LDS beliefs about Jesus Christ?

[pinay]

I believe that authority would belong to the only Christian church in existence for the first 1500 years of Christian history. The definition is ours by right. Neither the Arians nor any other heretical group that has raised its ugly head over the centuries were considered Christians, they were considered heretics. However even they were closer than the LDS who are not even considered heretics by the original Church, but rather a completely different religion altogether. This is due to the fact that they deny the very nature of God as revealed to the Church by Jesus himself. So it begins with a fundementally flawed theology from which the rest of the erroneous doctrines eminate. That is why the LDS cannot be considered “Christian”, in spite of the fact that Christian terms are used. They are only used to couch non-Christian dogmas.

But that’s what YOU believe.

Because, we believe that Jesus Himself appeared to Joseph Smith to correct the prevalent teaching.

I mean - you believe that Mary appeared to several people in Lourdes, France. That’s what YOU believe. I believe Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. That’s what I believe.

Doesn’t make anybody Christian or not-Christian…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

But that’s what YOU believe.

Because, we believe that Jesus Himself appeared to Joseph Smith to correct the prevalent teaching.

I mean - you believe that Mary appeared to several people in Lourdes, France. That’s what YOU believe. I believe Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. That’s what I believe.

Doesn’t make anybody Christian or not-Christian…

But I as a Catholic do not have to believe that BVM appeared at Lourdes, and I am still catholic. You as a LDS can not reject Christ appearing to JS and still be LDS. My fath is not based on the private revelations of one of the saint even if it is approved by the church. The whole of LDS Fatih is based on the private revelation of one man.

 

[KathleenGee]

Pinay,

Coming from generational Welsh Irish Catholic background…when I hear someone saying or implying certain things about Catholicism, while now joining such a religion as the Latter Day Saints…I would rather consider such a remark very compromised at least.

Mormonism is based on undocumented revelations by Joseph Smith that totally invalidated the dictates of early Christianity…of which I wrote out this am, and was lost…one of those early am times that I go back to sleep soon after.

I really cannot understand, with all your education, chose a religion such as Mormonism based on a dubious angel with a totally different message, the invalidation of Jesus Christ and His divinity, and its form of gnosticism. The Catholic Church has since its beginnings, sought the truth, and in time, the use and development of reason…St.Athanasius…

It even appears that a text called ‘The Manuscript’… a play on creating a new religion was copied and made into the Book of Mormon that after these past years, I doubt very much whether or not Smith even wrote it.

Furthermore, I see it so sad such divisions between Christianity that comes right down to the household…it is tragic, misinterpretations of the Word of God and Church destroy the solidifying faith of the families…and one convert I know goes so far to say that it is Protestantism…in spite of its protest against corruption in the Church at that time, was responsible for the breakdown of the family, divorce, manipulating the Word of God to support one’s new theology, contraception begun by the Anglicans in the 1930’s to its wide spread practice among Christians today, causing more adultery, more unwed mothers, and innocent lives lost through abortion or abuse.

The Catholic Church, more than any other religion, has put the greatest value on the family and the value of woman.

I would have to ask you why you would leave the Church, how you could believe in so many things about Mormonism that is stated here again and again…and I must admit I share your dear mother’s shoes…Mother Mary of Carmel is my companion to heaven…

There is such a beautiful prayer, Flos Carmeli…Flower of Heaven…

Fortunately, Arianism was defeated. Arianism is drawn from a certain philosophy, not from Jesus Christ. It is a philosophical Christ…denying His divinity…

Look at the context of the times…people were reciting the Apostles Creed…look at the belief system of this presbyter, Arius…dissenting his bishop…one person…a new theology based on one man…a man made belief, and not that on the living person of Jesus Christ.

This belief system you have embraced is a form of modern gnosticism…all based on hidden knowledge…not that of the Apostles and their successors.

Ancient religions were based on mysteries and deities and philosophies, but none on the living relationship of Jesus Christ. These mysteries however, had a common faith with Christianity…wanting something better this world as it is could not provide.

