Mormon Prophet told to go to court in UK

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesCollins
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
JamesCollins said:
There is very little doubt that if this succeeds the same tactics could be used against the Catholic Church. Imagine some court requiring the Catholic Church to submit a consecrated host to see if it actually has changed to the body and blood of Jesus.

Apples and oranges. Most people are aware that a miracle cannot be tested. That is much different that needing proof on the Book of Abraham origins. Though, there HAVE been miracles where the host has bled…just sayin…

Imagine some court questioning the Catholic teaching that Adam and Eve were real people who fell and infected all mankind with original sin.

So? The Pope has never backed away from the histrocity of the Bible. Again, apples and oranges. I stated earlier that there are certain things regarding religion that are based on faith. That is much different than a guy claiming he translated some scrolls and they are The Book of Abraham.

And what if the court decided it really wanted to force the Catholic Church to validate gay marriages because the doctrine on marriage is discriminatory?

Again, apples and oranges. A doctrine is a doctrine. No one is asking the Mormons to stop baptizing, for example.

I’m sure such things could be multiplied. I suspect it could even go to asking the Catholic Church to prove that its teaching regarding apostolic succession is true.

Yes, and apparently, this can be done.

Some court might decide that all such teachings are fraudulent and simply being used to induce its members to hand over money to support the professional priests …

Your problem here, is that the Catholic Church has never made claims like js did. And if anyone makes claims like js did, those claims are thoroughly investigated. I understand your point, sadly, it does not fly the way you are trying to give it wings

We need to be on the side of the LDS in this dispute no matter how goofy we might think their doctrine is.

No, I don’t.
Click to expand...
 
RebeccaJ said:
What is the hoped outcome? Compensation? What, exactly?
Click to expand...
I think their point is to show the LDS Church it can’t back up the claims it makes regarding their religion. Imagine if this is successful what it could mean for other religious groups.
 
The Catholic Church already goes through the “proofs” of it’s historical, objective claims. Were the CC to be scrutinized like this in court, it would be easy to submit the proof because the Catholic Church scrutinizes the claims a made in It’s name well before and far more thoroughly than anyone else does. It would seriously be a matter of handing over the paperwork for what the Church has already found out concerning a subject.

The LDS Church, on the other hand, makes several claims that can be objectively verified, however they either refuse to do so or they ignore the findings.

This isn’t an attack on the faith or spiritual doctrines of the lds church, its a call to show proof that can easily be obtained on some of it’s more objective teachings. This is something the Catholic Church does on a routine basis for anything that comes up.
 
This court is examining an important matter that has a direct impact on Roman Catholics.

The Mormon Church has more than 80,000 full time missionaries. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_(LDS_Church

The Mormons provide extensive training for their missionaries. They are trained only to provide pro-Mormon facts to potential converts.

These Mormon Missionaries actively trying to persuade Catholic to abandon their faith and become Mormons. The Mormon Church, as an institution, intentionally provides falsehoods to potential converts because the Church knows that if accurate facts are provided an informed potential converts would be much less likely to abandon their Catholic Faith.

I will discuss one example of the Mormon Church’s deceit.

The Mormon Church intentionally deceives the public about how their Prophet Joseph Smith died. The Church wants potential converts to believe that Joseph Smith was murdered without using any defensive weapons. (See discussion of Joseph Smith: The Prophet below.) However, Joseph Smith used a hand gun and wounded some of his attackers before he died. (See cites to Mormon’s Church’s own history shown below.)

The Mormon’s production of Joseph Smith: The Prophet is available on the Church’s website. lds.org/media-library/video/feature-films?lang=eng#2011-03-01-joseph-smith-the-prophet-of-the-restoration

At 0:00:06, the movie states:

“The historical events represented in this story are true and occurred on the American frontier from 1805 to 1845,” emphasis provided.

The Mormon Church’s representation that the story is true creates a heightened duty upon the Church to make sure that everything shown in the video is accurate.

At about 0.58:47, the mob is at the door and is trying to push the door open. Someone shoots through the door and Hyrum Smith is shot. Joseph Smith goes to Hyrum Smith to comfort him. At no time during the death scene does Joseph Smith display a hand gun.

