Mormon "Apostasy & Restoration"

[catholic-rcia]

Final truth:

According to your own words,when you went back to the store you didn’t find it and the clerks didn’t recognise the name of the book.

…the book you claimed was “the Pearl of Great Price.”

“The Pearl of Great Price” has NOT been pulled, and since it is one of the four Standard Works of the church, is absolutely a title that the clerks would have known.

The possibilities are:

1. You read this language in a book somewhere, and mistakenly remember it as coming from a book you looked at in the Deseret Bookstore–and for some reason do not now want to admit to a very understandable and human error that happens to everybody.
2. You read this language in a publication you picked up at the Deseret Bookstore, but that was not actually being sold by them; in fact, it was placed there by some critic. (This happens…not frequently, but it happens). In that case, the clerks would not recognize the book, and since it didn’t belong to the store in the first place, the store could not have ‘pulled’ it.
3. Some portion of what you say is true, but you have exagerated some parts of it to make the story sound better and now can’t admit the truth because doing so would be embarrassing.
4. You are repeating something you read third hand, and, having trusted that source, presented it as something that happened to you personally. Since your third hand source of information has been proven incorrect, you are between a rock and hard place…you can’t admit that you changed POV now, can you?
5. Some combination of the above.

What has been absolutely proven to be NOT true, however, is that you read that language in “The Pearl of Great Price,” (or even any commentary about “The Pearl of Great Price”), and that you went back in two weeks to find that the clerks didn’t recognize the name of the book, and had ‘pulled’ it. (a contradictory statement all by itself, if you think about it; if they had “pulled” it, they would have remembered the title.)–or that the SLC church general headquarters didn’t recognise “The Pearl of Great Price.”

After doing some research into the specific language that you were upset about, and looking into LDS authored publications that might have equivalent language in it, here are two theories I’ve come up with—because I simply can’t imagine that you are simply lying. You don’t seem the sort who would. I think you are honestly convinced of this…you are simply incorrect.

I think you got hold of some anti-Catholic rhetoric somewhere else, along with anti-Mormon rhetoric, and, primed by what you read, saw what you expected to see in some publication somewhere. When you went back two weeks later, of course the clerks didn’t remember the publication and didn’t recognise the name of the book, because it never actually existed the way you remember it. Nobody can “pull” that which never existed in the first place, Kathleen.

Now, here, you remember it as being “The Pearl of Great Price,” because that’s a name that ‘sticks.’ It’s not the name of the publication you actually read OR asked about.

I distinctly remember being not quite three years old, sitting in the back seat of a car, jumping up and saying “BOO!” to my mother and my aunt Bonnie just as they were about to drive into a tunnel under rail road tracks. I REMEMBER that. For years I would tell that story as my 'earliest childhood memory." Many, many years later, when I was in my twenties, my mother heard me tell that story–and she pulled me aside and told me that the story was true—except that it was my little sister who yelled ‘boo,’ not me. Aunt Bonnie confirmed this–and my sister doesn’t remember it at all. Mom and Aunt Bonnie told the story often when I was little, because it almost made them lose control of the car; my sister wasn’t yet one. The story made such an impression on me that I internalized it. Even though I know I wasn’t the ‘boo-er,’ I still REMEMBER it that way.

This is what I think has happened to you, in a way.

But you are incorrect. The Pearl of Great Price has no such language in it. The Deseret Book store has not pulled ANY books with that sort of langauge in it. The only quotes with equivalent language in it are still availiable, as a part of church history…and the specific terminology you remember is only used by some extremely anti-Catholic fundamentalist evangilistic groups—and not Mormons.

…no Mormon has written or said anything remotely like it in over a 100 years, and most of 'em knew better THEN.

And THAT, Katheen, is the final truth.

If my theory about what happened to you is not accurate, the only other possibility I can think of is not flattering.

What quotes are you looking for?
I will find the sources
I will take the quotes to some LDS Bishops here in Northen Utah and ask them about therm and then get back
www.utahmission.com

 

[KathleenGee]

I assumed the book was pulled because I pointed out its content in that store…

Think how we feel when Mormons say our church isn’t for real, that all that has been done in Christ’s name is false.

Without the language of that book, the effect is the same.

 

[veritas4Christ]

Ah, no, my friend, I have not told you not 'to talk about anything in the LDS history of 100 years or more" ago. I simply remind you that it WAS a hundred years ago. When a Catholic has to go that far back to find evidence for something he claims is happening NOW, or that is indicative of what we write or think NOW, I think it’s fair to remind people that a hundred years or more ago comprises at least three full generations of writers and thinkers.