However the Catholic Church, laid down very clear morality and norms for the practices of its Christians–the permanency of marriage between one man and one woman, the condemnation of abortion and infanticide, greed and dishonesty in business, materialism and hedonism, double dealing and falsehood…this all reflected the detachment of the Christian from the world, and to depend on Christ’s strength. I cannot call any of this as a sign of any apostasy whatsoever.

Finally, Christians showed love and compassion to all they could serve in many ways. And it is still here. My own parish gives most of its contributions to non-Catholic people in need.

So what made you change to Mormonism…???

 

[KathleenGee]

I would see you, Pinay, as a real prize, coming from a devout Catholic family who put alot into providing you such an excellent education, to develop your mind and faith. faith…

Did you join for your husband? I say that because being married to a Filipino from the Islands, I have met a number of Filipinas who change faith to be with their husbands, including a number of Catholic women…and then the issue of financial security…and the pressure a non-Mormon gets to join their religion when having desire to marry a Mormon.

I think the mantra today is that LDS and the Catholic Church are pretty much the same.

How long was your theological preparation into Mormonism vs what you got in Catholicism???

Did you learn more about Mormonism after you were baptized…I am sure seeing the sophistry here, and the denial of many of their past beliefs, and the oblivion to documented history and fidelity to the message of Jesus Christ, I think there are those who guided you into thinking we are pretty much the same.

Arianism denied the divinity of Christ and using the term, Holy Trinity…a name the Church designated along with consubstantiation to describe or mean God the Father and Christ one and the same of substance…Divine.

Our God Jesus Christ was perfect and He revealed all who He is.

BTW, both my daughters uphold their virginity and chastity, and know a number of American Catholic parents whose children uphold the same…

 

[lax16]

Ah lax! This is a VERY VERY VERY good question!

Okay, there’s the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, right? Then there are other off-shoots of that church - like, Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints… etc… There’s quite a bit of them.

Back in the olden days - the general public started calling the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as Mormons - because they’re always handing out Book of Mormons… so they thought, yeah, it’s that Book of those them Mormons over there…

Anyway, the label stuck and everybody started calling the LDS church Mormons, even the members started calling themselves Mormons.

So then, the other off-shoots started calling themselves Fundamentalist Mormons, Reorganized Mormons, etc.

Unfortunately, due to the persecution that the church suffered (yea, in Missouri, you have constitutional protection to kill a Mormon until 1976, crazy, huh?), the term Mormon got a negative connotation attached to it.

So, the Church has been actively trying to promote the “correct” name of the Church. In the meantime, the name Mormon is still out there - so the Church is trying to slowly remove the negative connotation of the Mormon label. They tried to apply for a trademark for the name. It was approved internationally but the application in the US got denied because the name is too generic to be trademarked.

So, what the Church is now trying to do is to present the label Mormon in a positive light through ads (yeah, you probably have heard it before - I’m blah-blah-blah and I’m a Mormon…).

But, then things like Warren Jeffs splashes on the news and he is called Mormon. And a survey sent out showed that more than 50% of Americans believe Warren Jeffs is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So, the church issued a request to the news sources to make sure they either use the proper name of the Church - that is, Fundamentalist - and not just call them “Mormons”. So, while this news story was brewing, the news casters, started to add in the news cast - “not a part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” or something to that effect.

So, in direct answer to your question - there are a lot of different churches who are off-shoots of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who use the label Mormons. Some of these churches are polygamist churches. But no, they are not members of the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamists are ex-communicated from that church.

Pinay - the reason they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is because **they do not fit the definition of a member **- they still practice polygamy. It is not what they think a Mormon is, but what the LDS church has defined it be. So, it appears to me, the LDS church “owns” the definition of Mormonism.

So…that means, somebody in your church determined that if one practices polygamy they cannot be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, right? Can I become a Mormon if I do not believe Joseph Smith was/is a prophet? What if I drink and smoke…can I still call myself a Mormon?

