Is Mormonism a Polytheistic religion?

[lax16]

Lax16,

As you know, Greek was a language of translation of the original documents that became the compiled New Testament, so of course there are very religious words that have an origin in the Greek language, such as “Christ” meaning “anointed One”. This ties directly to Isaiah 61:1, which would of course have been written originally in Hebrew.

So it okay to listen to the Greeks when they are using religious words?

I** have no problem using Greek words that are in the KJV Bible as Biblical words to convey Biblical meanings to a reader**, or Hebrew derivation words or Latin derivation words. If one traces the root source back to Greek philosophy, as differentiated from the Biblical translation coming from a Greek written language thus using Greek-origin words such as “Christ”, then that is a different root source.

Your earlier post said:

I not only don’t come from that background in my thinking about God and His purposes for the creation of this earth and of the heavens, but I happen to know that that background is false as to truths pertaining to religion or pertaining to God. So, the “either or” word for you is not the “either or” situation for me. Further, Greek philosophy is exactly the foundation that is tied to the apostasy, so of course that foundation does not lead to an “either or” situation for truth in simple words.

You won’t find the word “polytheism” in the Bible, at all, nor the word “monotheism”.

Nor the Book of Mormon or angel Moroni…

Yes, he was a Greek philosopher, and if one studies philosophy, they will certainly study the writings of Socrates.

So, it’s okay to study Greek philosophy??

No, I am saying that that verse (John 17:22) contains the exact meaning that is being described by the Latter-day Saint beliefs about becoming “one with God”, so if you can’t compress that meaning into one word, then you haven’t approached understanding the Latter-day Saint belief by using a word that means something distinctly different than the compressed meaning of that verse.

Parker, how does this tie in to men and women needing to get married so that they can become gods and goddesses?
Jesus never said anything of the sort.
And if all of the devout LDS men and women (or even just one) become gods and goddesses, you do realize that means that there is more than one God in the universe?

Hebrew.

What Christian sects spoke Hebrew?

 

[lax16]

Parker - You forgot this one:

Your Quote:
They are self-existing. Answer, then, is “no one.”

My Question:
If God’s parents are self-existing, then they are the beginning. Were they gods?
Don’t you believe that God was once a man?

 

[KathleenGee]

Cal,

As a Catholic, you can’t look at the Bible as stand alone. You can’t look at a Church as a stand alone. You can’t look at practices and their effects on their members as standing alone.

When you look at a religion, you have to take into perspective of the whole, be it Scripture, the Church, its members and practices and how everything relates to one another.

Our essence as Catholics is communion…being in Christ with each other, knowing each other in Christ…the deeper one goes, the more experiences communion.

When you deny real experiences of spiritual abuse–doesn’t matter the Church, it is abusing the person again, saying their experience doesn’t count…

A film documentary school at UCLA talked about witness. When you hear one or two or up to even 9 or 10 people speaking about a common experience, it is still specific to that particular group and no one else.

But when there is documented evidence of over 10 people having the same kind of experience, then there is some thing systematic going on by this former association entity.

Defense lawyers know the weakness of victims. Victims have lost their life source; now part of them is forever gone. They fragment, and victims are the worst defenders of themselves. So the defense lawyers use their brokenness to destroy any credibility they have remaining.

Yes, I hear former Mormons, and I hear the same story. Just thought I would add.

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Jim,

You believe Mormonism denies that Father & Son are one in essence and nature. And when you say “nature” in this context, you don’t mean character, you mean essence. Is that right?

I think there’s a disconnect of communication somewhere between you, Joseph, and me. I’m trying to fish it out here. :juggle:

Did you read the following quote of Joseph?:
“Each God in the Godhead is a personage, separate and distinct from each of the others, yet they are ‘One God,’ meaning that they are united as one in the attributes of perfection. For instance, each has the fullness of truth, knowledge, charity, power, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith.”

In my mind, when Joseph lists the attributes of perfection, he is describing the essence that makes Father & Son one. If that’s not His essence, what is it?