I especially get…annoyed…when Catholics (or anybody else) has to go back that far to find evidence of wrong doing, when they are doing precisely the same thing right now.

I get doubly annoyed when people go back into our history to find evidence of wrong doing and use that evidence as ‘proof’ that our beliefs are wrong–when their own history is full of exactly the same sort of wrong doing–frequently multiplied by factors of 10 or more. Then they claim that it’s ok for THEM to have a long, bloody, racist history…after all, their church is true. However, a far less egregious history on our part (they claim) proves that our beliefs are false.

Now if you can’t see the problem with that, I can.

Rico, one thing you will have to admit if you do any research into my posting here; I never, ever, start things. That is, if I go into Catholic history, it is ONLY after a Catholic has done something dumb–like claiming that Mormons are evil/false/whatever BECAUSE of our history.

Doing something like that makes the accuser fair game, y’know.

Madam, I have no problem with you going back into Church history, as far back as 2000 years; I do have a problem with your presenting the same old anti-Catholic slanders as historical facts. Let’s just start with Galileo - he was instructed that he could continue teaching his “theories” but not to present them as FACTS. That is absolutely the correct position to have taken as at that stage they were still only theories; while not a scientist myself, part of what he theorised was only proven 150 years later, and part was also proven to be false. Even during the inquisition trial, Galileo was given preferential treatment in that he was confined to luxury apartments, not in a cell. His “house arrest” for the rest of his life was actually staying with his friends - who just happened to be influential and wealthy people. Don’t know about you, but if I ever find myself facing jail time, I’ll be asking for Galileo’s sentence (a holiday in Italy staying in Italian villas would be nice).

I’m very surprised you think a Catholic would be shamed about the Spanish Inquisition. Why? In reality it was rather hard to be convicted. For a start, the accused was required to provide a list of his enemies; if his accuser/s name was on that list, the accuser’s accusation was removed. Lol, apparently there was even a judge who was accused and he just gave the list of the defendents at the trials he presided over, and that was the end of it. And how wonderfully innovative and advanced was the appointment of a defence lawyer for the accused who actually was required to act for the defendant, and not along side the prosecution as was usual in the civil system. And then there was the defendent and his lawyer actually seeing the accusation made against them in order to defend themselves effectively. It seems that the Inquisition was so fair that there were instances of people in the civil system committing heresy to get into them

I’m sorry to inform you that the days of Catholics being ignorant of their history are over, you’ll have to do more than quick googles and popular history by personal narrative.

 

[Stephen168]

Madam, I have no problem with you going back into Church history, as far back as 2000 years;

I don’t have a problem with it either except when it is used to avoid talking about the inventions of Joseph Smith and calling it a restoration; inventions like the Book of Mormon, polygamy, and the melchizedek priesthood. Of course the science of Galileo was never a threat to the Catholic Church, while science is a threat to the Mormon Church. It shows their very foundation (Joseph Smith) to be a liar.

 

[KathleenGee]

People can go on the internet and study the anti-Catholic roots of Mormonism.

I came to a post last night, 209.157.64.200/focus/religion/2336661/posts…the topic was why Mormons do not use crosses…a fellow is a former Mormon…He commented on 'how former President McKay began to privately re-examine his ownn beliefs about Catholicism (and I assume many other Mormons before him) and said that members have rid themselves of ‘much of the anti-Catholicism of the past’.

The poster then adds, ‘How do you erase what LDS leaders, ‘apostles’, and others like Pratt and McConkie have said about Catholics that simply? Especially since their works and quotes are still found throughout LDS bookstores and LDS curriculum materials…’

‘Besides LDS still hasn’t erased the anti-Catholic Scriptures like 1 Nephri 14.9 or Joseph Smith History vv 18-29 in the Pearl of Great Price where Smith’s founding vision is indirectly labelling all Catholic creeds an abomination to the Mormon god and indirectly labelling all professing Catholics as corrupted. The LDS has not pulled back on printing on millions and translating into dozens of languages…’ September 10, 2009…

I visitd the Deseret store next to the Temple in 2004 or 5 and was drawing on my memory.

What I have shared is to the best of my memory and I made a good faith effort to go back to the store to find the book to clarify any misunderstanding but it was gone…I assumed it was pulled. I might go back this week and see what i can find next!!!