If I showed up at a temple and asked to be let in and I said I was a Mormon, would they let me in? or do I not fit the guidelines set forth by your church? Or, what they (your church) has defined constitutes a temple-worthy Mormon?

What is the definition of a temple-worthy Mormon? Is there a definition of temple-worthy - a checklist perhaps, a card declaring that one’s bishop knows and has determined that one fits the definition or has met the requirements?

You see, every group has to set their own rules and requirements or we wouldn’t have meaning. True vegetarians don’t eat fish but some do…are they still vegetarian? Who gets to decide?

 

[lax16]

Because, we believe that Jesus Himself appeared to Joseph Smith to correct the prevalent teaching.

Do you have to believe this - is this what separates the LDS from other faiths?

If you didn’t believe this could you still be a temple-worthy Mormon?

 

[KathleenGee]

Pinay, one additional comment, I also know there is a great deal of lack of catechesis in the Philippines inspite of the perception with the stat’s that the Islands are 85% Catholic…

So I must say I have a certain amount of reserve in this whole conversion of yours…you come across as a very nice woman…

 

[SteveVH]

But that’s what YOU believe.

Because, we believe that Jesus Himself appeared to Joseph Smith to correct the prevalent teaching.

I mean - you believe that Mary appeared to several people in Lourdes, France. That’s what YOU believe. I believe Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith. That’s what I believe.

Doesn’t make anybody Christian or not-Christian…

Of course, that is what I believe, but my beliefs are based upon solid evidence, not just the claim of a man.

FACT: Insofar as doctrine is concerned, it remained the same (Trinity, Eucharist, infant Baptism, etc.) until the advent of the Reformation. The term “Christian” then, was defined by the Catholic Church by virtue of its existence. There simply was no other way to define what it meant to be Christian.

FACT: Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church has guarded the deposit of faith handed down to it from the Apostles and those that departed from its teaching, from its unchangeable doctrines, were named heretics.

FACT: For the first 400 years of the Reformation, the essential doctrine of the Trinity remained common in belief, other than the odd sect here and there.

So this isn’t just my belief as if I have nothing on which to base it. Essentially Catholic doctrines have been in place since the beginning of Christianity and that can be well documented. Now who do you suppose should have the authority to define Christianity; one who has been here since the beginning, over 2000 years ago, or one who shows up on the scene 150 years ago with completely foreign doctrines to what had already been established as “Christianity”? You have an organization that rejects most, if not all of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, as defined previous to the existence of this organization. To think that it can then re-define the title “Christian” so to include its own peculiar doctrines is absurd. To the degree that one departs from that first Church and from the doctrines it established as the one, true, Church of God, is the degree to which it ceases meriting the name “Christian”.

As far as Marian apparitions are concerned, oneGODoneCHURCH explained it very well. I would only add that each of these apparitions have resulted in documented miracles evidencing their authenticity. At Fatima, thousands witnessed supernatural signs. Again, the belief is for a reason, not just a whim, and certainly not just on the claim of some person.

 

[pinay]

Of course, that is what I believe, but my beliefs are based upon solid evidence, not just the claim of a man.

FACT: Insofar as doctrine is concerned, it remained the same (Trinity, Eucharist, infant Baptism, etc.) until the advent of the Reformation. The term “Christian” then, was defined by the Catholic Church by virtue of its existence. There simply was no other way to define what it meant to be Christian.

FACT: Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church has guarded the deposit of faith handed down to it from the Apostles and those that departed from its teaching, from its unchangeable doctrines, were named heretics.

FACT: For the first 400 years of the Reformation, the essential doctrine of the Trinity remained common in belief, other than the odd sect here and there.

So this isn’t just my belief as if I have nothing on which to base it. Essentially Catholic doctrines have been in place since the beginning of Christianity and that can be well documented. Now who do you suppose should have the authority to define Christianity; one who has been here since the beginning, over 2000 years ago, or one who shows up on the scene 150 years ago with completely foreign doctrines to what had already been established as “Christianity”? You have an organization that rejects most, if not all of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity, as defined previous to the existence of this organization. To think that it can then re-define the title “Christian” so to include its own peculiar doctrines is absurd. To the degree that one departs from that first Church and from the doctrines it established as the one, true, Church of God, is the degree to which it ceases meriting the name “Christian”.

