LDS & Catholic Comparison

[RebeccaJ]

For you whyme, so you know how to be a better mormon missionary:

“Every Member A Missionary”

Here’s one idea how you can proselytize your neighbors! “Shovel the walks or mow the lawn of neighbors and perform other charitable acts.”

Maybe the happy go lucky version of mormonism you belong to has dropped this practice?

 

[why_me]

For you whyme, so you know how to be a better mormon missionary:

“Every Member A Missionary”

Here’s one idea how you can proselytize your neighbors! “Shovel the walks or mow the lawn of neighbors and perform other charitable acts.”

Maybe the happy go lucky version of mormonism you belong to has dropped this practice?

Every member a missionary began more or less in the 1970’s. The mormon church is keen on missionary work and there is nothing wrong in that. However, to infer that everytime a mormon does something for someone it is to convert them, it a big leap. Most mormons make bad missionaries. And most have non-member friends who never hear about the gospel. And most mormons help other people just to help them, with nothing intended.

Catholics seem to forget that the catholic church sent missionaries throughout the world usually on the footsteps of colonial interests. It was not a pretty picture at all. Mormons knock on doors but what did the catholic missionaries do to convert natives? Any ideas? Check out how Lithuania became catholic…

 

[why_me]

Coming from you, I’ll take this as a compliment.

You should be worried over the lies you tell.

I don’t hate mormons or catholics. I don’t hate protestants. My idea is simple: let people believe what they want to believe. It makes no difference to me.

And what lies have I told? I see no lies coming in my posts. But I still have no idea how you can live in Moland being so antimormon. It must be difficult with the opinions that you have of them.

 

[MrZetterlund]

aw… no one responded to my post. I thaught I made a good case…

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t hate mormons or catholics. I don’t hate protestants. My idea is simple: let people believe what they want to believe. It makes no difference to me.

And what lies have I told? I see no lies coming in my posts. But I still have no idea how you can live in Moland being so antimormon. It must be difficult with the opinions that you have of them.

whyme, you really need to get over this idea that I hate mormons. I don’t. This is one lie you insist on spreading. Myself, I think it is indicative that you cannot refute what I say. Always you have to resort to a personal attack. You never address what the topic is. Which, I’ll remind you once again, is NOT me. But then, this is the usual mormon way of operating. Slander people who dare to tell the truth about mormonism. So no surprises here, right?

The other lie is that you deny mormons fellowship, pretend to be your friend, in order to convert people. Many, many experiences from myself and others, you can be sure, most mormon “friendships” end when it is apparent the non-mormon has no interest.

How about the two missionaries who jumped me in a grocery store parking lot one evening? Asking to help me with my groceries to my car? You think they were there to shoot the bull, or what? A polite no thank you, not to mention being creeped the hell out by two men bugging me when it is almost dark, in a parking lot…no, they would not go away. I had to tell them several times no thank you and finally just ask them to leave me alone.

I don’t need to be antimormon whyme. mormons show the world just how annoying they are by how they proselytize, and on forums like this, just how incredibly irrational you have to become in order to keep mormon belief going. Like, attacking people for no reason other than they dare to speak to their experiences.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Every member a missionary began more or less in the 1970’s. The mormon church is keen on missionary work and there is nothing wrong in that. However, to infer that everytime a mormon does something for someone it is to convert them, it a big leap. Most mormons make bad missionaries. And most have non-member friends who never hear about the gospel. And most mormons help other people just to help them, with nothing intended.

Well whyme, this is not my experience. Over and over again I’ve had mormon neighbors be all nice nice, inevitably ask me to church. I decline. I never hear from the again. I don’t even try to be friends with my mormon neighbors any more. I am nice and cordial, but friends, no. Their condition for friendship is that I join their church.

You can be absolutely sure, if a mormon volunteers to help you out, it is a proselytizing effort, and their is an expectation that you’ll do something “mormon” in return. Most people will feel obligated, so essentially it is a manipulation.

Catholics seem to forget that the catholic church sent missionaries throughout the world usually on the footsteps of colonial interests. It was not a pretty picture at all. Mormons knock on doors but what did the catholic missionaries do to convert natives? Any ideas? Check out how Lithuania became catholic…

Catholic missionaries are still out in the world. They don’t knock on doors.

Oh do tell whyme. Please give us yet another exhibit of whyme’s anti-Catholicism. I can hardly wait.

