Help with debating a Mormon

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Instead of blathering aimlessly about his post, why don’t you explain where he got it wrong?

Yes, the mormons were instrumental in defeating Prop 8, then you whine, and cry, and get all bent out of shape because the opposing side protested you. You protested them, they protest you, deal with it. You realize this is a democracy right, and they have free speech just like you do?

So, if a woman is sealed to her husband, and she makes it to the celestial, and he doesn’t they will be separate right? To get into celestial, she needs a temple sealed marriage right? So even if they were sealed, and he doesn’t make it for one reason or another, she’s out in the cold so to speak. Right?

If she is sealed to her family, and hubby, and everyone makes it, who does she go with? Somehow, somewhere a family is being broken up.

Like I said, explain where he got it wrong, Don’t just whine that he got it wrong.

Come on, say it with me, FACTS. One more time…FACTS

I knew you could do it.

See my example above somewhere. To be exalted she’ll need to be sealed. So, Mormons can go to the Celestial Kingdom, but if they aren’t Endowed and Sealed, they won’t be in the highest level of the CK. They will be single ministering angels.

A common answer to all of these speculative questions is “God will work it out in the end”. So, if a husband and wife are sealed and endowed, and let’s say one of them isn’t faithful to their covenants, and doesn’t make it to the CK or to be exalted, what happens to the other person that was faithful? God will work it out in the end. I’ve seen a few speculate that God will provide them with a spouse for exaltation, but I don’t think that’s actually doctrinal. But either way, if one isn’t faithful to the covenant, then not everyone’s going to the CK, or to be exalted.

So, like I said in another post: In Catholic theology, there’s your Lutheran mother, and you’re Catholic. In Catholicism, both of you can (note I’m not saying will) end up in Heaven, in the same place, even though she is Lutheran. The doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire point towards this. In contrast, in Mormon theology, let’s say your Lutheran mother goes to Spirit Prison, and you, a Mormon, go to Paradise. If your Lutheran mother doesn’t fully accept the restored Gospel in Spirit Prison, she’ll end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom, and you’ll end up in the Celestial Kingdom. Some speculate (again, not sure if this is doctrine) that you’ll be able to go over to the Terrestrial Kingdom to visit her, but she won’t be able to visit you. And of course God the Father is present in the CK, not the Terrestrial Kingdom, so your mom won’t be in His eternal presence.

 

[twopekinguys]

I’ll remind why me that he is on my ignore list (it saves a great deal of time). I only see what he writes if someone else quotes him.

I need to do that too.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

I need to do that too.

So do I, dudes, but it’s sometimes funny to interact with him. I guess that’s the psychology degree in me.

 

[ParkerD]

I skimmed that site. I didn’t see anything inconsistent with what is usually explained on CAF for apostolic succession. Yes, Peter had the keys, in a manner unique to him and his office. That’s why we call it the Petrine office. The links you provided draw heavily on the Scriptures in the context of their times and are borne out through early history and Tradition. That’s pretty strong evidence for the way God intended to do things.

No it can’t. It can only do things that don’t violate those truths that Christ established.

Not sure I understand your differentiation.
I meant that most Christians believe there are typically a certain number of things that we must know/follow in order to be meeting the basic requirements for salvation. Those that remain ignorant of these are not banned from heaven (they are left to God’s Mercy), but those that reject them or do not follow them once known endanger their souls.

Are there more “requirements” yet to be revealed, without which we cannot be saved?

What is different about one time or place than another that would have those people judged by a different standard than us? Does God play favorites or “respect persons,” as you might put it?

“Hidden knowledge?” That’s a gnostic, occultist belief. It is not of God. Jesus did not come to be a “respecter of persons” and grant some special knowledge that was necessary for all and withhold that knowledge from others. He did give people roles and equip them with what they needed to do their part, and He did explain things in different ways to different audiences, but this was not because He was holding anything back that everyone needed to know or could benefit from.

