Mormonism - A Catholic Perspective

[meaprilrain]

BTW Christians believe in one God. (A teaching from our Jewish heritage. See the Shema: "Hear O Israel, our God is one God.) The LDS? I believe that in one of JS’s visions, he claims to have seen God and Jesus, and everyone of LDS males are destined to become gods themselves! Then there’s the fact that Christians believe in the trinity–one God in three persons (in the Bible, a foretaste of this doctrine is Genesis 1:26 “And God {singular} said, 'Let us {plural} make man in our {plural} image” and the fact that the Hebrew word for God is elohim which is actually plural even though we know that the Jews worshipped one God.)

This happens to be one of the ones that baffles me the most. I am so sincere but honestly, There is only like 3 or 4 scriptures that have the terms " I are one" Yet there are hundreds of scriptures that refer to God the Father , His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy spirit as being complete and seperate individuals or spirits or entities or whatever you want to call them.

Stephen in Acts
Acts 7: 55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,
56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

Matt 3: 16-17
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

How can you see and hear seperate people that you claim are one individual ? Stephen SAW God the father and JESUS standing right next to him? that is 2 people ?

John 17 : 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

so then if God and Jesus are one and they are Lord because they are in each other as one, then we also are GOD and Lord as we may be one with them also ??

John 14 : 16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

This is ANOTHER comforter, not the same person.

Do you think maybe to be one it just means of one goal and one mind, like when you are married you are no longer seperate but ONE flesh ? you are not really one flesh, but a marriage of one. The Godhead of 3 seperate individuals is really just one in spirit and mind, goals being reached of the Fathers will .

1 cor 12: For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ.
Romans 12: 4-5 For as we have many members in one body, and all members have not the same office: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.

Luke 23: 34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots. 46 And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.

If Jesus is God then why would he have to ask his Father to forgive his transgressors ? and why would he commend his spirit into his own hands ?

This makes absolutley no sense, of all the differences in religion this one tops it that God the Father and his SON Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are all one person !

anyone please explain in english understandable terms !

 

[insidemymemory]

The 4 years I am refering to is between Marcellinus 304 to marcellinus I begining in 308 AD.
You have many gaps and many Anti popes serving as well throughout history. My information comes from your very own catholic encyclopedia online ! I do not write from anywhere else because I hate it when others talk about things they do not know and have no proof to write about !

My comment about catholics being the only christians was from the quote of the person before me. She stated to be a christian you had to be from the church that Jesus Christ founded himself. And that is what you claim is it not ?? Therefore any other church than catholic would not be christian ? maybe I misunderstood her answer but that was what I preceived and thus my answer.

and yes, you do claim the pope to be infalable and without question the highest and right authority !! Yet every pope that is elected changes everything from before ? Even the current pope now has said infant baptism is not necessary ? The church changes FUNDAMENTAL principles all the time !! Do you know that even a person of another faith could baptise you a catholic ? where is the authority in that ?

And I was not spreading ignorant and hateful statements, I was stating fact and church history !

Do not misinterpret my voice in these writings, I am speaking with calmness and sincere seeking of answers. Why ? because my son just married a darling catholic girl and their beliefs baffle me !!

I wasn’t denying what you were saying, I just wanted a name. Again, look at the mass of the early christians, study the writing of the early church father.

I was not denying wicked popes, no Catholic would deny the low points in our history.

I meant to mention infallibility, anyone that is anti-catholic mentions is but doesn’t really understand what it means. I knew you were going to bring it up. There is a big difference between infallibility and impeccability.

okay I am not going to type all of it so I am going to quote something of where the idea comes from
"One example of this ancient belief comes to us from Ignatius of Antioch. In his second-century letter to the church in Smyrna, he wrote, “Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8, 1 [A.D. 110]).

If Christ did set up such an organization, he must have provided for its continuation, for its easy identification (that is, it had to be visible so it could be found), and, since he would be gone from earth, for some method by which it could preserve his teachings intact.

All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of bishops, and the preservation of the Christian message, in its fullness, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility, of the Church as a whole, but mainly through its Christ-appointed leaders, the bishops (as a whole) and the pope (as an individual).

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made. It would be nice if he were omniscient or impeccable, but his not being so will fail to bring about the destruction of the Church.