God’s essence is divine, as opposed to human, or angelic, both of which are in the category of “creature”, as opposed to Creator. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are divine, have always been divine and will always be divine, without beginning or end. Mankind is a creature, with a beginning, whose nature is human, as opposed to divine. This is the basis of disagreement between the Mormon view of the nature of God and the Christian view. The Mormons believe we are all made of the same “stuff”, both God and man. There is no separation between the Creator and the created insofar as “essence” or “being” is concerned.

The only difference between God and us, in the Mormon view, is the level of progression and exhaltation. The only “unity” between the Persons of the Godhead is in purpose and will, not in essence or being, because, in their view, there is no difference is essence or being. You and I could be (and very well may be) united in purpose and will, just by being Christian. Indeed, we are “one” simply in our humanity. But we could never refer to ourselves as “one” in the Christian sense of the Trinity. There is only one divine being and we refer to that one divine being as God. And the nature of that God is that He is not solitary, but consists of three divine Persons, distinct in relationship with each other, yet remaining one divine being. We do not pretend to understand this with our human minds, yet it has been revealed to us by God, so we believe it. From the human perspective it remains a “mystery”.

In the Christian view, God will always be divine and we will always be human, even in our glorified, resurrected state. We will be glorified humans, not gods. We share in divinity by sharing in the inner most life Trinity, not by becoming “gods” who rule over their own worlds with their own “spirit children” who worship them as we worship our God. They have bought into the first lie ever told to mankind in the garden.

 

[BrotherJohn7]

Hi Cal,

Yes, some posters here are former “Mormons” and they spit bile with every breathe they take. Be careful where you step for they have not, yet, discovered the true essence of their Christianity as no true Christian would speak as they do.

They are consumed with hatred, working through their own issues and do not trust the Lord to guide us, but rather feel - as does Satan - an overwhelming desire to attempt, by force, to impose their point of view on us by any means necessary.

What they say makes nothing so.

I have discovered some good people here. I have also discovered a den of vipers.

All the best to you - John

Hi, Cal . . .

Some posters on this thread are former Mormons.

I hope you will enjoy CAF.

Jim Dandy

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Cal,

Yes, some posters here are former “Mormons” and they spit bile with every breathe they take. Be careful where you step for they have not, yet, discovered the true essence of their Christianity as no true Christian would speak as they do.

They are consumed with hatred, working through their own issues and do not trust the Lord to guide us, but rather feel - as does Satan - an overwhelming desire to attempt, by force, to impose their point of view on us by any means necessary.

What they say makes nothing so.

I have discovered some good people here. I have also discovered a den of vipers.

All the best to you - John

I am not a former Mormon. I am very aware that ex-anythings can hold biases and ill feelings against their former faith tradition and are often not the best place to gather information about the faith they have left. However, for the great majority of posts from former Mormons on this forum, I have yet to find anything they have said that has not been said officially by the Mormon church, or that is not taught in the everyday business of the church. You may have an ex-Catholic that states that he was taught to worship statues or was never taught anything about Jesus because the Church always concentrated on Mary. This could never be substantiated by Catholic teaching. I have not found this same thing with ex-Mormons. They, almost always, back their claims up with statements from the LDS Church leadership rather than making off the cuff remarks.
I have yet to find a comment that cannot be substantiated from the horse’s mouth.

What I have found instead, in the wake of much tap dancing by Mormon posters, is that they just won’t let them get away with the double-speak and hold them to task on their Church’s own teachings. Big difference.

 

[rock17]

ParkerD, If one where to look at Greek Mythology and Mormonism and the Dieties they would find in common the fact that there are mother and father gods and they have imortal children. i see many similarites between you and the Greeks you seem to oppose so strongly.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi Jim,

You believe Mormonism denies that Father & Son are one in essence and nature. And when you say “nature” in this context, you don’t mean character, you mean essence. Is that right?