I have been on the Mormon threads for a very short time and I must tell you I am experiencing already spiritual oppression and was starting to sense it when this dispute came out and it caused some confusion of miscommunication on the thread…so I don’t want to get too involved after that.

I am waiting to find out out about the real Mormon creed people don’t know about until after they have been in this church for a year…a bait and switch…an entrapment and now they are stuck.

I am waiting from a source who left the Mormon church to see if these ideas are really their creed…and if it is, I am leaving Mormon threads…because of what I am personally experiencing now…and need to pray…to pray for cleansing.

I am amazed how they cling to certain ideas no matter what others disprove…and I do sense a hold on them…

I cannot help but feel many Mormons are in bondage, just as Muslims are who want to get out, can see through the falsity of their founders’ claims but people are so afraid they will be damned…Joseph Smith said the rest of us would go into eternal damnation…and the leadership of the church…this is going back when I was reading about them privately, that they have changed their position on things 3,000 times…

There is exmormon.org…and it has reference to anti-Catholicism and the Mormon Doctrines and Pearl of Great Price…I never want to read them again, actually.

 

[veritas4Christ]

I don’t have a problem with it either except when it is used to avoid talking about the inventions of Joseph Smith and calling it a restoration; inventions like the Book of Mormon, polygamy, and the melchizedek priesthood. Of course the science of Galileo was never a threat to the Catholic Church, while science is a threat to the Mormon Church. It shows their very foundation (Joseph Smith) to be a liar.

I don’t doubt that you do, Stephen. But whether Dianaiad realises that to continue with the historical narrative commenced by the Protestants in the 16th Century and taken up with the mis-named “Enlightened” in the 18th in order to destroy the Church, primarily politically motivated on the basis of caeseropapism (and caeseroism w/o the papism) would not support her case as someone who researches what they are apparently so keen to share. We will see.

 

[dianaiad]

Madam, I have no problem with you going back into Church history, as far back as 2000 years; I do have a problem with your presenting the same old anti-Catholic slanders as historical facts. Let’s just start with Galileo - he was instructed that he could continue teaching his “theories” but not to present them as FACTS

Uhmn…I posted the judgment against him. He wasn’t told that he could teach anything. His previous books were ordered burned and banned, and he lived the rest of his life under house arrest.

Your presentation is interesting…you put “theories” in quotes, and then state that the church ordered him not to teach them as facts—and somehow present this as the church being pro-science?

I hate to break this to you, veritas, but it happens to BE a FACT that the earth revolves around the sun and that it is not the center of the universe. We have pictures.

That is absolutely the correct position to have taken as at that stage they were still only theories; while not a scientist myself, part of what he theorised was only proven 150 years later, and part was also proven to be false. Even during the inquisition trial, Galileo was given preferential treatment in that he was confined to luxury apartments, not in a cell. His “house arrest” for the rest of his life was actually staying with his friends - who just happened to be influential and wealthy people. Don’t know about you, but if I ever find myself facing jail time, I’ll be asking for Galileo’s sentence (a holiday in Italy staying in Italian villas would be nice).

A luxurious prison is still a prison.

I’m very surprised you think a Catholic would be shamed about the Spanish Inquisition.

You might want to go back through my posts…I have never brought up the Spanish Inquisition; it has been often assumed that I have by people who do not actually read what I write, though–and that raises my curiousity bump. Since I have never actually criticised the Inquisition, why in the world are you defending it to me? It is THAT which reminds me of Proverbs 28:1

Why? In reality it was rather hard to be convicted. For a start, the accused was required to provide a list of his enemies; if his accuser/s name was on that list, the accuser’s accusation was removed. Lol, apparently there was even a judge who was accused and he just gave the list of the defendents at the trials he presided over, and that was the end of it. And how wonderfully innovative and advanced was the appointment of a defence lawyer for the accused who actually was required to act for the defendant, and not along side the prosecution as was usual in the civil system. And then there was the defendent and his lawyer actually seeing the accusation made against them in order to defend themselves effectively. It seems that the Inquisition was so fair that there were instances of people in the civil system committing heresy to get into them

I’m sorry to inform you that the days of Catholics being ignorant of their history are over, you’ll have to do more than quick googles and popular history by personal narrative.