But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. They must have a perfectly steady rock to build upon and to trust as the source of solemn Christian teaching. And that’s why papal infallibility exists.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16). "

If you want the rest catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp

You have a very limited understanding of the Catholic church.
You are on Catholic.com forum why not take the time and study the beliefs you are you are sp quick to reject?

Also, yes, the Catholic church recognizes other baptisms. So yeah, you are considered Catholic.

Not Roman Catholic, but Catholic nonetheless. The Catholic church is the universal church, those who follow Christ are Christians and therefore Catholics.

 

[AMDGtoo]

meaprilrain, where are you getting your information? Or perhaps I should say your interpretation?

“Interregnum” is a temporary suspension of the usual functions of government or control. Why would that mean that Jesus was telling a falsehood and has decided that He will now no longer be faithful?

And yes, Matthew 28:20 does in fact say that “I (Jesus) am with you (the then eleven disciples of His Church who then represent His Church)” Please note that in Matthew 16;18 Jesus says that He will build His Church and at the time we know that that was the Catholic Church. History actually confirms that Jesus’ Church is the Catholic Church. In Acts, we see the followers of Jesus called “Christians”, but they were also known as the “Followers of the Way” (see the Didache) and the word “Catholic” first appears in a letter of Ignatius of Antioch on or about 110 A.D.it. (The letter indicates that by 110 A.D., the original Christian Church was already well known as the “Catholic Church”.) Around 200 A.D. Irenaeus (second bishop of Lyons) listed all the Popes succeeding Peter up to his time, and any public library has the complete list of 265 Popes .

As to your claim that in the Catholic Church only one person receives revelation, I must assume that you are unaware that Christian Churches believe that all public revelation ended with the death of the Apostle John. (And no, unlike the LDS church, the Catholic Church does not claim that the Apostle John never died, but that’s something for another time.) Of course, the Apostle John was never Pope and as we see from the letter of Pope Clement I (fourth Bishop of Rome–that is the third successor to St.Peter as Bishop of Rome after Linus and Anencletus, sometimes called Cletus) to the Church at Corinth, we see that Pope Clement was called to settle a problem there even though John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than Rome was .

I don’t exactly know what your problem is about the Bible, but you do know that in the 4th century, the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged to the Bible and apart from the Church, Christians simply would not have a Bible at all.

 

[meaprilrain]

I
I was not denying wicked popes, no Catholic would deny the low points in our history.

I meant to mention infallibility, anyone that is anti-catholic mentions is but doesn’t really understand what it means. I knew you were going to bring it up. There is a big difference between infallibility and impeccability.

It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself. If, as Christ promised, the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church then it must be protected from fundamentally falling into error and thus away from Christ. It must prove itself to be a perfectly steady guide in matters pertaining to salvation.

But the Past popes HAVE taught error and have had horrible reputations, so how can you say they were men of God ? Should not the Holy spirit have stopped them from changing fundamental prinicples or stopped them from even being elected ? If all the bishops and fathers and those that make the decisions of who is the next Pope, If they were that intune to the Spirit and the Lord, don’t you think they would have got it right and elected a pope worthy of carrying on Christs will ?

Of course, infallibility does not include a guarantee that any particular pope won’t “neglect” to teach the truth, or that he will be sinless, or that mere disciplinary decisions will be intelligently made.
But he must be able to teach rightly, since instruction for the sake of salvation is a primary function of the Church. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed.

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true.

So what exactly would you classify as heresy and apostasy because your encyclopedia talks about early apostasy in the Catholic church ? It started out one thing and has ballooned into so many different branches of Catholicism that it is hardly even recognized ? Your eastern western whatever whatever do not even celebrate the same days ?

How can you say that it has remained the same church that Christ founded ?

.

 

[meaprilrain]

As to your claim that in the Catholic Church only one person receives revelation, I must assume that you are unaware that Christian Churches believe that all public revelation ended with the death of the Apostle John.

So your saying that when the new pope puts in new doctrine or takes out the old from the past pope, he is doing so on his own authority ? he is changing the Lords principles on his own without the Lords authority because the Pope no longer receives revelation ?

I don’t exactly know what your problem is about the Bible, but you do know that in the 4th century, the Catholic Church used her authority to determine which books belonged to the Bible and apart from the Church, Christians simply would not have a Bible at all.