 

[Jerusha]

Non-Mormons who jump into this debate with few posts to their name have not researched this site, do not know how long this debate has lasted, think Catholics are naive about Mormonism, and sometimes would learn a lot is they would just do some research here. The range of topics related to this debate is quite broad.

Honestly speaking, the Mormon participants will continue to debate on sheer emotion. They persist in believing because it would just be too painful to admit otherwise. They have no other rational reason to believe as they do.

 

[MrZetterlund]

whyme, you really need to get over this idea that I hate mormons. I don’t. This is one lie you insist on spreading. Myself, I think it is indicative that you cannot refute what I say. Always you have to resort to a personal attack. You never address what the topic is. Which, I’ll remind you once again, is NOT me. But then, this is the usual mormon way of operating. Slander people who dare to tell the truth about mormonism. So no surprises here, right?

lol, yeah. You’ll find that anything anti-mormon, Mormons will call it a hate message and say “they don’t have the full domuments” or something and talk about how everyone’s against them because they have the “true revelation” facepalm

 

[Jerusha]

lol, yeah. You’ll find that anything anti-mormon, Mormons will call it a hate message and say “they don’t have the full domuments” or something and talk about how everyone’s against them because they have the “true revelation” facepalm

You might do better to have a bit more charity. Hostile speech never converted anyone.

 

[MadScot]

Not really.

angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/q38.htm

Q. Didn’t Joseph Smith himself at one time approved of Negro slavery, and condemned Abolitionists?

A. Yes. Joseph Smith did condemn abolition in the early 1830s. In the 1830s the Prophet Joseph Smith seemed to agree with slavery. In 1836 he wrote:

“I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not have slaves, than the South have to say the North shall.

All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact it would be much better and more prudent not to preach at all to slaves until after their masters are converted, and then teach the masters to use them with kindness; remembering that they are accountable to God, and the servants are bound to serve their masters with singleness of heart, without murmuring.” (Messenger and Advocate 2:289)

The Prophet Joseph Smith did condemn “abolitionists” in 1833; soon after the Nat Turner rebellion in Virginia. Nathaniel Turner was a black slave who claimed that a black angel visited him and commanded him to free the Negroes from slavery. Turner ran away from his master and gained a following of run-away and free Negroes. His methods were violent, and his rebellion ended-up with the deaths of many innocent people; both black and white. He was hanged, and his rebellion failed. Not only did it fail, but it inspired the Southern states to cease their liberalizing of the rights of slaves, and it also ended the Southern white colonialist movement which sought to free blacks and repatronize them to Africa. It was, for the Negroes and those whites in the South who wanted blacks free, a total and absolute disaster.

Joseph Smith did condemn radical Abolitionists who advocated violence, or who sought to free blacks without thought of the impact of the Southern economy or how blacks would fair in the South. To avoid these problems, Joseph Smith recommended that Congress sell federal public lands (at that time the federal government, in the name of the people, owned millions of acres of land) and use the money to purchase the slaves, and then either to send the freed black slaves into Mexico (where classism existed but not racism), or to “educate them and give them equal rights”. The Prophet knew that without these collateral moves the blacks would not be freed without violence, and the freed blacks would not be equal to the whites. History has proven him correct. Although blacks were free, their lives changed very little. They were soon on the bottom-half of a caste system, and apartheid-like laws kept them powerless and most often poor.

The servitude that existed in the time of Abraham (who had servants) and Israel was much different than the slavery of the South in the United States at the time of Joseph Smith!. Servants in the time of Abraham was considered part of the family; although they did not have equal rights to sons and daughters in regards to inheritance. Southern slavery did contain such patriarchal attitudes on occasion, but stealing people from Africa, bringing them across the ocean in chains and horrible living conditions where up to half would perish, and then treating them like animals was not a noble system of servitude but rather an evil and corrupt institution that the Prophet came out squarely and openly against in the 1840s; when he became more familiar with the Southern system of slavery.

You gotta admire Joseph Smith. He learned with time and reason. Joseph was born in 1805. In the early 1830’s he was still a young man, learning by doing and by reading.

Yes, really he did talk out of both sides of his mouth. You omitted one of his most important statements.

…it remains as a lasting monument of the DECREE OF JEHOVAH, to the shame and confusion of all who HAVE CRIED OUT against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in SERVITUDE… I can say, the CURSE IS NOT YET TAKEN OFF FROM THE SONS OF CANAAN, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come; and the people who INTERFERE THE LEAST WITH THE PURPOSES OF GOD in this matter, will come under the LEAST CONDEMNATION BEFORE HIM…

This changes the entire context of his letter, from rebuking the Abolitionist movement to defending the institution of slavery.