The video’s depiction of Joseph Smith’s death is wrong because it does not show what Joseph Smith did with a hand gun before he died. While in jail, Joseph Smith possessed a hand gun. After Hyrum’s death, Joseph Smith fired the hand gun, which resulted in some of his attackers being injured
(History of the Church, Vol. 7) byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx
byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx?HC=/hc/6/1.html&A=617

The fact that Joseph Smith used a hand gun, which injured some of his attackers, is a significant. If told the accurate story about Joseph Smith’s death, potential converts would have reservations about becoming Mormons.
 
I know we are all aware that the Catholic Church can not in an objective manner prove in a court of law that Christ rose from the dead nor that the Eucharist is the Body Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ. Those claims would not hold up. They are matters of faith.

Those are matters of faith. Not reason.

As Catholics, we dont use only reason and we dont use only faith as we approach truth. We use both.
 
JamesCollins said:
There is very little doubt that if this succeeds the same tactics could be used against the Catholic Church. Imagine some court requiring the Catholic Church to submit a consecrated host to see if it actually has changed to the body and blood of Jesus. Imagine some court questioning the Catholic teaching that Adam and Eve were real people who fell and infected all mankind with original sin. And what if the court decided it really wanted to force the Catholic Church to validate gay marriages because the doctrine on marriage is discriminatory? I’m sure such things could be multiplied. I suspect it could even go to asking the Catholic Church to prove that its teaching regarding apostolic succession is true. Some court might decide that all such teachings are fraudulent and simply being used to induce its members to hand over money to support the professional priests …

We need to be on the side of the LDS in this dispute no matter how goofy we might think their doctrine is.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. I strongly disagree with what the LDS church teaches but the Catholic or evangelical churches could be next. First they came for the Mormons…
 
Dec1951 said:
This court is examining an important matter that has a direct impact on Roman Catholics.

The Mormon Church has more than 80,000 full time missionaries. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missionary_(LDS_Church

The Mormons provide extensive training for their missionaries. They are trained only to provide pro-Mormon facts to potential converts.

who told you that? There is hardly training at all. Now, granted, I was at the MTC in 1984, but back then, English speaking were trained for three weeks. Foreign was 8 weeks. We did not learn doctrine. We learned our language and memorized the teaching slides. There was no “extensive training”

These Mormon Missionaries actively trying to persuade Catholic to abandon their faith and become Mormons. The Mormon Church, as an institution, intentionally provides falsehoods to potential converts because the Church knows that if accurate facts are provided an informed potential converts would be much less likely to abandon their Catholic Faith.

that part is very true

I will discuss one example of the Mormon Church’s deceit.

The Mormon Church intentionally deceives the public about how their Prophet Joseph Smith died. The Church wants potential converts to believe that Joseph Smith was murdered without using any defensive weapons. (See discussion of Joseph Smith: The Prophet below.) However, Joseph Smith used a hand gun and wounded some of his attackers before he died. (See cites to Mormon’s Church’s own history shown below.)

The Mormon’s production of Joseph Smith: The Prophet is available on the Church’s website. lds.org/media-library/video/feature-films?lang=eng#2011-03-01-joseph-smith-the-prophet-of-the-restoration

At 0:00:06, the movie states:

“The historical events represented in this story are true and occurred on the American frontier from 1805 to 1845,” emphasis provided.

The Mormon Church’s representation that the story is true creates a heightened duty upon the Church to make sure that everything shown in the video is accurate.

At about 0.58:47, the mob is at the door and is trying to push the door open. Someone shoots through the door and Hyrum Smith is shot. Joseph Smith goes to Hyrum Smith to comfort him. At no time during the death scene does Joseph Smith display a hand gun.

The video’s depiction of Joseph Smith’s death is wrong because it does not show what Joseph Smith did with a hand gun before he died. While in jail, Joseph Smith possessed a hand gun. After Hyrum’s death, Joseph Smith fired the hand gun, which resulted in some of his attackers being injured
(History of the Church, Vol. 7) byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx
byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx?HC=/hc/6/1.html&A=617

The fact that Joseph Smith used a hand gun, which injured some of his attackers, is a significant. If told the accurate story about Joseph Smith’s death, potential converts would have reservations about becoming Mormons.

There is a lot more false than that But that is a good start
Click to expand...
 