I think there’s a disconnect of communication somewhere between you, Joseph, and me.

catholic.com/library/Gods_of_the_Mormon_Church.asp

 

[NewSeeker]

ParkerD, you said:

…those words come from Greek philosophy and Greek thinking and the Greek mindset… I not only don’t come from that background in my thinking about God and His purposes for the creation of this earth and of the heavens, but I happen to know that that background is false as to truths pertaining to religion or pertaining to God… Further, Greek philosophy is exactly the foundation that is tied to the apostasy…

In your view, which Greek philosophies and which Catholic doctrines are linked? Surely you see some value, at least, in Aristotle’s metaphysics. That system, through Aquinas, is the best means to combat the hypermaterialsm and religious loathing of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris, et al). If not Aristotle’s metaphysics (which didn’t have much of an impact on Catholic thought until Aquinas, anyway), then which Greek philosophical concepts are you referencing? How were those philosophies transmitted into Catholic teaching and by whom? I’ve heard this assertion before (from Mormons who were citing Protestants), but have yet to hear anyone actually make a good case in its defense by actually citing Greek philosophical texts. I’m interested in any info you can provide explicating those linkages as you see them (maybe in a new thread?). Thanks.

NS

 

[SteveVH]

ParkerD, you said:

In your view, which Greek philosophies and which Catholic doctrines are linked? Surely you see some value, at least, in Aristotle’s metaphysics. That system, through Aquinas, is the best means to combat the hypermaterialsm and religious loathing of the New Atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, Dennet, Harris, et al). If not Aristotle’s metaphysics (which didn’t have much of an impact on Catholic thought until Aquinas, anyway), then which Greek philosophical concepts are you referencing? How were those philosophies transmitted into Catholic teaching and by whom? I’ve heard this assertion before (from Mormons who were citing Protestants), but have yet to hear anyone actually make a good case in its defense by actually citing Greek philosophical texts. I’m interested in any info you can provide explicating those linkages as you see them (maybe in a new thread?). Thanks.

NS

New Seeker, the following is taken from an Ensign article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks entitled “Apostasy and Restoration”:

**"We maintain that the concepts identified by such nonscriptural terms as ‘the incomprehensible mystery of God’ and ‘the mystery of the Holy Trinity’ are attributable to the ideas of Greek Philosophy. These philosophical concepts transformed Christianity in the first few centuries following the deaths of the Apostles. For example, philosophers then maintained that physical matter was evil and the God was a spirit without feelings or passions. Persons of this persuasion, including learned men who became influential converts to Christianity, had a hard time accepting the simple teachings of early Christianity: an Only Begotten Son who said he was in the express image of his Father in Heaven and who taught his followers to be one and he and his Father were one, and a Messiah who died on a cross and later appeared to his followers as a resurrected being with flesh and bones.

The collision between the speculative world of Greek philosophy and the simple, literal faith and practice of the earliest Christians produced sharp contentions that threatened to widen political divisions in the fragmenting Roman empire. This led Emperor Constantine to convene the first churchwide council in A.D. 325. The action of this council of Nicea remains the most important single event after the death of the Apostles in formulating the modern Christian concept of deity. The Nicene Creed erased the idea of the separate being of the Father and Son by defining God the Son as being of ‘one substance with the Father.’"** (Ensign, May, 1995)

I have never heard the idea that Christians believe physical matter is evil and that we believe that God is devoid of feelings and passions. Indeed, we believe just the opposite; that God’s creation is inherently good because he created it. When we observe the life of Christ one cannot come to the conclusion that God is devoid of feelings and passions. We believe in a God who is love and shows great mercy to his sons and daughters.

As for the “the idea of the separate being of the Father and Son” being erased, there is no evidence in the early Church of anyone believing that they are separate beings that was not condemned as a heretic (the Mormons will argue that those heretics were the true Christians, of course). The idea of the Trinity, of one God in three persons, is found throughout the wrtings of the Early Church Fathers.

Anyway, I thought Mr. Oaks’ article was a pretty good summation of their beliefs in this area.

 

[Cal_Fullerton]

Jim Dandy & SteveVH,

I read the first 33% of Jim’s link & all of Steve’s comments.

I am aware of the “doublethink”—the differences between the Book of Mormon and certain LDS teachings. The Book of Mormon is far more pure than other LDS publications.
I also see some discrepancies between what the Bible teaches and what Baptists and Methodists and Episcopals and charismatics teach. We are all in a learning process during this life. We make mistakes, we get distracted, we get deceived along the way by the demons who are always seeking to impose their “truths” on us. Our minds are not going to be totally renewed during this life.
But as long as we are in Christ by faith, as long as He is our Lord, as long as we walk in the light He has placed in our hearts, we are covered by Jesus Christ (the atonement).
The Corinthians, for example, were messed up in many areas and Paul corrects them in no uncertain terms. But when he addressed the church, he called them “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2), that is, set apart from the world.