I hope that you are correct. Of course, one of the reasons that Catholics may not be ignorant of their history is because THEY are willing to do ‘quick googles.’ As for me, I never do quick googles…Nor do I use 'popular history by personal narrative." In fact, as to that last, what in the world are you talking about?

 

[dianaiad]

I assumed the book was pulled because I pointed out its content in that store…

Think how we feel when Mormons say our church isn’t for real, that all that has been done in Christ’s name is false.

Without the language of that book, the effect is the same.

I would give my eyeteeth to know what book it was you had, Kathleen. At this point, the only thing I do know is what it was NOT…and it was not the Pearl of Great Price, nor the Journal of Discourses, nor the Times and Seasons (from which Rebecca pulled the quotes she gave us.)

I do believe that you saw this language…and one of the reasons I do believe it is because of the specific word you used. I also believe, again because of that specific word, that it was not an LDS publication.

So I am truly curious.

 

[veritas4Christ]

Uhmn…I posted the judgment against him. He wasn’t told that he could teach anything. His previous books were ordered burned and banned, and he lived the rest of his life under house arrest.

Your presentation is interesting…you put “theories” in quotes, and then state that the church ordered him not to teach them as facts—and somehow present this as the church being pro-science?

I hate to break this to you, veritas, but it happens to BE a FACT that the earth revolves around the sun and that it is not the center of the universe. We have pictures.

A luxurious prison is still a prison.

You might want to go back through my posts…I have never brought up the Spanish Inquisition; it has been often assumed that I have by people who do not actually read what I write, though–and that raises my curiousity bump. Since I have never actually criticised the Inquisition, why in the world are you defending it to me? It is THAT which reminds me of Proverbs 28:1

I hope that you are correct. Of course, one of the reasons that Catholics may not be ignorant of their history is because THEY are willing to do ‘quick googles.’ As for me, I never do quick googles…Nor do I use 'popular history by personal narrative." In fact, as to that last, what in the world are you talking about?

Dianiad, you have replied using the ‘shoot from the hip method’. You did not read what I wrote in an attempt to try to understand it. The fact is, Dianiad, you are simply regurgitating old historical slanders, and you can find that out using non-Catholic authoriative historians. As an aside, without going back over your posts to confirm either way, I did think you mentioned the Inquisition, but as that is usually one of the slanders thrown around it was not totally irrelevant to the gist of what I was saying, just not correct to seem to accuse you in this context. I did see a reference to slavery, which can be totally refuted, but opted for the Inquisition as it is able to be argued in a more compact way suitable in this discussion.

However, all that being said, you have been making direct “threats” to regurgitate these historical slanders in order to defend your beliefs and your arguments and I am just pointing out to you that these “threats” are not seen as disturbing to a Catholic at all. As Stephen has pointed out, you will simply proving yourself unable to defend your belief and to be attempting to divert the topic off your belief which you struggle to defend.

Now, back to this “great apostasy”…because, after all, that first has to be proven to have even occurred. If that can be proven, then the mormon “Jesus” wasn’t much of a prophet at all. Little more than another lunatic ranting on a street corner, in my honest opinion. So, it is in the interests of all to find out the truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

As I stated elsewhere…the Mormons can have successors but the Apostles couldn’t or didn’t want to or for whatever reason…

To me, to draw out anything from ancient church history is mindboggling…but the Church is a living body with people at all sorts of levels, cultures, regions…different contexts…it is exasperating any learned person could make such a claim.

Many acknowledge the kindness of Mormon people they have met…but it is how they can believe such things…

I am waiting to see what creeds we can find common ground and where we contradict.

I have to do a search but there were two fundamentalist men of the Campbell/Stone mindset who drew on true happenings during the Inquisition, but out of context. When the documents were finally opened in 2003, the truth of what the Church was responsible for resonated with what Catholics had expected…and the clerics worked to remove charges against the vast majority of cases, and the stories created by these two men were exaggerated…

This last century, it was the KGB who actually set up a playwright to write the play, ‘The Deputy’ which was a very ingenious propaganda tool to malign P. Eugenio…

The United States…I think our Christianity does well in their own areas of denominations, but as a whole, I think we have some of the worst scandals…nobody is immune.

A Jewish commentator said this past year that the Christians are the greatest block in America and could do so much to turn things around…what is wrong with them?

We are not one, holy, universal and Apostolic…too individualistic…

I don’t have the savvy or enough education…is it worth it for someone to start a new thread on what is truth and how do we discern truth in religious matters…something that crosses boundaries, universal???