SpeSalvi said:
The Catholic Church already goes through the “proofs” of it’s historical, objective claims. Were the CC to be scrutinized like this in court, it would be easy to submit the proof because the Catholic Church scrutinizes the claims a made in It’s name well before and far more thoroughly than anyone else does. It would seriously be a matter of handing over the paperwork for what the Church has already found out concerning a subject.

The LDS Church, on the other hand, makes several claims that can be objectively verified, however they either refuse to do so or they ignore the findings.

This isn’t an attack on the faith or spiritual doctrines of the lds church, its a call to show proof that can easily be obtained on some of it’s more objective teachings. This is something the Catholic Church does on a routine basis for anything that comes up.
Click to expand...
This
 
TexanKnight said:
Not sure what we are agreeing to disagree about. You were not correct on anything. I have no idea what the English Courts will decide My point had nothing to do with the final resolution. It had everything to do with the fact monson would never consider responding because he knows his teachings are false.
Click to expand...
Everything I have said was true to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

You display an untoward and un-Christian arrogance about your own opinions.

The courts are not a proper venue for attesting to matters of faith and morals and the high probability is that British courts, giving cognizance of the fact that this is a backdoor attempt to do exactly that, will decline to proceed further, no matter what the complainants say to attempt to reframe their charges.This is the opinion of most observers of the UK judicial system, as can be noted in almost any of the secular news articles which discuss the matter.

IF the UK court were to proceed with this case, no matter the outcome, it would represent a bad precedent. No matter what you think, militant secularists and proponents of the New Atheism would seek to harry all mainstream religious bodies similarly, a cycle of litigiousness which would cripple the work of all ecclesial communities, Christian or otherwise.

After all, the rules of evidence for a court of law do not admit of philosophical or theological reasoning. They are inherently materialist and naturalistic in their assumptions: that a host bleeds without known cause does not prove that the Christian God has caused it to bleed: there may be other natural explanations as yet undiscovered, or if the cause be supernatural, then elves, unicorns, Isis of the Egyptian pantheon, trans-dimensional aliens, or Allah may have caused the phenomenom.

And since MOST consecrated hosts neither bleed nor show any OTHER EVIDENCE of external change—we do not want a Court of Law, in any country, prosecuting our clergy for fraud for attesting to things understood by faith and not by sight. YOU think I am comparing apples to oranges, I believe that if courts begin to entertain these sorts of matters, you will quickly see that what are being compared are Macintosh versus Granny Smith, naval versus tangerine.

THAT is where we disagree and must continue so to disagree until the courts make their next few moves.
 
flameburns623 said:
Everything I have said was true to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

You display an untoward and un-Christian arrogance about your own opinions.

The courts are not a proper venue for attesting to matters of faith and morals and the high probability is that British courts, giving cognizance of the fact that this is a backdoor attempt to do exactly that, will decline to proceed further, no matter what the complainants say to attempt to reframe their charges.This is the opinion of most observers of the UK judicial system, as can be noted in almost any of the secular news articles which discuss the matter.

IF the UK court were to proceed with this case, no matter the outcome, it would represent a bad precedent. No matter what you think, militant secularists and proponents of the New Atheism would seek to harry all mainstream religious bodies similarly, a cycle of litigiousness which would cripple the work of all ecclesial communities, Christian or otherwise.

After all, the rules of evidence for a court of law do not admit of philosophical or theological reasoning. They are inherently materialist and naturalistic in their assumptions: that a host bleeds without known cause does not prove that the Christian God has caused it to bleed: there may be other natural explanations as yet undiscovered, or if the cause be supernatural, then elves, unicorns, Isis of the Egyptian pantheon, trans-dimensional aliens, or Allah may have caused the phenomenom.

And since MOST consecrated hosts neither bleed nor show any OTHER EVIDENCE of external change—we do not want a Court of Law, in any country, prosecuting our clergy for fraud for attesting to things understood by faith and not by sight. YOU think I am comparing apples to oranges, I believe that if courts begin to entertain these sorts of matters, you will quickly see that what are being compared are Macintosh versus Granny Smith, naval versus tangerine.

THAT is where we disagree and must continue so to disagree until the courts make their next few moves.
Click to expand...
👍

Im not sure why that this ^^^^ is not obvious as the slippery slope presents if it were to go forward.