Arandur,
I don’t view exaltation as an event. I view it as a learning process. Those who want to learn, will seek to learn. Those who don’t, will be satisfied with what they know. It doesn’t have to do with a “requirement”. It has to do with “what are a person’s desires.” You have what you want, and that’s fine with me. I want the faith described by Christ. I know through Him it’s possible. The Bible is full of hidden meanings. Paul talked about hidden truths often and the scoffing people such as yourself would do. So it’s no big deal to me.

 

[twopekinguys]

See my example above somewhere. To be exalted she’ll need to be sealed. So, Mormons can go to the Celestial Kingdom, but if they aren’t Endowed and Sealed, they won’t be in the highest level of the CK. They will be single ministering angels.

A common answer to all of these speculative questions is “God will work it out in the end”. So, if a husband and wife are sealed and endowed, and let’s say one of them isn’t faithful to their covenants, and doesn’t make it to the CK or to be exalted, what happens to the other person that was faithful? God will work it out in the end. I’ve seen a few speculate that God will provide them with a spouse for exaltation, but I don’t think that’s actually doctrinal. But either way, if one isn’t faithful to the covenant, then not everyone’s going to the CK, or to be exalted.

So, like I said in another post: In Catholic theology, there’s your Lutheran mother, and you’re Catholic. In Catholicism, both of you can (note I’m not saying will) end up in Heaven, in the same place, even though she is Lutheran. The doctrines of baptism of blood and baptism of desire point towards this. In contrast, in Mormon theology, let’s say your Lutheran mother goes to Spirit Prison, and you, a Mormon, go to Paradise. If your Lutheran mother doesn’t fully accept the restored Gospel in Spirit Prison, she’ll end up in the Terrestrial Kingdom, and you’ll end up in the Celestial Kingdom. Some speculate (again, not sure if this is doctrine) that you’ll be able to go over to the Terrestrial Kingdom to visit her, but she won’t be able to visit you. And of course God the Father is present in the CK, not the Terrestrial Kingdom, so your mom won’t be in His eternal presence.

Oh, trust me, I got it, and I’m on board with you. The flow chart really helped…lol

I was just pointing out that you know who needs to explain where Paul’s and your explanation was wrong, instead of just saying it was wrong.

That is just like saying “cause I said so.” Which doesn’t fly well.

 

[PaulDupre]

Again, I’m just noting that your tit-for-tat posting tactic is interesting, like how above you couldn’t help but adding “even though the catholic faith has lost many members”.

It seems that there are now more ex-Mormons than there are Mormons, and that the LDS church membership is shrinking, not growing.

According to the Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey the replacement rate of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has dropped to 80%. That means that for every four new converts who join the Church five members leave Mormonism behind .

Most of those who leave never bother to send a letter of resignation to SLC, and so they are still counted on the roles of the LDS organization. In foreign countries it is even worse. LDS missions outside the U.S. have convert retention rates between 5% and 20%. With most converts leaving after a few weeks or months and hundreds of thousands of BIC Mormons leaving the church every year, it is no wonder that wards are closing, stakes are consolidating, and the parking lots at most LDS wards are half-empty on Sunday morning.

 

[Arandur]

Arandur,
I don’t view exaltation as an event. I view it as a learning process. Those who want to learn, will seek to learn. Those who don’t, will be satisfied with what they know. It doesn’t have to do with a “requirement”. It has to do with “what are a person’s desires.” You have what you want, and that’s fine with me. I want the faith described by Christ. I know through Him it’s possible. The Bible is full of hidden meanings. Paul talked about hidden truths often and the scoffing people such as yourself would do. So it’s no big deal to me.

You misunderstood me, and you misunderstand Paul.

