How long should a faith carry the weight of their history?

[dianaiad]

And they call themselves Mormons.

And you call yourself a Protestant.

 

[dianaiad]

If Mormons are not Christians we don’t have to recognize them as Christians. They, on the other hand, can call themselves whatever they want, but it doesn’t make it true. That’s my point in a nutshell.

Della…

The problem here is ‘we.’ Remember, the ‘we’ in this subforum of CAF is everybody who participates in “non-Catholic religions…” and includes, well…me.

And I don’t agree with you.

The problem here is that you aren’t simply content with thinking that Mormons aren’t Christians. You are insisting that everybody agree with you–including me. You are telling me that I’m not a Christian, and expecting me to AGREE with you on that.

Turn this around. If I DID use the same definition you do…that is, a Christian is 'someone who believes as I do," or is “someone who is correct in his beliefs about Christ,” then I WOULD be telling you that I’m the Christian and you are not.

If I did that, would you calmly accept my declaration, and agree with me about it? Would you then, for the rest of your life, deny your own Christianity, because I, a Mormon–who you believe to be all wet about pretty much everything else–tell you that you aren’t a Christian?

Would you?

…then why do you expect me to do it? Why in the name of all that is wonderful do you expect me to agree with you that I am not a Christian, when I know from the bottom of my heart that I AM? Christ is the center of my faith, He is my Savior and my rock. I have a personal relationship with Him that centers me. To deny that I am a Christian would be to deny Him…and why you should expect me to take your word for it that I am not, when I think you are wrong on other things, is beyond me.

 

[PJM]

=Xavierlives;6036391]I think every world faith has a time in their history where, as a collective, things did not go exactly as their faith now believes (or practices).

Just a few examples I can think of are
Catholics - The Inquistion
Mormons - Polygamy
Jehovah’s Witnesses - the years 1914, 1925, 1975
Seventh Day Adventist - October 22, 1844
Southern Baptist - slavery
Muslims - extremist terrorism

So with this is mind, I am wondering the following

1. How long should a faith carry the baggage of their forefathers?

The answer to the OPQ is yes. Absolutely. Because what is true has to remain true.

1. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when considering converting?

***Certainly if placed in a proper context. So long as the issue [even an issue obviously in error] relates to PRACTICE, NOT Dogmatic THEOLOGY, not defined teaching, it has relevance of evidence of human error. We are after all human, prone to error. One MUST understand… "evil men do not necessarly equate to an “evil church.”

Church practice needs to be seperated from RELIGIOUS beliefs and teaching. They are not to be held on the same plane. ***

1. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when debating about the religion (even if the faith has renounced the contention)?

***Again I say yes. Human error is far different as it relates to practices than Dogmatic Theology, and Doctrinally defined beliefs.

One need not take pride in past errors, nor does one have to agree with them. We should however learn from past mistakes so as not to repeat them again.

We should always be aware that God remains always and everywhere in charge. God cannot cause evil, BUT does permit it for our POSSIBLE sactification and always for His Greater Glory.***

1. Are there faiths which has successfully done this?

***Most religions have overcome there past errors. It is the religions that continue in there erred ways that are higly suspect.

I would point out that several of the things you point out have a biblical foundation such as pologamy, slavery, even inquisitions [rooting out disitents]. Improper understanding of the Bible has beome an international norm ***

Love and prayers,

Pat

 

[Della]

Della…

The problem here is ‘we.’ Remember, the ‘we’ in this subforum of CAF is everybody who participates in “non-Catholic religions…” and includes, well…me.

And I don’t agree with you.

The problem here is that you aren’t simply content with thinking that Mormons aren’t Christians. You are insisting that everybody agree with you–including me. You are telling me that I’m not a Christian, and expecting me to AGREE with you on that.

Turn this around. If I DID use the same definition you do…that is, a Christian is 'someone who believes as I do," or is “someone who is correct in his beliefs about Christ,” then I WOULD be telling you that I’m the Christian and you are not.

If I did that, would you calmly accept my declaration, and agree with me about it? Would you then, for the rest of your life, deny your own Christianity, because I, a Mormon–who you believe to be all wet about pretty much everything else–tell you that you aren’t a Christian?

Would you?

