    •    Joseph Smith: the “martyr” who died in a gunfight, shooting at people .....

   
    •    Joseph Smith’s background before he started the Mormon church—and how this affect his credibility

Mormonism should stand or fall based on its truth or lack thereof, not on whether its founder had dirty laundry. Who cares whether Joseph Smith did or didn’t commit various bad acts? What difference does that make? Alleged bad acts of popes and other clergy get thrown in our faces all the time, but even when the allegations are true, they don’t discredit the content of our faith.

I’d much rather hear about what Mormons believe and why it is correct or incorrect. That’s what matters. I don’t care whether their founder or their other luminaries committed bad acts; that proves nothing.

 

[ibkc]

Mormonism should stand or fall based on its truth or lack thereof, not on whether its founder had dirty laundry. Who cares whether Joseph Smith did or didn’t commit various bad acts? What difference does that make? Alleged bad acts of popes and other clergy get thrown in our faces all the time, but even when the allegations are true, they don’t discredit the content of our faith.

There is a huge difference. We believe that the time of public revelation is ended, and our popes are not held up as prophets who are receiving direct communication from God. Joseph Smith is held up as someone who received direct communication from God. Did he live the life of a prophet and a saint?

The fact that he and his family had reputations as layabouts and conmen has great relevance on whether or not he would be capable of inventing a new religion out of whole cloth. He apparently turned his lechery into LDS doctrine so it is important to look at his various wife-swapping and girl-hunting escapades. The LDS call him a martyr, but the fact is that he died a criminal in a gunbattle. Just as he didn’t live anything like a saint, neither did he die a saint.

Joseph Smith’s personal life is forever entwined with the LDS church’s doctrines and beliefs because he made it that way and the LDS church has kept it that way. They cannot be separated.

 

[hosemonkey]

I don’t think it constitutes anti-Mormonism to focus Catholic attention on errors of Mormonism, but I did feel concern about this portion of the e-mail:

… • Did Joseph Smith develop his teaching on polygamy only after betraying his wife?

    •    Joseph Smith: the “martyr” who died in a gunfight, shooting at people .....

   
    •    Joseph Smith’s background before he started the Mormon church—and how this affect his credibility

Mormonism should stand or fall based on its truth or lack thereof, not on whether its founder had dirty laundry. Who cares whether Joseph Smith did or didn’t commit various bad acts? What difference does that make? Alleged bad acts of popes and other clergy get thrown in our faces all the time, but even when the allegations are true, they don’t discredit the content of our faith.

I’d much rather hear about what Mormons believe and why it is correct or incorrect. That’s what matters. I don’t care whether their founder or their other luminaries committed bad acts; that proves nothing.

Mohammed was a caravan robber and a molester of little girls. The religion he spawned glories in terror and oppression. Joseph Smith was a con-man and sexual predator. He spawned a religion of fraud and deception. Jesus of Nazareth taught a religion of love, forgiveness and redemption. He never sinned in his earthly life. Who would you rather follow?

 

[MSParrott]

Mohammed was a caravan robber and a molester of little girls. The religion he spawned glories in terror and oppression. Joseph Smith was a con-man and sexual predator. He spawned a religion of fraud and deception. Jesus of Nazareth taught a religion of love, forgiveness and redemption. He never sinned in his earthly life. Who would you rather follow?

[SIGN]AMEN!!![/SIGN]

 

[Gamera]

There is a huge difference. We believe that the time of public revelation is ended, and our popes are not held up as prophets who are receiving direct communication from God. Joseph Smith is held up as someone who received direct communication from God. Did he live the life of a prophet and a saint?

The fact that he and his family had reputations as layabouts and conmen has great relevance on whether or not he would be capable of inventing a new religion out of whole cloth. He apparently turned his lechery into LDS doctrine so it is important to look at his various wife-swapping and girl-hunting escapades. The LDS call him a martyr, but the fact is that he died a criminal in a gunbattle. Just as he didn’t live anything like a saint, neither did he die a saint.

Joseph Smith’s personal life is forever entwined with the LDS church’s doctrines and beliefs because he made it that way and the LDS church has kept it that way. They cannot be separated.

Think hard. Solomon is recognized as a prohpet by we Catholics – he wrote books of our Bible — yet he ended his life as an idolator. David was a prophet – we read his Psalms at every Mass – yet he was an adulterer.

 

[Gamera]

There is a huge difference. We believe that the time of public revelation is ended, and our popes are not held up as prophets who are receiving direct communication from God. Joseph Smith is held up as someone who received direct communication from God. Did he live the life of a prophet and a saint?