 

[KathleenGee]

(I found the site that is working to uphold the good name of Pius XII…and working for peace among religions…Jewish…

                     [www.pavetheway.org](www.pavetheway.org))

Can’t find the names yet of the two American fundamentalists who talked alot about the Inquisition and out of context…

 

[rinnie]

Well, if Joe was just bragging about his memory and his broad knowledge set, that’s one thing. However, if he was hinting that the name of the church contains that information, you might have a problem…"Catholic,’ / “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”

…and we do not believe that the very early church was founded upon Peter, but upon revelation–that thing which enabled Peter to know that Jesus was the Christ. Reading that scripture in context shows this.

Okay. You claim that you do not belive that the CC was founded on Peter, Now, here is the problem, what do you do with the scripture that says: You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church? Now that scripture (the word if God may I remind you) disagrees with you. How do you explain that?

 

[rinnie]

dianaiad

One thing I find funny (not ha ha) about you is that you always harp about us bringing up things and quotes from the LDS past. In fact you told us not to talk about anything in the LDS history of 100 years or more. Yet you bring up something concerning the Catholic Church 500 years ago. That’s certainly not fair.

I agree. And also here is a important point here. The LDS has changed alot of their teachings in the years.

One of my favoirite is the military, they can serve, then they cannot etc. But the point is and should be anyway none of the teaching’s of the RCC has never changed. Why? Because we still go by the word of Jesus Christ. Not JS. ANother true reason for us to see that Joseph Smith was not led by the Power of the Holy Spirit. JS was wrong. The HS never is

 

[TheosisM]

Okay. You claim that you do not belive that the CC was founded on Peter, Now, here is the problem, what do you do with the scripture that says: You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church? Now that scripture (the word if God may I remind you) disagrees with you. How do you explain that?

There are multiple interpretations to that passage by various groups. Mormons generally believe that the rock is revelation. Others have said that it is Jesus Christ. Protestants believe that it is Peter’s confession.

 

[KathleenGee]

When I was reading their sources, reading Joseph Smith’s construct that the church is an abomination and its believers corrupt…I see the former reference saying it was in the Pearl of Great Price…

Looking at sources, I also scanned the parts regarding Mormon Doctrines…I used to be a speed reader…used to…and came to those passages in Nephri…

The whole construct of Mormonism in Smith’s leading statement makes me think he had no contact with Catholicism…and the use of abomination was like that of others in his day…I did see the passages on Pratt and some others…I knew McConkie was recent.

Reading the construct of Mormonism in itself can’t be true because it is entirely condemning without any knowledge…I don’t think Joseph Smith even knew anything about Catholicism than the mindset of that…,just the use of abomination reflects the era…

I don’t think he knew anything of Catholicism or let alone have any understanding of it, and he certainly was no academic.

When I went online, there was a document that said the Mormon Church has changed its position 3,000 times…

And this is why I made previous comments that the Mormon church is becoming standardized and more mainline…

So I am wanting to find out today, 2009, what their creed is now.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So I am wanting to find out today, 2009, what their creed is now.

They are studying this year using a book titled “Gospel Principles”.

• When Joseph Smith received his First Vision, what did he learn about God?

In the spring of 1820, one of the most important events in the history of the world occurred. The time had come for the marvelous work and wonder of which the Lord had spoken. As a young boy, Joseph Smith wanted to know which of all the churches was the true Church of Jesus Christ. He went into the woods near his home and prayed humbly and intently to his Heavenly Father, asking which church he should join. On that morning a miraculous thing happened. Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ appeared to Joseph Smith. The Savior told him not to join any church because the true Church was not on the earth. He also said that the creeds of present churches were “an abomination in his sight” (Joseph Smith—History 1:19; see also verses 7–18, 20). Beginning with this event, there was again direct revelation from the heavens. The Lord had chosen a new prophet. Since that time the heavens have not been closed. Revelation continues to this day through each of His chosen prophets. Joseph was to be the one to help restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[KathleenGee]

Thank you, Rebecca.

All relationships that are based on Christ and love in this life, continue on into the next…Catholic spiritual writers…

Looking at just a title of theirs about family…

Will these references define their concept of Christology? Do they reveal all their teachings at the beginning, or do they wait until someone has been in for a year, and then reveal new concepts?

The construct of Mormonism is reactionary to the Catholic Church and its existence. Without it, Mormonism would have no construct.