That notwithstanding, his advocacy of expulsion, or ‘repatronizing’, was not unique in the North. Because of the murderous Haitian slave uprisings(there were over 80), and Nat Turner’s 1831 mini-uprising, Northerners feared free blacks. To deal with this perceived threat, along with implementing the so-called Black Codes, many Northerners, including Lincoln, favored the repatriation of blacks to Africa. Even Frederick Douglas favored emigration, but to Haiti.

Obviously, Joseph Smith was echoing the common Northern sentiment of the day.

 

[Jerusha]

Yes, his attitudes were not uncommon, and were more liberal than those of Brigham Young. What was once Mormon doctrine is no longer Mormon doctrine. It is no wonder they are confused, with the doctrines of their church changing as the wind, or, even, I must say, as the shifting sands.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Catholics don’t think that Mormons are Christians. They don’t think our baptisms are valid, nor is anything else about us valid. They will take our money, though.

. . .Mormons are very serious about taking money from their members. The tithing requirements are included in the lessons given to potential converts. So, Mormons “talk money,” before the baptism ever takes place. Seems like the missionaries should use the time spent on the “money talk” to tell the potential converts what Mormons really believe. So, what is your point here?Anna

. . . .My point was pretty simple, Anna. I didn’t use that many words. Catholics do not think that Mormons are Christian. However, they will take our money. Catholic Charities will accept Mormon donations, Mormon volunteers, Mormon work. Catholics will quite happily allow Mormon youth to set up all the chairs for the Pope’s visit, allow us to fund charitable works and do joint projects with us on all manner of things. We are definitely, however, back of the bus partners.

We give because people need our help. We do because the job needs doing. We aren’t the ones taking the help with one hand and slapping faces with the other.

**As to Catholics not considering Mormons to be Catholic…that’s quite a red herring, there. **Would you rather we stopped working with Catholic Charities, so that you could feel justified in your hatred?

. . .I was pointing out that the “money talk” takes place during Mormon lessons given to potential converts; and that time could be better spent informing the potential convert of Mormon beliefs.

Do you believe it is wrong for Catholics to accept “Mormon money” in charitable projects?

As for setting up chairs for the Pope, you make it sound like Catholics are using Mormons as their “servants,” and then banishing them to the “back of the bus” status.

Were Mormons forced to set up chairs for the Pope?

If you are going to complain about the Mormon role in joint charity projects with the Catholic Church, and Papal visits; then it causes me to question the Mormon motives of such charity.

I believe that whatever we give to others, regardless of the circumstance, we are to give through the spirit of love, knowing we are serving Christ. Anna

Suffice it to say that Jews, Muslims and Atheists do not consider themselves to be Christian, and indeed might find it an insult to be called such.

For Catholics to consider them non-Christian is to acknowledge their own self identification.

On the other hand, Mormons consider themselves to be Christian. Denying them that is most definately an insult—because it is intended to BE an insult, just as when evangelical Protestants claim that Catholics are not Christian intend THAT to be an insult.

As it is a simple fact that Mormons are not Catholic. No argument there.We do not claim to be Catholic; therefore, for a Catholic to say so is confirming our own self identification, as well as stating fact.

It is a simple fact that “Christian” doesn’t mean what you think it does, and you don’t get to force me—or anyone else, for that matter, to agree with your definition, especially when YOUR definition is the one that is out of the norm.

You think that “Christian” means “he who agrees with me,” and it does not. The definition of “Christian” is in the dictionary. It’s in all the dictionaries, and they agree with one another. It is an English word that defines a broad classification of belief, and Mormons fit in that definition. So do Catholics. So do the evangelicals who want to deny the title to both of us.

Dianaiad:

Actually, the definition of “Christianity” is not always the same.

Cults sprang up very quickly, after the resurrection of Christ. Gnostics called themselves Christians, Adoptionists called themselves Christians, and other groups, as well.

Mormons have the religious freedom to call themselves Christians.

I have the religious freedom to call myself Christian. However, my definition of Christianity may be quite different from others, who call themselves Christians.

I have the religious freedom to believe that certain groups, who call themselves Christians, are not Christian in the way ***I ***know, experience, and understand Christianity.

Just as you have the religious freedom to believe that certain groups, who call themselves Christians, are not Christian in the way you know, experience, and understand Christianity.