The fact that he and his family had reputations as layabouts and conmen has great relevance on whether or not he would be capable of inventing a new religion out of whole cloth. He apparently turned his lechery into LDS doctrine so it is important to look at his various wife-swapping and girl-hunting escapades. The LDS call him a martyr, but the fact is that he died a criminal in a gunbattle. Just as he didn’t live anything like a saint, neither did he die a saint.

Joseph Smith’s personal life is forever entwined with the LDS church’s doctrines and beliefs because he made it that way and the LDS church has kept it that way. They cannot be separated.

It’s odd that you equate "prophet’ with “saint.” Solomon is recognized as a prophet by we Catholics – he wrote the Book of Proverbs in our Bible — yet he ended his life as an idolator. So why isn’t his sin “forever entwined” with Catholicism? David was a prophet – we read his Psalms at every Mass – yet he was an adulterer. So why isn’t his sin “forever entwined” in our religion?

 

[Gamera]

Mohammed was a caravan robber and a molester of little girls. The religion he spawned glories in terror and oppression. Joseph Smith was a con-man and sexual predator. He spawned a religion of fraud and deception. Jesus of Nazareth taught a religion of love, forgiveness and redemption. He never sinned in his earthly life. Who would you rather follow?

Excuse me. I do not “follow” Joseph Smith. I am a Catholic. And as a Catholic I refuse to impose this bigoted double standard where Catholic clergy aren’t held to the same standard as Moslem clergy or Mormon clergy.

“Mohommed was … a molester of little girls.” And no Catholic clergy has ever molested a little girl? Why the double-standard? If priest sexual abuse doesn’t discredit Catholicism, why does Moslem sexual abuse discredit Islam?

“[Joseph Smith] was a con man and a sexual predator.” And no Catholic clergy has ever been a sexual predator? Have you read a newspaper in the last 15 years? Members of the Catholic clergy have been “sexual predators,” but that tragic fact doesn’t discredit Catholicism. Why the double standard? And as for being a “con man,” wasn’t Father Berenger Sauniere of Rennes-le-Chateau running mail order prayer service racket? He was accused of it, anyway. If that accusation were true, would that discredit Catholicism? No? Then why the double standard?

You compare Jesus — who is Lord God – to Mohammed and Joseph Smith. Instead, compare our Catholic clergy to Mohommed and Joseph Smith. If Catholic clergy’s sins don’t discredit Catholicism, how can other religion’s clergy’s sins discredit them?

My Catholic faith isn’t so fragile that I have to throw stones at people of other religions.

 

[goofyjim]

I will not make a donation. While I don’t believe in Mormonism, I also don’t find it any threat to me.

 

[goofyjim]

EXCUSE ME. I do not “follow” Joseph Smith. I am a Catholic. And as a Catholic I refuse to impose this bigoted double standard where Catholic clergy aren’t held to the same standard as Moslem clergy or Mormon clergy.

“Mohommed was … a molester of little girls.” And no Catholic clergy has ever molested a little girl? Why the double-standard? If priest sexual abuse doesn’t discredit Catholicism, why does Moslem sexual abuse discredit Islam?

“[Joseph Smith] was a con man and a sexual predator.” And no Catholic clergy has ever been a sexual predator? Have you read a newspaper in the last 15 years? Members of the Catholic clergy have been “sexual predators,” but that tragic fact doesn’t discredit Catholicism. Why the double standard?

You compare Jesus — who is Lord God – to Mohammed and Joseph Smith. Instead, compare our Catholic clergy to Mohommed and Joseph Smith. If Catholic clergy’s sins don’t discredit Catholicism, how can other religion’s clergy’s sins discredit them?

My Catholic faith isn’t so fragile that I have to throw stones at people of other religions.

Very good points. You don’t disprove someone’s beliefs by the sins of some of those who believe the same things. If we could do that there would be no true faith or church in this world.

 

[BartBurk]

Very good points. You don’t disprove someone’s beliefs by the sins of some of those who believe the same things. If we could do that there would be no true faith or church in this world.

The difference is that Joseph Smith and Mohammed taught their immorality as good doctrine. The Catholic priest molesting a child would never be able to do that. It would go against the words of the Church’s founder for a Catholic priest to teach that molesting children was o.k.

 

[goofyjim]

The difference is that Joseph Smith and Mohammed taught their immorality as good doctrine. The Catholic priest molesting a child would never be able to do that. It would go against the words of the Church’s founder for a Catholic priest to teach that molesting children was o.k.