…then why do you expect me to do it? Why in the name of all that is wonderful do you expect me to agree with you that I am not a Christian, when I know from the bottom of my heart that I AM? Christ is the center of my faith, He is my Savior and my rock. I have a personal relationship with Him that centers me. To deny that I am a Christian would be to deny Him…and why you should expect me to take your word for it that I am not, when I think you are wrong on other things, is beyond me.

LDS teachings are not Christian teachings. LDS is a heresy of Christianity. You and your relationship with Christ has nothing to do with this plain fact. I’m glad you have faith in Christ–he knows our hearts and what we intend. But, you cannot redefine the term Christian to fit your beliefs just because you’d like to think you are a Christian. I’m done discussing this. I have no animosity towards you or LDS people. I wish you all the best.

 

[Stephen168]

Getting away from Mormonism and back to the topic, my question about this is: **Why should any faith ever stop carrying the “weight” of their history? **The weight is part of this history. History is not just what happened in 325 AD or 451 AD or 1054 AD or even 1965 AD. It is the inheritance of every person who continues on in whatever faith tradition that they are in. We make it what it is, so if we suddenly decide that we want to ignore or soften or otherwise disavow this or that particular piece, it seems like abandoning the faith to avoid uncomfortable periods or events. This is not what the apostles or their disciples did. This is not what we should do either, if we care at all about continuing as an apostolic faith, as opposed to something generated from some new manipulation of that same history on the part of people who do not value or understand what they are defiling.

For instance, the first Crusade, as a justifiable call to the defense of the faith (in my personal opinion, anyway), is far more easy to digest than the fourth Crusade, with its abominable sack of Constantinople. Yet they are both a matter of historical record, and one should not forget the terrible events in order to emphasize only the good or noble. We can either face up to our history in both its good and bad points, or we can be cowards and hypocrites for the sake of making ourselves feel better. I’m not interested in the latter at all, personally. It does nobody any good.

I would agree. History is probably the number two non-faith based reason I have for being Catholic.

 

[Xavierlives]

And you call yourself a Protestant.

Well, I have identified myself as “protestant” but I have also said it is a more as an identifier to the Catholics on the Catholic Forums that I am not Catholic.

 

[dianaiad]

LDS teachings are not Christian teachings. LDS is a heresy of Christianity. You and your relationship with Christ has nothing to do with this plain fact. I’m glad you have faith in Christ–he knows our hearts and what we intend. But, you cannot redefine the term Christian to fit your beliefs just because you’d like to think you are a Christian. I’m done discussing this. I have no animosity towards you or LDS people. I wish you all the best.

"…and she is as a ship upon the sea,
sailing upon an expanse of clear water,
under a sky of clearest blue
Alone and sufficient unto herself

while the whole of life spins beneath her, unaware that she is unaware. "

I wish you and yours a Merry Christmas, Della.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, I have identified myself as “protestant” but I have also said it is a more as an identifier to the Catholics on the Catholic Forums that I am not Catholic.

How is that different? Catholic/not Catholic (but you picked the "Protestant’ label, remember, they didn’t and I didn’t).

 

[Xavierlives]

Part 1

You mean…they are set in the Constitution. Please do not confuse the Constitution with iron restraints. The Constitution is only effective, as the scriptures are only effective, if people actually pay attention to them.

You are talking to a lawyer. I think I understand the nature of Constitution. I can’t say I can predict with complete accuracy what they will rule from case to case, it is easy to see the framework and history they have established and I can see them approving any law of the sort. Therefore the only way to override them is an amendment. I don’t see the religious core accepting any religious restraints.

As to your dismissive referal to a “Mormon Holocaust…”
(and this is getting the thread back on topic, in a round about way…) While we certainly didn’t suffer a holocaust in the way that the Jews did in Germany, we most certainly DID suffer a diaspora event–nearly a 100 years AFTER the Constitution, with it’s First Amendment, was enacted. If you want to talk about a religion and its history…c’mon. There have only been two religions in the history of the world that were absolutely driven out of the nation in which they lived, and the Mormons are one of them. Good grief, man, it was just LAST YEAR that a Mormon politician was shut out of a run for the Presidency because of his RELIGION.

I was not dismissing anything. It was not even referencing the Mormon exodus. You had previously implied something to the effect that there would be a Mormon persecution if Christians were allowed to say that Mormons were not Christians, because our denial of you leads to our persecution of you. As you can attempt to prognosticate the Christian heart, I can presently deny.