As far as Marian apparitions are concerned, oneGODoneCHURCH explained it very well. I would only add that each of these apparitions have resulted in documented miracles evidencing their authenticity. At Fatima, thousands witnessed supernatural signs. Again, the belief is for a reason, not just a whim, and certainly not just on the claim of some person.

Sure, sure, sure… state it as fact. Now, give me official sources from the Catholic Church that defines the word Christian to fit your definition above.

Give me a source that is enough to refute this definition:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian

 

[pinay]

Pinay - the reason they are not members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is because **they do not fit the definition of a member **- they still practice polygamy. It is not what they think a Mormon is, but what the LDS church has defined it be. So, it appears to me, the LDS church “owns” the definition of Mormonism.

So…that means, somebody in your church determined that if one practices polygamy they cannot be a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, right? Can I become a Mormon if I do not believe Joseph Smith was/is a prophet? What if I drink and smoke…can I still call myself a Mormon?

If I showed up at a temple and asked to be let in and I said I was a Mormon, would they let me in? or do I not fit the guidelines set forth by your church? Or, what they (your church) has defined constitutes a temple-worthy Mormon?

What is the definition of a temple-worthy Mormon? Is there a definition of temple-worthy - a checklist perhaps, a card declaring that one’s bishop knows and has determined that one fits the definition or has met the requirements?

You see, every group has to set their own rules and requirements or we wouldn’t have meaning. True vegetarians don’t eat fish but some do…are they still vegetarian? Who gets to decide?

As established by the United States Patent Office, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not own the term “Mormons”.

Therefore, the Fundamentalist LDS Church, the Reorganized LDS Church, the Community of Christ, Stanley King LDS, the Sherman Russell LDS… there’s tons and tons of Churches who hold the Book of Mormon as true… have a claim to the term “Mormons” as well.

So, your reasoning doesn’t apply here.

Who gets to decide… I assure you, it’s not the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unless you’re in a country where the Mormon name is trademarked.

So, my go-to source is always the Merriam Webster. And according to Miss Merriam (hey, take note, I’m using personification here!)

Mormons
1: the ancient redactor and compiler of the Book of Mormon presented as divine revelation by Joseph Smith
2: latter-day saint; especially : a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

According to Merriam, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a claim to it. What can I say…

 

[pinay]

Do you have to believe this - is this what separates the LDS from other faiths?

If you didn’t believe this could you still be a temple-worthy Mormon?

Yes. You cannot get baptized under LDS authority unless you believe this… let alone make covenants in the Temple.

 

[pinay]

But I as a Catholic do not have to believe that BVM appeared at Lourdes, and I am still catholic. You as a LDS can not reject Christ appearing to JS and still be LDS. My fath is not based on the private revelations of one of the saint even if it is approved by the church. The whole of LDS Fatih is based on the private revelation of one man.

Sure. Still doesn’t make you, nor me, un-Christian.

By the way, just so you know, it is not a private revelation to ONE man. Heavenly beings did not just appear to Joseph Smith alone. There are at least 12 witnesses to the Book of Mormon and Priesthood authority was conferred by Heavenly beings to at least 3 people.

 

[SteveVH]

Sure, sure, sure… state it as fact. Now, give me official sources from the Catholic Church that defines the word Christian to fit your definition above.

Give me a source that is enough to refute this definition:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian

Excuse me. Please refute facts I stated if you don’t believe them to be true. And I’m sorry, but I don’t defer to wikipedia. I love the way they begin defining it: “Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity”. What does that mean? The fact that it includes “non-trinitarians” in its particular definition is clearly from a secular viewpoint. But the LDS go much further away from original Christian doctrines than just the Trinity.