The early church was entirely Jewish, first 20 years or so. I do not know early church history and don’t know what year Peter left for Rome, or Paul for that matter…I am going to find time to read the origins of worship, and in the earliest times the Jewish followers of Jesus continued to go to the syngagoes but when a malediction was placed in some synagogues against those who followed Christ, they left and formed their own synagogues…

I am actually drawn mostly to liturgy, but it is the primary place of gathering for believers.

Assemblies of people always have authority and structure and most highly concerned that the true intent of the message or history be accurately passed on to the next generation…The apostles would not put anything together haphazardly and the epistles are witness to the development, inculturation, and integrity of faith and it just didn’t stop because the Holy Spirit continued to work through their successors…

I mean, how could the apostles face Christ and say they didn’t work to establish the foundations of His Church…too many gaps…doesn’t make sense. When I read some development of Mormon thought, the Mormon church administrators started to sound more like Catholic administrators…

Reading a comment online, Mormonism’s greatest threat is the theology of the Catholic Church. Well, when there is conflict, there is also the discipline of studying the enemy…

The Catholic Church is not an abomination and never was.

 

[SteveVH]

Dianaiad:

Well then, thank you for trying to be so understanding. You have still avoided my question by taking this on another tangent and trying to place the burden on me to explain my faith position. I did that.

Now, will you please answer my question? Very simply, how important is this concept of “the burning in the bosom” to the Mormon faith? I think I, and others, have demonstrated that anyone can make the claim that it is God speaking to them which means it is no evidence at all of the legitimacy of your beliefs.

 

[rinnie]

There are multiple interpretations to that passage by various groups. Mormons generally believe that the rock is revelation. Others have said that it is Jesus Christ. Protestants believe that it is Peter’s confession.

But how did the Church interpret it? I understand we can interpret things anyway we choose actually. But what does the bible say. It says follow the teachings of the early fathers of the church does it not?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you, Rebecca.

All relationships that are based on Christ and love in this life, continue on into the next…Catholic spiritual writers…

Looking at just a title of theirs about family…

Mormons are taught they have the monopoly and family togetherness in heaven.

Will these references define their concept of Christology? Do they reveal all their teachings at the beginning, or do they wait until someone has been in for a year, and then reveal new concepts?

No, they do not reveal all of their teachings to potential and new converts.

The construct of Mormonism is reactionary to the Catholic Church and its existence. Without it, Mormonism would have no construct.

I agree, the LDS religion is irrelevant.

The early church was entirely Jewish, first 20 years or so. I do not know early church history and don’t know what year Peter left for Rome, or Paul for that matter…I am going to find time to read the origins of worship, and in the earliest times the Jewish followers of Jesus continued to go to the syngagoes but when a malediction was placed in some synagogues against those who followed Christ, they left and formed their own synagogues…

This is true, as well as “Judizers” who sought to keep the Old Law in place, and deny gentiles baptism.

I am actually drawn mostly to liturgy, but it is the primary place of gathering for believers.

The roots of the Liturgy are in Judaism. Some of the earliest accounts are very familiar to any Catholic (East or West).

Assemblies of people always have authority and structure and most highly concerned that the true intent of the message or history be accurately passed on to the next generation…The apostles would not put anything together haphazardly and the epistles are witness to the development, inculturation, and integrity of faith and it just didn’t stop because the Holy Spirit continued to work through their successors…

I mean, how could the apostles face Christ and say they didn’t work to establish the foundations of His Church…too many gaps…doesn’t make sense. When I read some development of Mormon thought, the Mormon church administrators started to sound more like Catholic administrators…

I agree. This is one of the least tenable claims of mormonism…the Apostles failed. ALL 12 OF THEM. Preposterous. Our understanding of “church” makes it even more so, because if Christ’s Church has failed, then so has Christ Himself as the Church is His. Their claim is essentially that Christ could not successfully lead His own Church.

There may be similarities in how leaders sound, but the structure of the two churches is not similar.

Reading a comment online, Mormonism’s greatest threat is the theology of the Catholic Church. Well, when there is conflict, there is also the discipline of studying the enemy…

The Catholic Church is not an abomination and never was.

Mormonism arose, and has its roots, in 19th century America, where anti-Catholicism was the norm. The “nativist” movement, the Know-nothing party, the Catholic Church defined as the “Whore of Babylon”, are all from this time period in US history.

It is one thing you will find if you study Mormonism, their theology (such as it is) is culturally driven.