All those “hidden meanings” are there for everyone to discover. There is absolutely no exclusivity. Those “hidden meanings” are also IN Scripture–which has already been revealed. Indeed, ALL truth has been revealed in Jesus, who is God made man, Truth as a Person, the Word Incarnate. Yet since God is infinite, we will always be learning more and understanding more of that revealed truth. So while all truth has been revealed, we will spend eternity learning more of our loving God. The Spirit guides us as we seek greater understanding (of what was already revealed in Christ), and in particular it guides the Church, which is the Divine Institution Christ established to teach this truth.

You may call it “revelation” when you are led to a deeper understanding of truth, but you use the term in a manner different than the way Catholics use it. Which gets back to my assertion in my first post here that the problem here is mostly one of terminology. Catholics understand that yes, God leads us into deeper understanding of truth, but it is deeper understanding of truth that He has already revealed. Completely. In His Son.

It’s really logically inescapable–God is Truth, Truth becomes Man and gives all of Himself to us (Reveals all), therefore all Truth is Revealed. To deny it you must deny either that God is Truth, that God became Man in Jesus, or that Jesus gave all of Himself to us and by doing so Saved us.

So deny God, deny Jesus, or deny Salvation; you must do one of these if you are to claim that revelation was not complete in Jesus.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Yes, there is the difference between personal/private revelation and public revelation.

And terminology is ALWAYS an issue I’ve come to realize. On forums like this, you have to spell out certain words when talking to Evangelicals, Mormons, etc. The most popular word that I think needs defining is “God”. Also “revelation”, “word of God”, and “scripture”.

 

[Arandur]

Yes, there is the difference between personal/private revelation and public revelation.

And terminology is ALWAYS an issue I’ve come to realize. On forums like this, you have to spell out certain words when talking to Evangelicals, Mormons, etc. The most popular word that I think needs defining is “God”. Also “revelation”, “word of God”, and “scripture”.

Real philosophical discussions begin with definition of terms. Forums aren’t really the best place for truly deep philosophy, because posters understandably usually lack the time and attention to get through its many steps–for debate over definitions can last quite a while, definitions being premises with which one can take issue.

What is more efficient and worthwhile on forums is for people to explain what they mean in their definitions and compare and contrast, for the purpose of understanding positions. And then see whether people are being consistent with their logic flowing from their own definitions.

Defining terms is especially necessary with Smithian groups, since many of those terms that are fairly commonly understood among other Christians have been quite extensively redefined. Plus, there are a bunch of new terms in Smithian language, unique to it.

 

[ParkerD]

You misunderstood me, and you misunderstand Paul.

All those “hidden meanings” are there for everyone to discover. There is absolutely no exclusivity. Those “hidden meanings” are also IN Scripture–which has already been revealed. Indeed, ALL truth has been revealed in Jesus, who is God made man, Truth as a Person, the Word Incarnate. Yet since God is infinite, we will always be learning more and understanding more of that revealed truth. So while all truth has been revealed, we will spend eternity learning more of our loving God. The Spirit guides us as we seek greater understanding (of what was already revealed in Christ), and in particular it guides the Church, which is the Divine Institution Christ established to teach this truth.

You may call it “revelation” when you are led to a deeper understanding of truth, but you use the term in a manner different than the way Catholics use it. Which gets back to my assertion in my first post here that the problem here is mostly one of terminology. Catholics understand that yes, God leads us into deeper understanding of truth, but it is deeper understanding of truth that He has already revealed. Completely. In His Son.

It’s really logically inescapable–God is Truth, Truth becomes Man and gives all of Himself to us (Reveals all), therefore all Truth is Revealed. To deny it you must deny either that God is Truth, that God became Man in Jesus, or that Jesus gave all of Himself to us and by doing so Saved us.

So deny God, deny Jesus, or deny Salvation; you must do one of these if you are to claim that revelation was not complete in Jesus.

We surely do understand Paul’s and Christ’s and Peter’s teachings differently. One starts with the basics, yes, and no one is excluded from that opportunity. After that, the intent of “be ye therefore perfect” is that a person wants to know more, to learn how to have real faith–the kind that can move a mountain. But they aren’t going to want that if they are worried about being labeled a “gnostic” (there’s that fear-based theology at work) or worried about the label given to Adam and Eve, and the loss of the easy life in Eden.