It was in my lifetime that a Catholic was elected president…and that there was a huge controversy over why he should be…because one had never been elected before. There have been many, MANY instances of religious persecution against various groups, BY various groups, over the last 250 years, constitution notwithstanding.

You should likely fear the non-Christian not the Christian.

Do you really think that the last few decades mean anything in terms of the history of the world, especially when the prejudice and hatred keep popping up?

You can bet on the paper laws if you want to…but I’m more inclined to look at the way people work with those laws, and history proves that if there is a way around them that will allow them to act upon their prejudices, they will find it.

And I am more inclined to believe the prejudice of my parents is being buried and not resurrected.

Laws exist for a reason. They exist to control behavior. There is no law declaring that a human being may not hold his breath for an hour, is there?

That’s because it’s not possible for a human being to hold his breath for an hour. There need not be a law, because it would not be possible to violate one.

There is a law in Florida that say you can’t molest alligators. Most people recognize the inherent wisdom behind the law, but ever few years, one moron will actually be charged with the crime. So do you think the law is controlling everyone else from molesting alligators? No. They understand. The law is to punish the idiots who don’t lose an arm.

 

[Xavierlives]

Part 2

The very fact that we HAVE the Constitution, with the First Amendment, is tacit acknowledgement that people have, do, and will continue to violate the principles it protects. It is an agreement among people that here, in this time and in this place, we will behave ourselves.

But some don’t, and that’s why we attach consequences to the breaking of that agreement. There would be no need to declare jail terms for breaking a law–if nobody ever broke it.

So, my friend, the very fact that it is against the law to discriminate against people because of their religion is proof that people actually do discriminate against people because of their religion–else there would be no need of the law.

I’m not sure I get your point. We have the Constitution because our forefathers recognized the power of the government to wield against the individual. The Constitution is our protection against governmental oppression.

Moreover, discrimination is not a crime. Now, if someone is beating you up while saying, “I hate Mormons” then there is sometimes an enhancement because it is elevated to a “hate crime.”

Well, you guys certainly, in the history of your own churches, showed a great willingness to kick the chick out of the nest–and out of their homes, towns, states and even nations, using all manner of methods from mobbing to murder. So I suppose the analogy is apt.

Hasty generalization, much? I haven’t run anyone out of their home, town, or great state, ever.

The problem, for you, of course, is that while the cowbird may not be a blackbird, and may lay her eggs in the blackbird’s nest, the chick does not grow up to be a blackbird, or force the blackbird chicks to be cowbirds…and the point is, they are still, all, BIRDS.

No, the point is that cowbirds are not the blackbirds. Cowbirds are a parasitic brood that kills the offspring of the host. Cowbirds attempt to fool the host into believing they are the true offspring. Cowbirds want the blackbirds to believe that they are blackbirds. Some fall for it, but we all see, they are not blackbirds. They are cowbirds.

I see. So because we have a specific doctrine that says you must be baptized in the manner we approve of, and because we have the specific doctrine that Christ is the Way by which we are saved, and because certain specific things must happen in order to achieve, heaven, that we are not Christian?

How is that different from what the Catholics, or you, believe?

I cannot speak for the Catholics, but the way I read the Bible, there is not a mutually exclusive plan of salvation. I do not need to be “sealed” to be saved. I am sure there will be all Christian faiths represented.

But back to my point, I was saying, is if a Christian acknowledges Mormons as Christians they are denying Christianity.

Oh, trust me, their message is loud and clear. Their problem, most of them, is that they aren’t comfortable with the fact that I actually understand the message–and am not distracted by the code its wrapped in.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there value in recognizing faulty reasoning, but most people are not trained in argumentation and they speak from emotion. They are working from this emotional reasoning and 75% of the time their “faulty” reasoning could be modified. The problem is, you have been trained, or taught, or believe that you can scare or confuse them into giving up their arguments by complaining about their delivery.

 

[Xavierlives]

How is that different? Catholic/not Catholic (but you picked the "Protestant’ label, remember, they didn’t and I didn’t).

I picked it as a courtesy to them. If this was an LDS forum, I would put Christian to distinguish myself as a non-Mormon.

 

[Stephen168]

The problem is, you have been trained, or taught, or believe that you can scare or confuse them into giving up their arguments by complaining about their delivery.