Militant Atheists would love it to do just that as it fits nicely into their agenda.
 
SpeSalvi said:
The Catholic Church already goes through the “proofs” of it’s historical, objective claims. Were the CC to be scrutinized like this in court, it would be easy to submit the proof because the Catholic Church scrutinizes the claims a made in It’s name well before and far more thoroughly than anyone else does. It would seriously be a matter of handing over the paperwork for what the Church has already found out concerning a subject.

The LDS Church, on the other hand, makes several claims that can be objectively verified, however they either refuse to do so or they ignore the findings.

This isn’t an attack on the faith or spiritual doctrines of the lds church, its a call to show proof that can easily be obtained on some of it’s more objective teachings. This is something the Catholic Church does on a routine basis for anything that comes up.
Click to expand...
Thank you SpeSalvi. This is correct. I also have mixed feelings like RebeccaJ about the charge and summons.

The fraud charge against the LDS church as it is layed out in the summons is based on factual statements that can be objectively proven to be incorrect. It is not attacking the theological statements of belief. Also, the fraud charge hinges entirely on the tithing policy of the LDS church.

Mainstream churches ask for offerings but they are not required for someone to receive any Sacraments/salvific rituals. If a Mormon wants the saving ordinances of the temple (which are required for exaltation), they have to pay tithing. If they want to be sealed to their families, they have to pay tithing. This fact is what makes these charges against the LDS church possible. As the law currently stands, someone could not file a similar charge that would not be quickly thrown out of court against the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church does not require a monetary contribution for the Sacraments.

What concerns me is that the New Atheists become even bolder than they are today and push to change the laws so that they could more easily go after all churches on fraud. Even though I don’t have any issues with the charges on their face, it could start things going down the proverbial slippery slope.

Many ex-Mormons become atheist or agnostic. Some even become militant in their atheism. It makes me sad to see the all the spiritual destruction left in the wake of Mormonism.

I found the Mormon Coffee blog post very interesting and I do agree that the charges are primarily about publicity and attempting to get discovery. There are people who would love to get access to documents in the vault in the mountain. I honestly doubt the charges will get very far.
 
flameburns623 said:
Everything I have said was true to the best of my knowledge and understanding.

I do not dispute that. I am just saying that what you were saying about evience, etc is not correct.

You display an untoward and un-Christian arrogance about your own opinions.

Really? Stating facts based on 23 years as a litigator is arrogant opinion? How very odd. And nothing I said was opinion. Everything I said was fact.

The courts are not a proper venue for attesting to matters of faith and morals and the high probability is that British courts, giving cognizance of the fact that this is a backdoor attempt to do exactly that, will decline to proceed further, no matter what the complainants say to attempt to reframe their charges.This is the opinion of most observers of the UK judicial system, as can be noted in almost any of the secular news articles which discuss the matter.

I never said the courts were a place to attest to faith. I said that, depending on the case, attestations may occur in the process of presenting evidence. However, the issues being brought, like the Book of Abraham were questions of fact, not faith

IF the UK court were to proceed with this case, no matter the outcome, it would represent a bad precedent. No matter what you think, militant secularists and proponents of the New Atheism would seek to harry all mainstream religious bodies similarly, a cycle of litigiousness which would cripple the work of all ecclesial communities, Christian or otherwise.

Perhaps. But as another poster stated, Catholics have nothing to fear.

After all, the rules of evidence for a court of law do not admit of philosophical or theological reasoning. They are inherently materialist and naturalistic in their assumptions: that a host bleeds without known cause does not prove that the Christian God has caused it to bleed: there may be other natural explanations as yet undiscovered, or if the cause be supernatural, then elves, unicorns, Isis of the Egyptian pantheon, trans-dimensional aliens, or Allah may have caused the phenomenom.

Not true. Law is nothing if not philosophy. And more than a few attorneys use religious reasoning in their arguments. I know I have. But, again, the questions presented were asking for facts, not faith

And since MOST consecrated hosts neither bleed nor show any OTHER EVIDENCE of external change—we do not want a Court of Law, in any country, prosecuting our clergy for fraud for attesting to things understood by faith and not by sight. YOU think I am comparing apples to oranges, I believe that if courts begin to entertain these sorts of matters, you will quickly see that what are being compared are Macintosh versus Granny Smith, naval versus tangerine.