So, yes indeed, we have different expectations arising from a whole different theology, and you folks will label me with all sorts of kindergartenish labels just to make yourselves feel good. You have the knowledge you want, and want no more. Fine, keep what you have, and run with it.

 

[dianaiad]

It seems that there are now more ex-Mormons than there are Mormons, and that the LDS church membership is shrinking, not growing.

According to the Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey the replacement rate of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has dropped to 80%. That means that for every four new converts who join the Church five members leave Mormonism behind .

Most of those who leave never bother to send a letter of resignation to SLC, and so they are still counted on the roles of the LDS organization. In foreign countries it is even worse. LDS missions outside the U.S. have convert retention rates between 5% and 20%. With most converts leaving after a few weeks or months and hundreds of thousands of BIC Mormons leaving the church every year, it is no wonder that wards are closing, stakes are consolidating, and the parking lots at most LDS wards are half-empty on Sunday morning.

The glee you are expressing at it may be misplaced. After all, in my town there have been no ward consolidations, the attendance at the meetings is much as it has always been, and there are 9 meeting houses where there used to be two.

And the Catholic church sold one of its two facilities and closed down the monastery.

Let’s look at this Pew Forum study. According to them,
Catholics attend church once or more a week…33%. Mormons do so at 44%. 13% of Catholics 'never attend," but only 4% of Mormons do.

Oh, here:

** “the importance of religion in one’s life.”**

Catholics think it is ‘very important’ at the rate of 56%.
Mormons think it is ‘very important’ at the rate of 83%. In fact, only the ‘historically black churches’ have a higher percentage than the Mormons do in this matter, at 85%.

35% of Catholics didn’t think that religion was very important at all, whereas only 13% of Mormons responded that way.

** Views on abortion.**

Abortion: legal in all cases:: Mormons, 8%. Catholics, 16 percent…
legal in most cases: Mormons, 19%, Catholics, 27%
Ilegal in most cases: Mormons, 61%, Catholics, 32%
Illegal in all cases: Mormons,9%, Catholics, 18%

Which means that a Mormon woman is about 35% LESS likely to get an abortion than her Catholic sister is.

Oh, how about divorce? After all, y’all have criticized us rather deeply because we allow it and Catholics don’t…but while Pew says that 3% of all Mormons are divorced or separated, 7% of Catholics are, and while 58% of Catholics are married, 71% of Mormons are.

Y’know, I’m enjoying this.

What else is in here?

Education.

36% of Catholics claim ‘some college education,’ whereas Mormons only have 30% who claim 'some college."

Of course, that’s because Mormons actually *graduate. * 21% of Catholics are college graduates, whereas 32% of Mormons are. In fact, no other faith in the study has a higher percentage of college graduates than Mormons do. Hmmn.

Ah. Here it is.

Member retention. According to Pew, 1 in 10 American adults who were raised Catholic eventually leave the church, while only 2.6 % of people who were raised something else become Catholic. That’s about 2 and a half people per hundred. ***You are losing members four times faster than you are gaining them. ***

Now according to this same study, that you claim such damning statistics for us in…oh, here. Let me quote from this source:

"Like all other religious traditions, Mormonism is simultaneously losing and gaining adherents due to religious change, but the net effect of these changes is small: Whereas 1.8% of the U.S. population says they were raised Mormon, 1.7% of the population says they are currently Mormon.

According to this study, the number of “childhood Mormons” who stick is within a percentage point of childhood Catholics who stick. The problem, of course, is that we get converts.

And you are…mostly not.

Here’s a fun one: to the question of **"Do you believe in God or a universal spirit? 100% of Mormons said 'yes…" the only group that did. Evangelicals and 'Historically Black Churches" come in at 99%, and Catholics follow up with 97%. Not bad…
**
Life after death? Mormons, 98%, Catholics, 77%

How certain ARE you about this?