Yes I am aware of this, we would actually have all of the scripture available to read, not just the ones the church chose to keep and throw the rest away.

 

[AMDGtoo]

meaprilrain has said “But the Past popes HAVE taught error …”

Name one. You will need the big Catechism of the Catholic Church to help you there since it “spells out” exactly what the Church officially teaches (nothing else counts.)

 

[meaprilrain]

meaprilrain has said “But the Past popes HAVE taught error …”

Name one. You will need the big Catechism of the Catholic Church to help you there since it “spells out” exactly what the Church officially teaches (nothing else counts.)

up until 1274 AD Infant baptism was not required or needed. Then all of a sudden it was or an infant was denied the sight of God, or “the beautific vision” What happens to all the souls that died before the year 1274 AD without baptism ?

Your new Pope now claims that again baptism for infants IS NOT necessary !!

Which is it ? this is a pretty big fundamental gospel principle don’t ya think ? ONE of these popes is in ERROR in their teachings !!

Which one is the false pope ? the one that says it is necessary or the one that says it isnt ??

 

[AMDGtoo]

Yes I am aware of this, we would actually have all of the scripture available to read, not just the ones the church chose to keep and throw the rest away.

If you really believe this, you are in need of more study than I originally thought because actually archeological studies (the Dead Sea Scrolls) have now been showing that the translations we have today agree with those of “back then”. The Catholic Chuch includes the O.T. Scriptures from the Septuagint canon (which includes 46 books) while Protestant churches use the Palestine canon (which contains only 39 books because the Palestine canon rejected the seven books that were translated into Greek. The N.T., of course, is the same for both–27 books written in Greek.

 

[meaprilrain]

If you really believe this, you are in need of more study than I originally thought because actually archeological studies (the Dead Sea Scrolls) have now been showing that the translations we have today agree with those of “back then”. The Catholic Chuch includes the O.T. Scriptures from the Septuagint canon (which includes 46 books) while Protestant churches use the Palestine canon (which contains only 39 books because the Palestine canon rejected the seven books that were translated into Greek. The N.T., of course, is the same for both–27 books written in Greek.

You mean the translations of the same books you already hold canon ? because there are like 50 or more books that you do not hold as canon and do not read in catholicism that came from the nag hamadi and the dead sea ?

 

[AMDGtoo]

up until 1274 AD Infant baptism was not required or needed. Then all of a sudden it was or an infant was denied the sight of God, or “the beautific vision” What happens to all the souls that died before the year 1274 AD without baptism ?

Actually, you are incorrect. Even in Acts we see whole families being baptized. (The Apostles didn’t say that only adults could be made to belong to God–but not their children. In fact, a good Jew wouldn’t have been impressed by that at all since before circumcision at 8 days–a clear foretaste of what Baptism does–brings Jewish boys into God’s family, yet this new supposedly better way, says that the children can’t be made part of the family of God?)

Are you talking about limbo? It was never an official doctrine. It was an attempt to coincide Jesus’ words you must be Baptized to enter heaven with his obvious mercy. The official doctrine of the Church is that obvious mercy and love for little children coupled with trust in Jesus since although we are bound by the Sacraments that Jesus gave us, He isn’t.

Now do you see why I said that you will need to research the big Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church? It has the official teachings of the Church. IOW I’m still waiting for one doctrine that was changed.

 

[AMDGtoo]

You mean the translations of the same books you already hold canon ? because there are like 50 or more books that you do not hold as canon and do not read in catholicism that came from the nag hamadi and the dead sea ?

It’s pretty obvious that we would not hold Gnostic works as Scripture, because, well, they aren’t Scripture… And that includes texts like The Shepherd of Hermes, The Didache,the letter of Clement I to the Church of Corinth, and much more. However, although these texts may not be bound in the canon, they are still available in bookstores or on the internet. But of course, we suffer the loss of texts like The Apocolypse of Moses (as mentioned in Jude) or some letters of Paul (although most of Paul’s letters were circulated by the Catholic communities before the canon was decided.

 

[meaprilrain]

Actually, you are incorrect. Even in Acts we see whole families being baptized. (The Apostles didn’t say that only adults could be made to belong to God–but not their children. In fact, a good Jew wouldn’t have been impressed by that at all since before circumcision at 8 days–a clear foretaste of what Baptism does–brings Jewish boys into God’s family, yet this new supposedly better way, says that the children can’t be made part of the family of God?)