I think you would agree with that.

So we’re back to asking, “What’s actually essential and what’s not?” If we stray from the Word of God in answering that question, then we will fall under the same judgment that we have judged the Mormons with, since they have strayed from the Word of God in many areas. (Don’t get me wrong! I’m not suggesting you two aren’t Christians! )

I’ll ask you what I asked some evangelicals on another blog. I asked them to show me at least two Bible verses that say you must do or believe a certain thing in order to be saved in this life or the next. Then find at least two quotations (I might accept just one) in an LDS publication that show clearly that the LDS does not teach that essential biblical doctrine you found.

The evangelicals didn’t even attempt to come up with such evidence. I think you get my point. Anyway, I’ll challenge you guys with the same.

If you can’t come up with any, then it may not be constructive to continue to hammer our points back & forth. :hammering:

The evidence I’ve collected is here.

I hope you’ll pray about this, think about it, listen to the Lord, etc. It may take time. It took many years for God to get through to me. It’s hard to change your thinking, especially when you’ve believed a certain way for a long time.
Even if you never see it, I’ll love you guys in the Lord anyway!

 

[lax16]

New Seeker, the following is taken from an Ensign article by Elder Dallin H. Oaks entitled “Apostasy and Restoration”:

"We maintain that the concepts identified by such nonscriptural terms as ‘the incomprehensible mystery of God’ and ‘the mystery of the Holy Trinity’ are attributable to the ideas of Greek Philosophy. These philosophical concepts transformed Christianity in the first few centuries following the deaths of the Apostles. For example, **philosophers **then maintained that physical matter was evil and the God was a spirit without feelings or passions. Persons of this persuasion, including learned men who ****became influential converts to Christianity, had a hard time accepting the simple teachings of early Christianity: an Only Begotten Son who said he was in the express image of his Father in Heaven and who taught his followers to be one and he and his Father were one, and a Messiah who died on a cross and later appeared to his followers as a resurrected being with flesh and bones.

The collision between the speculative world of Greek philosophy and the simple, literal faith and practice of the earliest Christians produced sharp contentions that threatened to widen political divisions in the fragmenting Roman empire. This led Emperor Constantine to convene the first churchwide council in A.D. 325. The action of this council of Nicea remains the most important single event after the death of the Apostles in formulating the modern Christian concept of deity. The Nicene Creed erased the idea of the separate being of the Father and Son by defining God the Son as being of ‘one substance with the Father.’" (Ensign, May, 1995)

SteveVH - thanks for posting this. It is always interesting to read the LDS viewpoint on things.

Are there any references for these claims in the article?

These are very strong accusations and Dallin Oaks paints the early Church with a very broad brush, and yet does he cite the names of these philosophers and influential converts?
What historal documents did he use to write this article?

 

[SteveVH]

Jim Dandy & SteveVH,

I read the first 33% of Jim’s link & all of Steve’s comments.

I am aware of the “doublethink”—the differences between the Book of Mormon and certain LDS teachings. The Book of Mormon is far more pure than other LDS publications.
I also see some discrepancies between what the Bible teaches and what Baptists and Methodists and Episcopals and charismatics teach. We are all in a learning process during this life. We make mistakes, we get distracted, we get deceived along the way by the demons who are always seeking to impose their “truths” on us. Our minds are not going to be totally renewed during this life.
But as long as we are in Christ by faith, as long as He is our Lord, as long as we walk in the light He has placed in our hearts, we are covered by Jesus Christ (the atonement).
The Corinthians, for example, were messed up in many areas and Paul corrects them in no uncertain terms. But when he addressed the church, he called them “sanctified in Christ Jesus” (1 Cor. 1:2), that is, set apart from the world.

I think you would agree with that.

So we’re back to asking, “What’s actually essential and what’s not?” If we stray from the Word of God in answering that question, then we will fall under the same judgment that we have judged the Mormons with, since they have strayed from the Word of God in many areas. (Don’t get me wrong! I’m not suggesting you two aren’t Christians! )

I’ll ask you what I asked some evangelicals on another blog. I asked them to show me at least two Bible verses that say you must do or believe a certain thing in order to be saved in this life or the next. Then find at least two quotations (I might accept just one) in an LDS publication that show clearly that the LDS does not teach that essential biblical doctrine you found.