Mormons, by far the group with the most faith, 88%…the next closest is the Evangelicals at 77%. Catholics creep in there at 45%.

**Is there a heaven? **

Mormons, 95%, (again, the group with the most faith in this) Catholics come in fourth at 82%.

80% of Mormons believe that** miracles** still occur today. only 47% of Catholics do.

13% of Catholics believe that religion causes more problems than it solves. 3% of Mormons believe that.

Here’s an odd one, given the guff I’ve been handed in here about how Mormons change with the politics…

68% of Mormons believe that they should ‘preserve traditional beliefs and practices’, but only 36% of Catholics do. 42% of Catholics believe that such traditions should be adjusted, and 15% think they should outright adopt new beliefs and practices. Whereas 23% of Mormons believe that traditional beliefs and practices should be adjusted, and only 3% believe that entirely new beliefs should be adopted.

76% of Mormons read scriptures outside of church services. 21% of Catholics do.

71% of Mormons 'feel a deep sense of spiritual peace and well-being." 47% of Catholics do.

91% of Mormon parents pray and read the scriptures with their children. 63% of Catholics do.

90% of Mormon parents send their kids to Sunday school or 'another religions education program," but only 51% of Catholics do, and Mormons don’t HAVE private grade and high schools in the USA.

Roughly a quarter of current Mormons (26%) are converts to the faith. This is a much higher proportion than among Catholics (11%) and Jews (15%)"

Finally, Paul, having gone through every one of the 210 pages of the current Pew U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, and having found all those fun statistics, here’s what I did NOT find: a statement that the 'replacement rate of the CoJCoLDS" has dropped to 80%.

Quite the contrary. I gave you the quote about that; unlike almost every other church in the USA, ESPECIALLY, please note, the Catholics, the membership of the CoJCoLDS is holding steady. The Catholics, however, are not.

The point of all this? Pretty simple, really…no Catholic can point a finger at those who leave Mormonism as evidence that the Mormons are not ‘true,’ because, well…if such a thing makes US 'untrue" then what does the far larger problems the Catholics have in this area mean to Catholicism?

From where I sit, I may be in a slightly leaky lifeboat, but you sir? Are laughing at me from your comfy seat on the Titanic.

 

[placido]

How come you’re leaving out all the good stuff that LDS folks are taught?
You know, all these incipid ramblings? (maybe you’re new to LDS and they haven’t laid all that on you…yet).

In the “LDS lingo” I would say, either he is new to Mormonism and was so far only fed with milk, or he is trying to feed us with milk while hiding the meat.

placido

 

[PaulDupre]

According to this study, the number of “childhood Mormons” who stick is within a percentage point of childhood Catholics who stick. The problem, of course, is that we get converts.

And you are…mostly not.

In fact, we get a great many converts. I am quite involved in our parish and attend all of the RCIA baptisms at Easter Vigil. Every year each of the 67 parishes in the diocese baptizes 20-45 converts (last year my parish baptized 29 converts, 31 the year before). Have you ever seen an LDS ward that gets more than 2 or 3 convert baptisms a year?

You have 50,000 full-time missionaries in the field. During a typical 2-year mission, a missionary will baptize between zero and two people (these days most baptize zero). We don’t knock on doors and we still baptize far more converts than you do.

And converts to Catholicism spend at least a year studying the faith and asking questions in a classroom setting, and after baptism they stick around. They don’t leave a few weeks or months later like LDS converts do.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Dare we forget this article that Mormon apologists attempt to “refute”:

sltrib.com/ci_2890645

**According to LDS-published statistics, the annual number of LDS converts declined from a high of 321,385 in 1996 to 241,239 in 2004. In the 1990s, the church’s growth rate went from 5 percent a year to 3 percent. **
**
On the question of how many Mormons are actively participating, Brigham Young University demographer Tim Heaton noted in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism that attendance at weekly sacrament meetings in the early 1990s was between 40 percent and 50 percent in Canada, the South Pacific, and the United States. In Europe and Africa, the average was 35 percent. Attendance in Asia and Latin America hovered around 25 percent. **