Are you talking about limbo? It was never an official doctrine. It was an attempt to coincide Jesus’ words you must be Baptized to enter heaven with his obvious mercy. The official doctrine of the Church is that obvious mercy and love for little children coupled with trust in Jesus since although we are bound by the Sacraments that Jesus gave us, He isn’t.

Now do you see why I said that you will need to research the big Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church? It has the official teachings of the Church. IOW I’m still waiting for one doctrine that was changed.

""The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274.

It was not a necessity for an infant to be baptised until it was proposed and accepted at the second council of Lyons in 1274. Your current Pope now says it is not necessary for infant baptism ?

I will look at some other doctrine tomorrow, I have too may files to just pull them out !

 

[AMDGtoo]

""The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God. This teaching is grounded, as we have seen, on Scripture and tradition, and the decrees of the Church. Moreover, that those who die in original sin, without ever having contracted any actual sin, are deprived of the happiness of heaven is stated explicitly in the Confession of Faith of the Eastern Emperor Michael Palæologus, which had been proposed to him by Pope Clement IV in 1267, and which he accepted in the presence of Gregory X at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274.

It was not a necessity for an infant to be baptised until it was proposed and accepted at the second council of Lyons in 1274. Your current Pope now says it is not necessary for infant baptism ?

I will look at some other doctrine tomorrow, I have too may files to just pull them out !

I have asked you many, many times to check the big Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church, which alone gives Catholic doctrine, but you have continued to ignore and have dragged up that which isn’t doctrine and is not to be held as doctrine that must be believed.

It looks as if, in this case, I will have to do it for you.

One the issue of unbaptised infants the CCC has this to say:

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desire that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them” (Mk 10:14;cf. 1 Tim 2:4) allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

Here is “Baptism by Blood”:

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

Here is “Baptism by Desire”:

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Pschal mystery.” (Ecumenical Council, Vatican II Documents-Guadium et Spes 22 section 5; cf. Lumen Gentium 16; Ad Gentes 7) Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

It would also help you to know what exactly is doctrine/dogma (that cannot under any circumstances be changed), what is simply “teaching” (and so really has no official effect), and what is simply a “discipline” (which can be changed because it just a matter of internal business). I think knowing those things might help you from “getting your knickers in a twist”.

.

 

[meaprilrain]

I have asked you many, many times to check the big Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church, which alone gives Catholic doctrine, but you have continued to ignore and have dragged up that which isn’t doctrine and is not to be held as doctrine that must be believed.

It looks as if, in this case, I will have to do it for you…

Thank you, Since I am not Catholic I do not know where to find the big Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that the catholic encyclopedia that lists all topics and the churches views with a list of all the popes history was authoritive writingsto be believed. So just how does one differentiate what exactly is doctrine/dogma (that cannot under any circumstances be changed), what is simply “teaching” (and so really has no official effect), and what is simply a “discipline” (which can be changed because it just a matter of internal business).

because I don’t like having my knickers in a twist

NOW point B…
you state that my writings are not doctrine yet they come from the history of the popes and the catholic encyclopedia. So where does doctrine come from if not from the popes that install it ? or uninstall the previous ones ? WHO wrote the BIG Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church ?

 

[insidemymemory]

Thank you, Since I am not Catholic I do not know where to find the big Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that the catholic encyclopedia that lists all topics and the churches views with a list of all the popes history was authoritive writingsto be believed. So just how does one differentiate what exactly is doctrine/dogma (that cannot under any circumstances be changed), what is simply “teaching” (and so really has no official effect), and what is simply a “discipline” (which can be changed because it just a matter of internal business).

because I don’t like having my knickers in a twist

NOW point B…
you state that my writings are not doctrine yet they come from the history of the popes and the catholic encyclopedia. So where does doctrine come from if not from the popes that install it ? or uninstall the previous ones ? WHO wrote the BIG Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church ?

You don’t know where to find the catechism?

scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

Also…try a book store.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Thank you, Since I am not Catholic I do not know where to find the big Catholic Catechism of the Catholic Church. I was under the impression that the catholic encyclopedia that lists all topics and the churches views with a list of all the popes history was authoritive writingsto be believed. So just how does one differentiate what exactly is doctrine/dogma (that cannot under any circumstances be changed), what is simply “teaching” (and so really has no official effect), and what is simply a “discipline” (which can be changed because it just a matter of internal business).