Since you asked, the following is the definition of Christian found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Christian: A name derived from that of Christ himself. The name refers to all those who have been annointed through the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism; hence followers of Christ, the members of the Christian Church. According to Acts 11:26 it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.”.

The following are the comments from the Vatican on Mormon baptism:

*"The baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be considered a valid Christian baptism, said the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation.

The ruling by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was published in the July 16-17 edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, after being approved by Pope John Paul II.

While the Mormon baptismal rite refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Mormon beliefs about the identity of the three persons is so different from Catholic and mainline Christian belief that “one cannot even consider this doctrine to be a heresy arising from a false understanding of Christian doctrine,” said a Vatican explanation of the ruling.

The notice, dated June 5, was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the congregation, and by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary."*

But please, tell me why my “facts” are not facts.

 

[pinay]

Pinay, one additional comment, I also know there is a great deal of lack of catechesis in the Philippines inspite of the perception with the stat’s that the Islands are 85% Catholic…

So I must say I have a certain amount of reserve in this whole conversion of yours…you come across as a very nice woman…

Uhm, dunno where you got these stats. I can assure you, being a Filipino, this is completely untrue. Yes, Filipinos are steeped in superstition, but, because of the largely Catholic school system, most Filipinos are catechised within the framework of elementary and high school education in addition to the varied Catholic community events - even if they’re not Catholics even!

I’m not going to respond to your other post - no, not because it is not important - I don’t mind people questioning my testimony, especially from a Catholic. It is very natural for you to logically extrapolate everything you have said from what you know as a Catholic and I completely understand that.

I can’t respond, first and foremost, because this is Catholic Answers Forum, not LDS Answers Forum. Out of respect for the predominantly Catholic members of this site, I can’t really recount to you my experience without causing friction with Catholic teaching. All I can tell you is that, no, I did not join the LDS Church for any other reason than that the Holy Spirit manifested to me the truth of the restored gospel. Amazingly, this does not disqualify what I held true as a Catholic. It only magnified it. And it made me appreciate my Catholic foundation even more. So that, if I was not diligent in my religious life as a Catholic, there was no way - no way at all - that I would have found an inkling of truth in the LDS church. Therefore, I am very fortunate to have been born and raised Catholic and for that I will always be sincerely grateful.

I’m going to post a link here which is just a very brief overview of my journey - it doesn’t even scratch the surface. I studied and had spiritual manifestations for at least 5 years before I couldn’t deny my experiences anymore even faced with the threat of ostracization from my family and friends - my sole support system as a Filipino immigrant. And I am doubly, no triply fortunate that not only has my family and friends come to understand me (after 2 years of my parents and brother not speaking to me!) even if they do not agree, I have retained the friendship of the Parish Priest where I used to serve.

I read the site rules and I didn’t see anywhere there that would make this link against the rules. I implore the moderators to just delete the link instead of giving me an infraction/suspension, if I have misunderstood the rules.
mormon.org/me/2RWB/Anatess

This is intensely personal. There’s even a picture. Yikes! So, I pray y’all are going to be kind.

 

[pinay]

Excuse me. Please refute facts I stated if you don’t believe them to be true. And I’m sorry, but I don’t defer to wikipedia. I love the way they begin defining it: “Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity”. What does that mean? The fact that it includes “non-trinitarians” in its particular definition is clearly from a secular viewpoint. But the LDS go much further away from original Christian doctrines than just the Trinity.

Since you asked, the following is the definition of Christian found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Christian: A name derived from that of Christ himself. The name refers to all those who have been annointed through the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism; hence followers of Christ, the members of the Christian Church. According to Acts 11:26 it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.”.

The following are the comments from the Vatican on Mormon baptism:

*"The baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be considered a valid Christian baptism, said the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation.

The ruling by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was published in the July 16-17 edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, after being approved by Pope John Paul II.