Which is my point. Someone says, “everybody knows 1+1 is 2.” If she doesn’t like it, she will claim an ad populum fallacy. I see it with such regularity, I question if there has been any real training.

 

[Hesychios]

An institution will always bear that weight. What springs from it is it’s ‘fruit’.

If it denies it’s own past, it is breaking with itself and becoming something new. It cannot refer to it’s own antiquity and simultaneously try to forget what happened between then and now.

If nothing else this should humble us a bit.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I think every world faith has a time in their history where, as a collective, things did not go exactly as their faith now believes (or practices).

Just a few examples I can think of are
Catholics - The Inquistion
Mormons - Polygamy
Jehovah’s Witnesses - the years 1914, 1925, 1975
Seventh Day Adventist - October 22, 1844
Southern Baptist - slavery
Muslims - extremist terrorism

So with this is mind, I am wondering the following

1. How long should a faith carry the baggage of their forefathers?
2. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when considering converting?
3. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when debating about the religion (even if the faith has renounced the contention)?
4. Are there faiths which has successfully done this?

A religion shedding its past is like a serpent shedding its skin.

Protestants shed their skin whenever they split and form a new denomination. The new donomination can then say “That’s not us!” whenever the baggage of the history of the old denomination is talked about.

JW’s shed their skin when they shrug off their false prophecies, and recast their theology to fit the new circumstances of history. It helps the JW’s to have a steady supply of new, innocent converts who know nothing of JW history.

No faith can successfully shed its skin, although some faiths that do it manage to fool their members for a long time.

 

[ralphinal]

An institution will always bear that weight. What springs from it is it’s ‘fruit’.

If it denies it’s own past, it is breaking with itself and becoming something new. It cannot refer to it’s own antiquity and simultaneously try to forget what happened between then and now.

If nothing else this should humble us a bit.

Excellent point

 

[dianaiad]

Part 1

You are talking to a lawyer. I think I understand the nature of Constitution.

Then I shouldn’t have had to remind you of the many times the Constitution has been violated in the matter of freedom of religion and bigotry, should I?

I can’t say I can predict with complete accuracy what they will rule from case to case, it is easy to see the framework and history they have established and I can see them approving any law of the sort. Therefore the only way to override them is an amendment. I don’t see the religious core accepting any religious restraints.

Nobody likes it when the religious restraints are placed upon them. However, everybody seems to approve when those restraints are placed upon people they disaprove of/disagree with. For instance…remember last year, Texas and a certain compound full of polygamists? THAT has since been ruled to have been a rather pure case of religious bigotry and an abrogation of religious freedom…but that didn’t stop the Texas child protective services from invading the compound and kidnapping the mothers and the children (and transporting them on Baptist buses, no less…in hind sight, THAT was a really stupid PR move…). Even though almost every single case against that group has been either dismissed or overturned, Texas is STILL going after those people.

It happens all the time…and it starts with an attitude–it begins with the idea that someone is ‘other,’ and thus somehow deserves it.

I was not dismissing anything. It was not even referencing the Mormon exodus. You had previously implied something to the effect that there would be a Mormon persecution if Christians were allowed to say that Mormons were not Christians, because our denial of you leads to our persecution of you. As you can attempt to prognosticate the Christian heart, I can presently deny.

Xavier, with all due respect to your lawyerly self…(OK, perhaps Xavier hasn’t heard this story before, so any of you who have, just tune out for a moment…) that’s bunk. My thirteen year old daughter went into a “Sign of the Fish” Christian bookstore to buy a specific bible–a “Shakespeare” bible. Basically, it’s a KJV that is cross referenced to Shakespeares’ plays, showing how often he used the bible as a quote source. This was the only place we knew of that sold them (no internet at the time) .

The clerk saw that she was wearing a CTR ring (meaning…'choose the right") and knew that she was a Mormon by that. She physically shoved my daughter out of the store, , shouting “Mormons aren’t Christian and don’t belong in a Christian bookstore!”

I have been stoned. With real rocks…because I am a Mormon and thus didn’t belong in a Christian neighborhood. I have had good Christians tell me that I am damned because I am not a Christian. I keep, folded in the program for my husband’s funeral, the pamphlet that was put under the windshield wipers of everyone at the service telling me that the deceased was in hell and I would soon follow if I didn’t leave the devil Mormon church and become a Christian.