The Old Testament taught that it was ok to have more than one wife. Why hang on to that? The challenge is still the same. Debate against the religion based on points other than dirty laundry of its members.

 

[ibkc]

It’s odd that you equate "prophet’ with “saint.”

Were you not reading along? The LDS church equates “prophet” with “saint.” They refer to themselves as saints in their official name. They’re the ones equating prophet and saint and if that is how they define JS and themselves, that’s how I am going to do it as well.

So why isn’t his sin “forever entwined” with Catholicism? David was a prophet – we read his Psalms at every Mass – yet he was an adulterer. So why isn’t his sin “forever entwined” in our religion?

Because we don’t make it so. We don’t make excuses for Solomon’s behavior, and we don’t lie about his behavior to non-Catholics, even while embedding it in our doctrine.

You compare Jesus — who is Lord God – to Mohammed and Joseph Smith. Instead, compare our Catholic clergy to Mohommed and Joseph Smith.

Our clergy are not the founders of our religion. Joseph Smith IS the founder of Mormonism. HE is the one claiming exclusive revelations from God.

HE is the one claiming that Christ failed in establishing His church and that God chose him, Joseph Smith, to finish the job - in essence, to be a new Christ.

I do not find your arguments to be very compelling. Sorry.

 

[East_Anglican]

Mohammed was a caravan robber and a molester of little girls. The religion he spawned glories in terror and oppression. Joseph Smith was a con-man and sexual predator. He spawned a religion of fraud and deception. Jesus of Nazareth taught a religion of love, forgiveness and redemption. He never sinned in his earthly life. Who would you rather follow?

The one I do follow. Jesus of Nazereth.

 

[Gamera]

The difference is that Joseph Smith and Mohammed taught their immorality as good doctrine. The Catholic priest molesting a child would never be able to do that. It would go against the words of the Church’s founder for a Catholic priest to teach that molesting children was o.k.

Which supports my point: Mormonism must stand or fall on the truth or falsity of its doctrine, not on the conduct of its members.

 

[Gamera]

Were you not reading along? The LDS church equates “prophet” with “saint.” They refer to themselves as saints in their official name. They’re the ones equating prophet and saint and if that is how they define JS and themselves, that’s how I am going to do it as well.

Oh, you meant like SAINT Peter, the Apostle and the first to hold papal authority — the same one who deined Christ three times? Talk about dirty laundry! Does SAINT Peter’s denial of Christ mean he isn’t a saint?

Because we don’t make it so. We don’t make excuses for Solomon’s behavior, and we don’t lie about his behavior to non-Catholics, even while embedding it in our doctrine.

“Doctrine” being the key word. Doctrine is what makes a religion true or false, not misconduct of its members.

I do not find your arguments to be very compelling. Sorry.

What “arguments?” I haven’t made any “arguments.” Sorry. I have merely pointed out the defect in someone else’s argument, namely, that a believer’s bad conduct disproves the content of their belief.

 

[majick275]

much of the LDS “dirty laundry” IS (or at least was) doctrine. what joseph smith practiced that most consider objectionable is claimed by him to have been commanded by god. he then revealed that others were “commanded” to engage in these practices. all the while this is going on he is publishing “scripture” that denies it’s being practiced. I believe that is an indictment of the mormon church as opposed to individual members.

 

[ibkc]

Gamera, I appreciate your opinion and I am impressed with your conviction - although denying that you are making an argument is kind of funny. But I am sorry, I really don’t think you have much of a case here. Joseph Smith’s life is certainly fair game for discussion and criticism. If you want to start a thread about St. Peter being a less than upstanding person and how he took the opportunity to insert his various crimes and lies into Catholic doctrine, have at it - I’d be interested in what you have to say about it.

 

[hosemonkey]

Oh, you meant like SAINT Peter, the Apostle and the first to hold papal authority — the same one who deined Christ three times? Talk about dirty laundry! Does SAINT Peter’s denial of Christ mean he isn’t a saint?

“Doctrine” being the key word. Doctrine is what makes a religion true or false, not misconduct of its members.

What “arguments?” I haven’t made any “arguments.” Sorry. I have merely pointed out the defect in someone else’s argument, namely, that a believer’s bad conduct disproves the content of their belief.

Point being that both Islam and mormonism were invented by their founders, they did not come of God. Therefore the character of their inventors is germane. Mohammed was a caravan robber, killer and child molester. Joseph Smith was a con artist, stone-peeper, megalomaniac and serial adulterer. The founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, is sinless. There is no question as to His character, therefore there is no question (among Christians) as to the validity of the faith that He founded. Is that so difficult to understand?