The evangelicals didn’t even attempt to come up with such evidence. I think you get my point. Anyway, I’ll challenge you guys with the same.

If you can’t come up with any, then it may not be constructive to continue to hammer our points back & forth. :hammering:

I am assuming that your list of essentials in being a Christian is “as long as we are in Christ by faith, as long as He is our Lord, as long as we walk in the light He has placed in our hearts, we are covered by Jesus Christ (the atonement).” Maybe you can show me where that list is in scripture. I’ve never seen it.

I won’t speak for Jim, but as a Catholic I am required to believe in all that Holy Mother Church teaches, not one or two “essentials”. The reason you can’t find these “essentials” in the Bible is because they are not there. That is why Christ founded a Church. It is in his Church that we find salvation because it is in his Church that we find him, proclaim him as Lord, and walk in his light.

The topic of this thread is whether or not Mormonism is a polytheistic religion. They will readily state that they believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are separate and distinct gods. On that basis alone, they are polytheistic. They will try to avoid this reality by stating that they don’t “worship” Jesus or the Holy Spirit, but rather the Father, therefore they are monotheistic. Now they run into the problem of not worshiping Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Their foundational beliefs begin to snowball until those beliefs become unrecognizable as “Christian”. To reach out in some effort of political correctness by stating some vague notion of what it means to be Christian and then trying to fit them into that notion does no one any good. It avoids truth.

I hope you’ll pray about this, think about it, listen to the Lord, etc. It may take time. It took many years for God to get through to me. It’s hard to change your thinking, especially when you’ve believed a certain way for a long time.
Even if you never see it, I’ll love you guys in the Lord anyway!

Your remarks here are a little condescending, don’t you think? Hopefully, some day we can become just as enlightened as you, once we change our thinking and break free of the faith we have believed in for such a long time.

 

[KathleenGee]

Cal,

Totally support SteveVH’s response here to you. There is this ongoing problem with language. I worked in a foreign language with those whose mother tongue was something else…Plus we had 3 native languages in our diocese (local church). I was very activein this multicultural community, but a sole native English speaking person. I was always translating simple every day customs and word usage, pretty fatiguing…came home and did 5th year work in language studies, 1 quarter in Grad. School Linguistics, both at the University of Washington, my alma mater.

The universal Catholic faith is based on the Apostles’ witness of Jesus Christ. Our worship is the same as at the beginning. Our same teachings, beliefs, practices are the same in intent, spirit, and tone for 2,000 years. This constancy of faith is one of the signs of truth, because it is the Holy Spirit Who is guiding the Church, it is Christ Himself Who heads the Church – a living temple akin to being itself a sacrament.

The Bible is open to interpretation. Human beings are inclined to this fight of flesh vs spirit that can lend itself to leading us to Babel and confusion. Christ has protected us and preserved us in sacred communion through the the seat of Peter and the Apostles in our episcopal form of governing based on the Jewish model, the forming of the books of the Bible that called upon the involvement of many people as well as the Apostles, a process that took many, many years. With that, we have had a definition of faith or creed found in the early Apostles Creed, further defined at the Council of Nicea.

If you study the lives of the saints, you will see how many were imbued with the Holy Spirit and God’s graces worked through them, bearing the same kind of fruits as the Catholic Charismatic movement, and the general Charismatic movement that crosses denominational lines.

These days it is hard for alot of people to become Catholic because if they do so, they also have to embrace discipline, form themselves in unity which requires alot of patience, ongoing catechesis. Some problems can take years to correct. We focus more on the will of God coupled with self denial so Christ can enter in…It is a matter of being faithful to our ordinary daily duty, where the will of God resides.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH - thanks for posting this. It is always interesting to read the LDS viewpoint on things.

Are there any references for these claims in the article?

These are very strong accusations and Dallin Oaks paints the early Church with a very broad brush, and yet does he cite the names of these philosophers and influential converts?
What historal documents did he use to write this article?