How many does it take to bleed? The videos are on the net. One does not to show EVERY egg hatches to show that eggs hatch.

THAT is where we disagree and must continue so to disagree until the courts make their next few moves.

Again, you are always free to disagree with truth and facts. People do it all the time
Click to expand...
 
iepuras said:
Thank you SpeSalvi. This is correct. I also have mixed feelings like RebeccaJ about the charge and summons.

The fraud charge against the LDS church as it is layed out in the summons is based on factual statements that can be objectively proven to be incorrect. It is not attacking the theological statements of belief. Also, the fraud charge hinges entirely on the tithing policy of the LDS church.

Mainstream churches ask for offerings but they are not required for someone to receive any Sacraments/salvific rituals. If a Mormon wants the saving ordinances of the temple (which are required for exaltation), they have to pay tithing. If they want to be sealed to their families, they have to pay tithing. This fact is what makes these charges against the LDS church possible. As the law currently stands, someone could not file a similar charge that would not be quickly thrown out of court against the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church does not require a monetary contribution for the Sacraments.

What concerns me is that the New Atheists become even bolder than they are today and push to change the laws so that they could more easily go after all churches on fraud. Even though I don’t have any issues with the charges on their face, it could start things going down the proverbial slippery slope.

Many ex-Mormons become atheist or agnostic. Some even become militant in their atheism. It makes me sad to see the all the spiritual destruction left in the wake of Mormonism.

I found the Mormon Coffee blog post very interesting and I do agree that the charges are primarily about publicity and attempting to get discovery. There are people who would love to get access to documents in the vault in the mountain. I honestly doubt the charges will get very far.
Click to expand...
I have to say, no matter how this plays out, I’m a little worried now. What if Phillips does inflict some damage on the LDS church? Say he does have enough proof to objectively prove some of their teachings are false, can you imagine what would happen, worldwide, to all religious groups? If they (atheist groups) feel like they’ve won a point by disproving some mormon beliefs, what kind of backlash do you think that’ll have for everyone else? This could be the first step in some major world wide presecution of all religious bodies…sign of the times?
 
jadamo said:
I have to say, no matter how this plays out, I’m a little worried now. What if Phillips does inflict some damage on the LDS church? Say he does have enough proof to objectively prove some of their teachings are false, can you imagine what would happen, worldwide, to all religious groups? If they (atheist groups) feel like they’ve won a point by disproving some mormon beliefs, what kind of backlash do you think that’ll have for everyone else? This could be the first step in some major world wide presecution of all religious bodies…sign of the times?
Click to expand...
I think if Mr. Phillips is successful against the LDS church, militant atheists will go after someone bigger. The worldwide persecution of religion, especially Christianity, will go on regardless of how this fraud charge plays out. Could it be a sign of the times? Probably, but none of us knows when Jesus will return. I don’t worry about the Second Coming of Christ all that much. I worry more about my parents and siblings and my husband and children.

My parents and siblings are all LDS, so I am concerned about the fraud charges. I pray for them every day that they will realize the truth and find the True God. If the LDS church is essentially “taken down”, I fear for the personal fall out that will be inflicted on millions of people. Trust me, I want everyone to leave the LDS church and would like to see it disappear, but I can tell you from experience that it is pretty devastating to have your entire faith destroyed. I don’t know how my family, especially my parents, would handle having their faith destroyed. I am glad that if it were to happen, I am here to help them.

I was extraordinarily blessed to have a foundation of a basic belief in God, independent of the LDS church, to rely on. I made the choice to take a couple of history of philosophy courses in college and found classical metaphysics to be superior to modern. I found the modern philosophers (basically anything after the Scholastics and Aquinas) to be ridiculous and irrational. The further away from the Scholastics and Aquinas, the worse it got. Because I actually studied Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, I wasn’t seduced by the New Atheism. Unfortunately, my story is far from typical. Mr. Phillips’ story of atheism and/or a broken family is not uncommon, especially for those who were born in the covenant. Not many people have actually studied philosophy, and because our culture accepts materialist metaphysics, it is easy to become atheist or agnostic after leaving Mormonism.
 
iepuras said:
Trust me, I want everyone to leave the LDS church and would like to see it disappear, but I can tell you from experience that it is pretty devastating to have your entire faith destroyed. I don’t know how my family, especially my parents, would handle having their faith destroyed. I am glad that if it were to happen, I am here to help them.