**“It is a matter of grave concern that the areas with the most rapid numerical membership increase, Latin America and the Philippines, are also the areas with extremely low convert retention,” says Stewart, a California physician. “Many other groups, including the Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses, have consistently achieved excellent convert retention rates in those cultures and societies. Latter-day Saints lose 70 to 80 percent of their converts, while Adventists retain 70 to 80 percent of theirs.” **

Yep, seems like all those converts you receive are…leaving.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Education.

36% of Catholics claim ‘some college education,’ whereas Mormons only have 30% who claim 'some college."

Of course, that’s because Mormons actually graduate. 21% of Catholics are college graduates, whereas 32% of Mormons are. In fact, no other faith in the study has a higher percentage of college graduates than Mormons do. Hmmn.

Before you gloat Dianaiad, you should check your statistics. The study actually gives these numbers: 21% of Catholics claim “some college education”, whereas 32% of Mormons claim “some college education”.

Mormons actually graduate? Well according to the study, 16% of Catholics are college graduates, whereas 18% of Mormons are college graduates. Hmm, where’d all those “some college” people end up? 10% of both Catholics and Mormons are in the “post-grad” category.

Oh and Eastern Orthodox, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, (as well as atheists and agnostics), all have higher percentages of college grads than Mormons. Hmmm check your facts.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Yep, seems like all those converts you receive are…leaving.

Just wanted to mention that that is fact–anything “gleeful” about it is in the minds of the certain LDS who imagine it. As a matter of fact, the LDS quite regularly imagine “persecution against them” where none exists.

 

[Arandur]

We surely do understand Paul’s and Christ’s and Peter’s teachings differently. One starts with the basics, yes, and no one is excluded from that opportunity. After that, the intent of “be ye therefore perfect” is that a person wants to know more, to learn how to have real faith–the kind that can move a mountain. But they aren’t going to want that if they are worried about being labeled a “gnostic” (there’s that fear-based theology at work) or worried about the label given to Adam and Eve, and the loss of the easy life in Eden.

Where do Adam and Eve fit in?

I fail to see how you addressed my points in the slightest. I said that all has been revealed, and yet we have the quest of all eternity to plumb the depths of that revelation and understand it (God) better, come to love it (God) better.

Simple faith IS still “real” faith. You attempt to separate people of simple faith, like so many Jesus praises in the Gospels (while condemning the “learned” and the “wise,” which is quite a far cry from your praising of the search for secret knowledge, the opposite, in fact). You attempt to separate them from those who seek access to secret knowledge (the definition of “occult” by the way, which Scripture warns us away from, though with the Prostestant revivalism and Masonry of the time, Smith would have found fascinating). Your pattern is most recently scene in Scientology’s circles; the devil’s exclusionary trick practiced yet again, claiming that knowledge (and therefore POWER) is secreted and only granted access to the priveleged few.

This is one of the most disgusting and damnable of vile and heinous lies against God’s own Truth, one that has persisted unfortunately through most of human history.

You Smithians like to turn the phrase “God is not a respecter of persons,” and yet you propose exactly that.

God’s Truth is given equally to ALL. We seek it and understand it by varying degrees and are even called to seek it in varying degrees. God does not call an illiterate peasant man struggling to provide for his wife and ten children to seek knowledge of Him in the same way that He might call a single man with more luxury and more education to use those gifts. He does not grant that single man access to “secret knowledge” of Him. And He absolutely does not grant greater value to that man with luxury than that man with poverty by virtue of the single man’s more expansive knowledge. What a shameful thought–and yet that seems very much to be what you are saying the LDS position is.

No, God revealed ALL Truth in His Son, who IS Truth. It is for us to learn and love what He gave and sacrificed. Jesus held NOTHING back. He certainly did not keep essential secrets only for those who were most privileged.