So, if I say I do not believe a certain religion is Christian; I am not insulting that group. I am merely saying they are not Christian, according to my beliefs and understanding of Christianity.

You complain about giving in joint charity projects with Catholics. Then stop giving. If you resent the giving, is it really a charitable act?

**My main point is that none of us have the right to demand that any religious group change their beliefs, and definition of Christianity, in order to make another group feel more comfortable or more accepted. **

Participating in joint charity projects with Catholics, or any other Christians, should not be done with the expectation that they will acquiesce to your beliefs.

I strongly disagree with Mormon doctrines. That does not make me an “anti” or a “hater.” I disagree with the doctrines of many religions, as I would imagine you do. That does not mean that I hate the people who believe differently from me.

I did go through a painful ordeal with the Mormon Church; but I have forgiven those who hurt and deceived me.

Christ has called us to love God and to love one another. We can do this without compromising our beliefs.

In Christ,
Anna

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m protestant, but I think the Church of LDS is complete blasphemy! I followed Catholosism’s routs and found Judaism, I followed LDS routes and found the Occult! They Believe God was once man, and that WE will become Gods! God said He was the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, that none were before Him, that setting ourselves up as God is 666, and they believe Native Americans are Isrealites. And they’re not. They’re an ancient nomadic tribe from Asia who crossed a land bridge during the Ice age. Not on a second Noah’s Ark. (which, by the way, was not built for sailing or speed. More like a box 2 float.) And they interprit AMOS 8:11 as current day apostasy. And that Joseph Smith ends it. But I believe Amos 8:11 is talking about the 400 years between the Old Testament and the New Testament. That were actually called “the 400 silent years.”

aw… no one responded to my post. I thaught I made a good case…

Non-Mormons who jump into this debate with few posts to their name have not researched this site, do not know how long this debate has lasted, think Catholics are naive about Mormonism, and sometimes would learn a lot is they would just do some research here. The range of topics related to this debate is quite broad.

Honestly speaking, the Mormon participants will continue to debate on sheer emotion. They persist in believing because it would just be too painful to admit otherwise. They have no other rational reason to believe as they do.

lol, yeah. You’ll find that anything anti-mormon, Mormons will call it a hate message and say “they don’t have the full domuments” or something and talk about how everyone’s against them because they have the “true revelation” facepalm

You might do better to have a bit more charity. Hostile speech never converted anyone.

MrZetterlund:

Welcome to CAF!

I think Jerusha has given you some good advice. It is good to read through a Thread before jumping in.

The changing doctrines of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are already on the table. The discussion is still going, but we are farther along than you realized.

Most Catholics are very knowledgeable about Mormon beliefs, as are many other forum members. There are also former Mormons who participate in the discussions. I was a member of the LDS Church for a short time, myself.

You seem to be very passionate about your beliefs and that is a good thing.

However, this is not an “anti-Mormon” platform. The doctrines are debated-- sometimes, heatedly debated; but we must remember Christian charity. I have to remind myself of these very words, as I write them to you.

Sometimes, my frustration gets the better of me or I respond in anger. Those are not my finer moments. I apologized to Dianaiad at one point-either on this tread or another thread on a Mormon topic.

So, take a deep breath and continue in the discussion. You’ll figure things out as you go along.

By Christ, we are called to love one another,
Anna

 

[ParkerD]

Anna Scott,
In case you missed it what with all the later activity, I responded to your request for an LDS response on the other active thread. Peace and good night.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Anna Scott,
In case you missed it what with all the later activity, I responded to your request for an LDS response on the other active thread. Peace and good night.

Parker:

I didn’t miss it. I had appointments and errands to do today. I did post a few things on the forums today; but wanted to give your post thought and consideration. You took the time to answer, and I appreciate and respect that effort. Will get back to you tomorrow.

Peace and goodnight to you as well.

Anna

 

[Xavierlives]

I am even more suspicious of someone who appears from nowhere with just a couple posts to their credit, and starts a provocative thread about the Mormons. It usually means that they are one of the regular anti-Mormons here who does not have the courage (or the credibility) to start the thread under their recognizable name, and so prefer to post under another assumed username instead.

So tell me, how long must a new person to the Catholic Forums sit idly by before they are allowed to contribute a provocative thread?