.
Click to expand...
Satan would love to have all devout Mormons become militant atheists or even agnostic.

From my observations of former Mormons, most end up either agnostic or atheists. Most dont end up becoming involved in a Christian denomination.

They end up rejecting more than just Mormonism. They end up rejecting God. They reject the whole idea of Christ.
 
iepuras said:
I was extraordinarily blessed to have a foundation of a basic belief in God, independent of the LDS church, to rely on. I made the choice to take a couple of history of philosophy courses in college and found classical metaphysics to be superior to modern. I found the modern philosophers (basically anything after the Scholastics and Aquinas) to be ridiculous and irrational. The further away from the Scholastics and Aquinas, the worse it got. Because I actually studied Aristotle, Augustine and Aquinas, I wasn’t seduced by the New Atheism. Unfortunately, my story is far from typical. Mr. Phillips’ story of atheism and/or a broken family is not uncommon, especially for those who were born in the covenant. Not many people have actually studied philosophy, and because our culture accepts materialist metaphysics, it is easy to become atheist or agnostic after leaving Mormonism.
Click to expand...
Well stated.
I’m all for wanting for Mormons to come to the realization of the truth. But the fall out from something like this isnt going to lead Mormons into the Body of Christ.
 
There are very few churches that demand payment for salvation. In fact, aside from the lds church, only the church of Scientology comes to mind in meeting that criterion.

I would be okay if there was a legislation providing precedence regarding making sure churches don’t demand money for their members to be in good standing. Businesses charge for memberships- not churches.

I still don’t think the RCC has anything to worry about. Marie, although I see your point I don’t understand why you would equate those claims with the claims being disputed here.
  1. The Roman Catholic Church does not demand money from It’s members in order for them to be in good standing.
  2. The Roman Catholic Church closely scrutinizes any claims that It officially makes.
  3. The Roman Catholic Church has logical, traditional, and historical precedent for It’s claims, which are MORE than readily available to anyone that is interested in learning about Catholicism.
I, personally, pray that this does get to court and set precedence so cults and religious organizations can no longer financially extort their members. The “attack” here is not on Christianity, it’s a lawsuit against a not-really-christian sect for making their members believe that they have to pay a tithe to be a full member of the church even before they’re taught everything the church claims.

If nothing else, it will get enough publicity to make investigators start asking questions. If a single soul is saved because that person reconsidered Mormonism and went back to their Christian roots, I would say it’s a victory on the side of Christianity.
 
SpeSalvi said:
There are very few churches that demand payment for salvation. In fact, aside from the lds church, only the church of Scientology comes to mind in meeting that criterion.

I would be okay if there was a legislation providing precedence regarding making sure churches don’t demand money for their members to be in good standing. Businesses charge for memberships- not churches.

I still don’t think the RCC has anything to worry about. Marie, although I see your point I don’t understand why you would equate those claims with the claims being disputed here.
  1. The Roman Catholic Church does not demand money from It’s members in order for them to be in good standing.
  2. The Roman Catholic Church closely scrutinizes any claims that It officially makes.
  3. The Roman Catholic Church has logical, traditional, and historical precedent for It’s claims, which are MORE than readily available to anyone that is interested in learning about Catholicism.
I, personally, pray that this does get to court and set precedence so cults and religious organizations can no longer financially extort their members. The “attack” here is not on Christianity, it’s a lawsuit against a not-really-christian sect for making their members believe that they have to pay a tithe to be a full member of the church even before they’re taught everything the church claims.

If nothing else, it will get enough publicity to make investigators start asking questions. If a single soul is saved because that person reconsidered Mormonism and went back to their Christian roots, I would say it’s a victory on the side of Christianity.
Click to expand...
Atheists dont care if it’s Mormonism, Catholicism, Lutheran, Baptist, Jewish etc etc etc.

The fall out has the slippery slope potential of being about religion in general. Not Mormonism specifically.

And most former Mormon do NOT got back to Christian roots. MOST become atheists or at the very least, agnostic. I know I did.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top