So, yes indeed, we have different expectations arising from a whole different theology, and you folks will label me with all sorts of kindergartenish labels just to make yourselves feel good.

The gnostic and occult labels are accurate and are shorthand. They signify and call to mind the whole body of arguments and dispute against the gnostics in early times and through all ages, while also signifying and calling to mind the admonitions against the occult in Scripture and Tradition.

You have the knowledge you want, and want no more. Fine, keep what you have, and run with it.

Whereever did you get this idea? What even do you mean?
We have a great body of knowledge and depth of understanding gained and taught through the ages within the Church and kept, treasured, in the Deposit of Faith. We always and constantly seek ever more knowledge and understanding of God, greater depths of comprehension of what He has revealed to us, and we acknowledge that it is an infinite truth. We rightly yearn and thirst to understand more of that infinite truth, and thanks be to God He sent the Spirit to guide us into it, granting us even a check against error by that Divine promise and Institution.

What we reject is the idea that God did not reveal Himself to us in Christ. What we reject is the idea that we must buy our way, through word or deed or even rite of ordination, into some inner circle of secret knowledge. What we reject is the idea that some prophet would come along greater than God Himself who is Jesus Christ, or that God left something out that was essential to our salvation and has, therefore, damned us. What we reject is the idea that God’s love is conditional and limited, so that He would withhold Himself from us even after He Redeemed us, denying our own pursuit of Him.

You can keep seeking after secret knowledge, but know that the only keeper of secrets is the Prince of Lies. If you do not seek after him directly, how vulnerable you make yourself by your open eagerness to seek his instruments (secrets) rather than Christ’s (unconditional Love and Truth)!

 

[placido]

Mormons believe in something called “Outer Darkness”, where the Sons of Perdition go. Very few people end up here. In contrast, the Telestial Kingdom of Heaven is where "Those who on earth are liars, sorcerers, whoremongers, and adulterers …

… and maybe the cursed, the black-skinned like myself. The God of Mormonism looks at my skin color and screams “hey, you are too black for this side of heaven, go that side”.
Yes, I tried to live a righteous life but my skin remains black, contrary to the teaching of Joseph Smith.

placido

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

… and maybe the cursed, the black-skinned like myself. The God of Mormonism looks at my skin color and screams “hey, you are too black for this side of heaven, go that side”.
Yes, I tried to live a righteous life but my skin remains black, contrary to the teaching of Joseph Smith.

placido

Same Try as I might, I’m not becoming white and delightsome, I’m still black and loathsome.

And of course, apparently Heavenly Father is also a white male, so (let’s not even think about the logical ramifications of that)…

 

[dianaiad]

In fact, we get a great many converts. I am quite involved in our parish and attend all of the RCIA baptisms at Easter Vigil. Every year each of the 67 parishes in the diocese baptizes 20-45 converts (last year my parish baptized 29 converts, 31 the year before). Have you ever seen an LDS ward that gets more than 2 or 3 convert baptisms a year?

You have 50,000 full-time missionaries in the field. During a typical 2-year mission, a missionary will baptize between zero and two people (these days most baptize zero). We don’t knock on doors and we still baptize far more converts than you do.

And converts to Catholicism spend at least a year studying the faith and asking questions in a classroom setting, and after baptism they stick around. They don’t leave a few weeks or months later like LDS converts do.

Paul, you don’t, according to the Pew study.

See, that’s the problem with doing research and attempting to make claims like the ones you made about the Mormons, citing a study that is readily available. People might actually go look at the study.

…and you are now in a bit of a pickle, attempting to have this both ways. You are using the Pew study to substantiate claims that are, quite frankly, not substantiated by that study, and now you are making claims for your faith that are flatly contradicted by that same study.

I can only think that you got your information, not from the Pew study itself, but from some site that pretended to refer to it. After all, this was a pretty bone-headed stunt, and that’s not your style, ordinarily.