If you would like some “background” I’ll be happy to supply it. I have been a Christian all of my life. I was taught the Mormons were an occult. Not being a lemming, I decided to learn more about the LDS faith because, well, they include “Jesus Christ” in their title. I’ve wondered if this is a Christian denomination that has just taken a bad rap. So, I started studying. I’ve watch some LDS-produced movies as well as Mormon dramas/comedies (I’m sure RM is funnier to you than me). I’ve talked with Mormons (many, many missionaries). I’ve read the book of Mormon and I even did what was requested which was something to the effect of “pray to God to ask if the book of Mormon is true.” After all of that, I was reminded of some of the core issues that make me a “protestant to the Catholic Church” (which I find to be an inaccurate phrase, but that will be for another thread) also makes me a “protestant to the Mormon Church.” It was said by someone else about 15 messages ago, but it really summed up my over thought that it Mormons and Catholics have the basic core thought. That thought is that Christ established a Church on Earth.

The Mormon belief is this First Church failed when the Apostles did not extend the Priesthood (this failure occurred because their was a failure to establish a quorum of all things). The church fell into apostasy and was not returned to earth until the 1800s when God, the Father, Jesus, John the Baptist, Moses, Moroni, and other assorted prophets visited Joseph Smith. So, to use the colloquial, the First Church, the Catholic Church is “under new management” as the Mormon church. Now, I’ll also be happy to to expand on where I think the Mormon faith fails to even hit the mark as a Christian Faith, but your comment was more of an indictment of me not being who I said that I was than actually wanting to engage someone in meaningful conversations about faith, wasn’t it?

So with that said, although I think this is interesting that you think I am not who I say I am, I guess I can only say, I am.

 

[MrZetterlund]

MrZetterlund:

Welcome to CAF!

I think Jerusha has given you some good advice. It is good to read through a Thread before jumping in.

The changing doctrines of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young are already on the table. The discussion is still going, but we are farther along than you realized.

Most Catholics are very knowledgeable about Mormon beliefs, as are many other forum members. There are also former Mormons who participate in the discussions. I was a member of the LDS Church for a short time, myself.

You seem to be very passionate about your beliefs and that is a good thing.

However, this is not an “anti-Mormon” platform. The doctrines are debated-- sometimes, heatedly debated; but we must remember Christian charity. I have to remind myself of these very words, as I write them to you.

Sometimes, my frustration gets the better of me or I respond in anger. Those are not my finer moments. I apologized to Dianaiad at one point-either on this tread or another thread on a Mormon topic.

So, take a deep breath and continue in the discussion. You’ll figure things out as you go along.

By Christ, we are called to love one another,
Anna

Thanks. Sorry if I was a little impulsive. I do get fustrated with Mormons, but I don’t hate them.

 

[Xavierlives]

Being the tailor of this, I guess I should chime in… again.

Non-Mormons who jump into this debate with few posts to their name have not researched this site, do not know how long this debate has lasted, think Catholics are naive about Mormonism, and sometimes would learn a lot is they would just do some research here. The range of topics related to this debate is quite broad.

Honestly speaking, the Mormon participants will continue to debate on sheer emotion. They persist in believing because it would just be too painful to admit otherwise. They have no other rational reason to believe as they do.

No, I did not think my question was a new thought. Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun, and by my joining this forum (from another thread about BSF, mind you) I thought maybe I could hear both sides. I’ve heard the Mormons talk about the Catholics when the missionaries come to my door, but I’ve never really heard the Catholic side. I read pages upon pages of interaction between both camps, but I thought it would be easier to ask the question anew.

I am even more suspicious of someone who appears from nowhere with just a couple posts to their credit, and starts a provocative thread about the Mormons. It usually means that they are one of the regular anti-Mormons here who does not have the courage (or the credibility) to start the thread under their recognizable name, and so prefer to post under another assumed username instead.

I’ll check the timestamps. I’m pretty sure I started over in the BSF thread.

 

[Xavierlives]

So, if I say I do not believe a certain religion is Christian; I am not insulting that group. I am merely saying they are not Christian, according to my beliefs and understanding of Christianity.

…

I strongly disagree with Mormon doctrines. That does not make me an “anti” or a “hater.” I disagree with the doctrines of many religions, as I would imagine you do. That does not mean that I hate the people who believe differently from me.

This same concept is used in other parts of society. If you aren’t a hater than you must me a Mormonophobe. (just trying to interject a little humor… sorry).

 

[Anna_Scott]

Thanks. Sorry if I was a little impulsive. I do get fustrated with Mormons, but I don’t hate them.

Good to know there is no hate involved. It is easy to be impulsive. Been there myself.

Anna