While the Mormon baptismal rite refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Mormon beliefs about the identity of the three persons is so different from Catholic and mainline Christian belief that “one cannot even consider this doctrine to be a heresy arising from a false understanding of Christian doctrine,” said a Vatican explanation of the ruling.

The notice, dated June 5, was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the congregation, and by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary."*

But please, tell me why my “facts” are not facts.

I am not refuting the facts. I’m merely pointing out that the facts you presented does not make the Catholic Church the “owner” of the term Christian just like the Church of Jesus-Christ of Latter-day Saints does not own the term “Mormons” - even if there are a jillion sects out there who do not fall in-line with LDS doctrine.

I did not give you wikipedia. I gave you all the supporting documents of the wikipedia entry for the term Christian in addition to Merriam Webster. I don’t know how much more authoritative you can go from there on the meaning of a certain English word.

I’m not sure if I mentioned this before… but I don’t really much care what you want to define Christian as. It is merely a word. A label. If you don’t want to use Merriam Webster’s definition, that’s fine. It doesn’t change what you nor I believe in.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Sorry, a devout Catholic would never fall for the lies of Mormonism. Your story makes me extremely sad, an ill feeling really…and posting your story at Mormon.org, as part of the agenda to lure more Catholics away from the True Religion.

I hope you find God’s Mercy, I really do.

 

[pinay]

Sorry, a devout Catholic would never fall for the lies of Mormonism. Your story makes me extremely sad, an ill feeling really…and posting your story at Mormon.org, as part of the agenda to lure more Catholics away from the True Religion.

I hope you find God’s Mercy, I really do.

How did I guess that you would be the first to counter?

It’s okay Rebecca. I understand where you’re coming from. Peace.

 

[choliks]

Excuse me. Please refute facts I stated if you don’t believe them to be true. And I’m sorry, but I don’t defer to wikipedia. I love the way they begin defining it: “Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity”. What does that mean? The fact that it includes “non-trinitarians” in its particular definition is clearly from a secular viewpoint. But the LDS go much further away from original Christian doctrines than just the Trinity.

Since you asked, the following is the definition of Christian found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“Christian: A name derived from that of Christ himself. The name refers to all those who have been annointed through the gift of the Holy Spirit in Baptism; hence followers of Christ, the members of the Christian Church. According to Acts 11:26 it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called Christians.”.

The following are the comments from the Vatican on Mormon baptism:

*"The baptism conferred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints cannot be considered a valid Christian baptism, said the Vatican’s doctrinal congregation.

The ruling by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was published in the July 16-17 edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, after being approved by Pope John Paul II.

While the Mormon baptismal rite refers to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Mormon beliefs about the identity of the three persons is so different from Catholic and mainline Christian belief that “one cannot even consider this doctrine to be a heresy arising from a false understanding of Christian doctrine,” said a Vatican explanation of the ruling.

The notice, dated June 5, was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, prefect of the congregation, and by Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone, secretary."*

But please, tell me why my “facts” are not facts.

-ditto-

@pinay: I wouldn’t cite wikipedia as a credible source, since even a 10-year old can edit information on that site.

 

[pinay]

-ditto-

@pinay: I wouldn’t cite wikipedia as a credible source, since even a 10-year old can edit information on that site.

You are correct, but, at the same time, there are a gazillion people who will correct the 10-year-old’s edit.

But, if you follow the citations, I don’t see anywhere where it is questionable. And there’s also Webster. So, the wikipedia entry is definitely not standing alone.

 

[RebeccaJ]

How did I guess that you would be the first to counter?

Good timing I guess, I just settled down for some reading after a long day.

It’s okay Rebecca. I understand where you’re coming from. Peace.

I will never understand why a Catholic would become Mormon, giving up the Real Presence of Jesus Christ for Wonder bread, among many other things…the richness of everlasting life in Jesus Christ for the promise of becoming a god.

But, your journey has not come to an end, and perhaps one day you will find your way Home.

Mormons are not Christians, but by virtue of your Catholic baptism, a gift given to you at the beginning of your life, you are…that grace is still available to you.

Peace.