So pu-LEEZE don’t tell me that it doesn’t happen, hasn’t happened and won’t happen, because it has, does and will.

You should likely fear the non-Christian not the Christian.

There’s that “no true Christian…” thing again.

And I am more inclined to believe the prejudice of my parents is being buried and not resurrected.

Optimism is always nice, Xavier…and you are right in many ways. However, one of the reasons you ARE right is that when prejudice rears its ugly head, someone points it out. I’m pointing it out.

There is a law in Florida that say you can’t molest alligators. Most people recognize the inherent wisdom behind the law, but ever few years, one moron will actually be charged with the crime. So do you think the law is controlling everyone else from molesting alligators? No. They understand. The law is to punish the idiots who don’t lose an arm.

My point, precisely…there ARE idiots who molest alligators.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I think every world faith has a time in their history where, as a collective, things did not go exactly as their faith now believes (or practices).

Just a few examples I can think of are
Catholics - The Inquistion
Mormons - Polygamy
Jehovah’s Witnesses - the years 1914, 1925, 1975
Seventh Day Adventist - October 22, 1844
Southern Baptist - slavery
Muslims - extremist terrorism

So with this is mind, I am wondering the following

1. How long should a faith carry the baggage of their forefathers?
2. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when considering converting?
3. Is it acceptable for those issues to be brought up when debating about the religion (even if the faith has renounced the contention)?
4. Are there faiths which has successfully done this?

I suppose they carry the burden of explaining their obvious missteps as long as they claim they’re eternally protected from error by an invisible omnipotent and omniscient god (which I think all Christians do, in one way or the other).

While there may certainly be reasonable arguments against this view – IMHO this view is reasonable on its face (or you might say “obviously” reasonable); and thus the burden falls on the proponent of an infallible church (however it is you might define “church”) to explain why anyone should believe this claim.

 

[dianaiad]

Part 2

I’m not sure I get your point. We have the Constitution because our forefathers recognized the power of the government to wield against the individual. The Constitution is our protection against governmental oppression.

Didn’t help the Mormons in the mid 1800’s, did it? Didn’t help Smoot take his legally elected seat in Congress…and didn’t keep Texas from invading that compound and destroying lives and traumatizing children, either. It didn’t stop Boggs from issuing that Extermination Order (not rescinded until 1976) that made Mormons legal prey in Missouri…

SHOULD have, but didn’t.

Why didn’t it? Because Christians had this attitude that Mormons were ‘other…’ and the protections of the Constitution did not apply to them.

Moreover, discrimination is not a crime. Now, if someone is beating you up while saying, “I hate Mormons” then there is sometimes an enhancement because it is elevated to a “hate crime.”

Right. Tell that to the families who still haven’t moved back to their homes in Texas…and who, even though several appealate courts have ruled in their favor, have been told that they can’t leave the state without violating the law.

Give me a break.

Hasty generalization, much? I haven’t run anyone out of their home, town, or great state, ever.

I didn’t accuse you personally of doing this, as is evidenced clearly by 'you guys, in the history of your own churches…" or are you truly going to deny the historical proof of this absolute fact? There are a very few Christian denominations who have NOT been guilty of this, but most have. Catholics have. Most Protestants have…and by that, I mean that they have made it official policy to do so.

No, the point is that cowbirds are not the blackbirds. Cowbirds are a parasitic brood that kills the offspring of the host.

No, actually, they don’t. Certainly they don’t the blackbirds.

However, you are stretching that analogy into very uncomfortable areas…for you. Please notice; Mormons aren’t out killing people because we don’t like their religion. We leave that motive to others.

Cowbirds attempt to fool the host into believing they are the true offspring. Cowbirds want the blackbirds to believe that they are blackbirds. Some fall for it, but we all see, they are not blackbirds. They are cowbirds.

yep. Birds. Cowbirds are not blackbirds. Blackbirds are not cowbirds…but they are both birds, and you, my friend, need to do a little more natural history research. Cowbird and blackbird chicks do very well together in a nest.

In fact, in a blackbird nest, if it is a fight between who gets pushed out, it’s ALWAYS the cowbird chick.