He cites a book “Are Mormons Christians?”, by Stephen E. Robinson and the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism”. Other than that, there are no reference materials relating to his comments on this subject. And no, he does not cite the names of the philosophers and influencial converts. Surprised?

 

[lax16]

He cites a book “Are Mormons Christians?”, by Stephen E. Robinson and the “Encyclopedia of Mormonism”. Other than that, there are no reference materials relating to his comments on this subject. And no, he does not cite the names of the philosophers and influencial converts. Surprised?

No, I am not.
A Mormon apologist and the Encyclopedia of Mormonism - it helps when talking in circles.

Funny, the article by Dallin Oaks is strikingly similar to the online writings of Stephen E. Robinson…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_E._Robinson

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Cal Fullerton wrote (in part):

I’ll ask you what I asked some evangelicals on another blog. I asked them to show me at least two Bible verses that say you must do or believe a certain thing in order to be saved in this life or the next. Then find at least two quotations (I might accept just one) in an LDS publication that show clearly that the LDS does not teach that essential biblical doctrine you found.

The evangelicals didn’t even attempt to come up with such evidence. I think you get my point. Anyway, I’ll challenge you guys with the same.

If you can’t come up with any, then it may not be constructive to continue to hammer our points back & forth.

Hi Cal,

Do you know that in the fourth century after her founding by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings (written during the first Christian century), canonized them, and named them the New Testament? In the very same Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage III (397) and IV (419), the Church also canonized (or reaffirmed) 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named Tá Biblia, the Bible. In summary, the Catholic Church wrote, canonized, and named the NT, canonized and named the OT, and compiled and named the Bible. She was a very old lady at the time. Christ didn’t leave us a book; He left us the Catholic Church as our teacher. The Church produced the book, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Proof-texting, which you are asking of us, is strictly a Protestant ploy. The Bible has to be read holistically, and in context, to be understood. The context in which the NT was written was the heart of the living, believing, teaching Catholic Church.

The idea of the “Bible Only” dates from the 16th century. The Bible doesn’t teach it.

We’re off topic here. Back to polytheism. I will assume that you read only 33% of the link I posted, which explains the multiple gods of Mormonism, because you weren’t interested in the subject. Which causes me to wonder why you chose to participate in this thread. Perhaps you’ll explain.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Cal,

Do you know that in the fourth century after her founding by Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings (written during the first Christian century), canonized them, and named them the New Testament? In the very same Councils of Rome (A.D. 382), Hippo (393) and Carthage III (397) and IV (419), the Church also canonized (or reaffirmed) 46 writings of the Greek Septuagint she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles and named them the Old Testament. Her entire collection of sacred Scripture she named Tá Biblia, the Bible. In summary, the Catholic Church wrote, canonized, and named the NT, canonized and named the OT, and compiled and named the Bible. She was a very old lady at the time. Christ didn’t leave us a book; He left us the Catholic Church as our teacher. The Church produced the book, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Proof-texting, which you are asking of us, is strictly a Protestant ploy. The Bible has to be read holistically, and in context, to be understood. The context in which the NT was written was the heart of the living, believing, teaching Catholic Church.

The idea of the “Bible Only” dates from the 16th century. The Bible doesn’t teach it.

We’re off topic here. Back to polytheism. I will assume that you read only 33% of the link I posted, which explains the multiple gods of Mormonism, because you weren’t interested in the subject. Which causes me to wonder why you chose to participate in this thread. Perhaps you’ll explain.

Peace be with you, Jim Dandy

Nicely done.

 

[lax16]

But as long as we are in Christ by faith, as long as He is our Lord, as long as we walk in the light He has placed in our hearts, we are covered by Jesus Christ (the atonement).

Cal - If this is all it takes, then why send LDS missionaries by the tens of thousands, out into (usually Catholic areas of) the world?

As long as there are LDS missionaries knocking on doors, there will be Catholics like SteveVH and Jim Dandy to speak the truth about the One True Church started by Jesus Christ Himself.

After all, Catholics are missionaries too!

 

[Stephen168]

…But as long as we are in Christ by faith, as long as He is our Lord, as long as we walk in the light He has placed in our hearts, we are covered by Jesus Christ (the atonement)…I’ll ask you what** I asked some evangelicals** on another blog…

How long have you been Mormon?