No problem. I usually use my own copy of the CCC, but I think the Catechism can be found on the web here:

scborromeo.org/index2.htm

Of course, I bet that there are other places–I think the Vatican website has one and there are probably more.

I know that a book I have Come Home…The Door Is Open by Louise D’Angelo does a great job on explaining what is unchanging doctrine/dogma and what is discipline, but I don’t think it’s on the web. Maybe “I’m Glad You Asked” or “Point Papers” from the scborromeo website that the CCC is on has answers about it, I know that they have other answers. Don’t know.

It’s late for me, so I’ll just say “good night” for now.

 

[docdo54]

I am a Mormon and I would like to just clarify a couple of things that were stated in the previous post. First of all, we are Christians. The official name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We believe absolutely that it is only through Christ’s atonement that we can return to dwell in the presence of God. We absolutely believe that Christ is the ONLY way. Indeed, He is the way the truth and the life, NO man cometh unto the Father but by Me. Secondly, the Word of Wisdom states that we should “abstain from alcohol, coffee, tea, and other harmful drugs”. The Word of Wisdom never specifically mentions abstaining from caffeine. The reason I mention this is because I have served in the bishopric in my congregation and have administered temple recommend interviews and know for a fact that a person can be consuming caffeinated beverages (except for coffee) and still qualify for a temple recommend (required to enter the Mormon temples). That being said, caffeine is a harmful drug and we would all be doing our bodies a favor by abstaining from it. It is just that the Lord has not forbidden caffeine specifically (according to the standard temple recommend interview questions provided by the Lord through the Fist presidency of the Church and the Quorum of the twelve Apostles).

 

[pismopal]

Someone who cannot “find” the Catechism of the Catholic Church is bound to be confused about what the Church says. I found mine at a parish ( I paid 7 dollars for it ) near work and after taking 2 years to actually read it and the supporting Bible citations, I entered the Church. It is certainly easier to learn about the Church from those who know nothing factual about it.
As an aside, Apostolic Succession is not like the royal family when the death of a monarch automatically means that the next ruler is crowned. The leader of the Church is selected carefully but not always quickly. This doesn’t mean that the Church is without leadership. The system works fine for me and a billion others.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I am a Mormon and I would like to just clarify a couple of things that were stated in the previous post. First of all, we are Christians.

Gotta tell you that it all depends on your definition of “Christian”. If you mean Christian in that Jesus’ name is in the official name of your group, and you are a good people who believe that Jesus “atoned” then you are Christian. If your definition is more than that (you know mainstream–one God, belief in the Trinity, belief that public revelation stopped with the death of the Apostle John, belief that Jesus’ atonement was not in the Garden of Gethsemane but on the cross, historical roots (apostolic succession?), believing that the Bible is the sole “book of Scriptures” and it is inerrant, and more) well…then you just need to be proud of the fact that you are a separate people. (You know that it wasn’t that long ago when your Prophets and even your Endowment ceremony portrayed Christians in a bad light.)

 

[docdo54]

To me, it sounds like you are equating Christianity with Catholicism? According to your definition you would have to label anyone who is not Catholic (all protestants, and many Catholics who don’t share those beliefs for that matter) as non-Christians. I really have to disagree with that definition. Mormon doctrine is that Christ’s death on the cross was an essential part of the atonement but that every part of Christ’s entire life was an integral aspect of God’s atoning sacrifice. I am not sure what you are referring to when you said that it hasn’t been too long ago that our endowment sessions portrayed Christians in a “bad light”.
Although we are Christian, I have to agree with you that we are a “separate” people in that we do believe that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that He has, and still does, guide and direct His people on the earth just as He did in Moses’s day (through living prophets who receive direct revelation from God and keep records of that revelation). We are also different in that we believe that God has spoken to many other prophets (besides the prophets whose writings are found in current copies of the Bible; You know, the writings that were popular enough to make it through the democratic (self admittedly non-revelatory) screening process that the early Catholic church inflicted upon them). We believe in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and our modern day Prophet’s writings as well as those contained in the apocryphal writings. Basically, we believe and readily accept all of God’s revelations to his duly ordained prophets (past, present, and future). How was it decided which of God’s words should be kept and which ones should be thrown away?