Mormons are not Catholics. Catholics are not Protestants. Protestants are not Mormons or Catholics. But all three are Christian, because all three put Christ at the center of their belief system.

It does not make them all right. It does not make them all saved. It does not make them all perfect, or superior to all mankind, or more or less ‘cult,’ or anything else. It simply makes them all a part of that larger classification of belief: “Christian” as opposed to 'Hindu" or “Muslim” or “Budhist”–all of which I am sure have incredibly different opinions about what ‘Truth’ is among themselves.

 

[dianaiad]

part 3…(dang, this is getting long winded.)

I cannot speak for the Catholics, but the way I read the Bible, there is not a mutually exclusive plan of salvation. I do not need to be “sealed” to be saved. I am sure there will be all Christian faiths represented.

There you go…all “Christian” faiths—but no Mormons need apply? You certainly are proving my point well here. So many people interpret the bible so many different ways that I don’t think there are two Christians anywhere that share the same beliefs. Shoot, if belief in the Trinity IS the touch stone for Christianity, y’all are in a boat load of trouble, because I haven’t seen any two people who understand THAT the same way.

But back to my point, I was saying, is if a Christian acknowledges Mormons as Christians they are denying Christianity.

Not so. You are simply acknowledging that the word “Christian” doesn’t mean what you want to make it mean…and that it means both more, and less…than you think it does. The title encompasses all who put Christ at the center of their faith, and it does NOT confer salvation upon those who do. It is not a gold seal of approval/righteousness/correctness of doctrine. It is not a banner saying 'I’m going to heaven and you’re…not."

It’s simply a statement that, no matter what else one believes: correct, weird, wild, funny, strange, divine, graceful, graceless, peaceful, violent, uplifting, restrictive, prudent, impulsive, dedicated, casual–it doesn’t matter. You could be so far off the reservation that nobody could recognize you; if your beliefs revolve around Jesus of Nazareth, and you think you are Christian, then you are Christian.

Now you wouldn’t think that Gaelic, Pashtu, English, Croatian, Greek and Catalan would have much in common, would you? Certainly the speakers of one would not understand the speakers of another without actually learning the language–but tye are all members of the Proto-Indo-European language tree.

Mormons are not Catholic. We are not Baptists. We are not SDA. We don’t want to be. But we are Christians because we put Christ at the center of our faith.

Whether you like that or not. Come to think of it, as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we do something most of the rest of you do NOT do; we not only have Him in the center of our faith, we put Him first in the name of our church.

That may not make us correct, or saved…but it sure as the sky is blue in California means that we are Christians.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there value in recognizing faulty reasoning, but most people are not trained in argumentation and they speak from emotion. They are working from this emotional reasoning and 75% of the time their “faulty” reasoning could be modified. The problem is, you have been trained, or taught, or believe that you can scare or confuse them into giving up their arguments by complaining about their delivery.

The problem with the faulty delivery is that it is faulty reasoning that prompts it. If someone uses a “True Scot” fallacy, it’s because they think that the idea behind it is true, and that’s the problem. Logical fallacies aren’t illogical because of the words used to express them, they are false because the reasoning BEHIND them is false.

I don’t have a problem with speaking from emotion…in case you haven’t noticed, I get pretty passionate…but before I do that, I at least TRY to have a solid position to emotionally defend.

 

[bridgeforsale]

I wonder why we debate things like religion, or lack thereof? I wonder if anyone ever gave this question serious thought. The Mormons say they’re right, the Catholics say they’re right, and I claim everything religion is premised on is untrue. While it’s probably true that only one of us can be right, it’s also obvious that people entrenched in their views will not likely be persuaded by anyone to abandon them (it does happen, just not very often). My own views are becoming exceedingly more moderate, as I mature in them (I’ve come to the view that religion does perhaps benefit some if not many people, and the western framework of religiosity provides a sufficient balance between secular and religious interests).

But why do we bicker about it (maybe I should start a new thread on this, but it just crossed my mind so I thought I’d express it)? Surely American society is sufficiently saturated with religion that few are ignorant of the panoply of choices available to them. Moreover, I never see any conclusion to these discussions (I’ve never debated a Christian apologist to have them end by saying “I win” – even though I always believe I did – nor have I ever seen a Catholic say “hey buddy, you’re right, Mormonism sounds like the way to go”)

Maybe its an innate feature of our psychology?