Mormons prefer to prey on which? - Catholics or Protestants?

[ParkerD]

Are you OR are you not saying: that the church leaders are the wolves and they did’nt spare the flock in about 100AD - 200AD by committing the mormon theory of the “great apostasy”?

You put words in my mouth, that is deceptive, I never said I don’t think there were power struggles in the early church, and your supposition is judgemental.

In these modern times, who are the “wolves” with cries for power and would have us not seek healing, are you saying it is the Catholic Church?

Answers,
In my own way of thinking, I don’t use the words “great apostasy”, but I think it is evident from the epistles that there were “wolves” among the early members of the church. And I think some of the doctrinal foundations changed, so although I’m not saying the leaders were responsible for that, I would conjecture that a few key people were–perhaps some Pharisees who converted (not Paul) who brought both their strong traditions and strong persuasive techniques with them.

OK, whatever.

In answer to your last question, I see that happening all over–in governments (certainly), in prominent social agendas by Hollywood stars and others. I don’t think I’ve observed that in the Catholic church of today, though I was a bit confused reading the latest message of the pope to the world. (I’m not criticizing it, I just have misgivings about government roles versus the people getting conviction in their hearts to really follow Christ’s teachings including building each other up and living conservatively with an attitude of sharing from out of the goodness of their heart.) I recently read the newspaper coverage of a wonderful message from the Catholic leader in Salt Lake City, and appreciated his words of counsel very much.

 

[zerinus]

Finrock;5495959:

I don’t believe that zerinus’ comments reflect the position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Please understand that if you learned something new, then what you learned is the opinion of one member of the Church. I certainly do not agree with the sentiments expressed by zerinus, or at least not within the apparent context that they were stated.

I appreciate this, as I did assume that they were representative of the Mormon faith, so the correction is helpful to me.

Hi, and thank you guanophore for your interesting and fair-minded replies to both LDS and Catholic alike. I have enjoyed reading your posts.

In response to what you said in reply to Finrock, I should like to add that I don’t think that anyone here is speaking officially on behalf of the LDS Church. If Finrock thinks that he is, he should make that clear from the outset so that we know where he is coming from (literally ). But I certainly have never made such a claim, and would not do so now. Having said that, however, I do believe that what I say regarding LDS doctrine are in conformity with the standard works, both in Bible scripture as well as in modern LDS scripture; and to that extent I consider them to be in conformity with the teachings of the LDS Church. I do not claim infallibility for them, for sure! I am liable to err in that like anyone else is. But barring that, I believe that they are in conformity with the official position and teachings of the LDS Church.

I do confess to one fault, though, that I tend to make my posts rather short and brief, as I don’t like writing (or reading ) longwinded posts; and for that reason my posts may not always be as clear to everyone as I would like them to be.

With regard to the subject at hand, the reference was to the following verses of scripture:

Matthew 10:

40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

John 13:

20 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.

Jesus spoke those words to His disciples and Apostles whom he had chosen during His ministry; and I think that they are equally applicable to His modern day Prophet and Apostle Joseph Smith. Now you may not believe that Joseph Smith was an Apostle of Jesus Christ like Peter and John, therefore that promise does not apply to him. That is a perfectly logical position to hold. But given the assumption that he is, I think that that conclusion logically follows. Therefore your comment that you had learned something “new” was a bit out of place. Given that assumption, that conclusion logically follows. There is nothing “new” about that.

I also think that the negative aspect of what is taught in those scriptures equally applies: i.e. those who reject those whom Jesus Christ has sent, reject Him! From the LDS perspective, that necessarily includes Joseph Smith.

I still hold to that position. I have no hesitation whatsoever in presenting it as being in conformity with the official teaching of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Finrock has not said anything that should cause me to change my mind about that. He is expressing his own personal opinion, which he is entitled to. But he has no more authority to declare what he teaches to be the “official” position of the LDS Church than I am.

In case you are interested, here are some additional supporting evidence from LDS scripture in conformity to what I had said above:

D&C 84:

42 And wo unto all those who come not unto this priesthood which ye have received, which I now confirm upon you who are present this day, by mine own voice out of the heavens; and even I have given the heavenly hosts and mine angels charge concerning you.

---

74 Verily, verily, I say unto you, they who believe not on your words, and are not baptized in water in my name, for the remission of their sins, that they may receive the Holy Ghost, shall be damned, and shall not come into my Father’s kingdom where my Father and I am.

D&C 112:

20 Whosoever receiveth my word receiveth me, and whosoever receiveth me, receiveth those, the First Presidency, whom I have sent, whom I have made counselors for my name’s sake unto you.

---

29 And he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, and he that believeth not, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

 

[rinnie]

Hi Finrock you asked me IF you church teaches that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world and is indeed God would that make you a Christian. Interesting question.

I would say YES only if and only if in Your Church::there is only ONE GOD.

But see here is my problem, maybe you can explain.

The book of mormon. Mormon doctrine that the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost are actually 3 separate gods is found in Alma 11:28-31. Now Zeezrom said is there more than one God and Amulek answered No. And Zeezrom said unto him again how knowest thous these things? and he said an angel hath made them known unto me.

Now would you not find that a BIG problem? The book of Mormom is ANTI MORMON.

Heres another oldie but goodie. Your book got errors. How can that be if its the fullness of the everlasting gospel.

Alma 7:10 says Jesus shall be born of Mary at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers. But Matt says Bethlehem, not Jerusalem According to the bible thats a completely different TOWN!

How about the honey bees. Ole JS got stung by those didn’t he. Now scientist say they were brought into this world in fifteenth century, but the book of mormon in ether 2:3 claims they were introduced 2000 B.C. How do you explain that one?

 

[kikkichan]

Parker,

Which words? Do you have a pointer?

thanks!
–kc

…
I recently read the newspaper coverage of a wonderful message from the Catholic leader in Salt Lake City, and appreciated his words of counsel very much.

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,

Which words? Do you have a pointer?

thanks!
–kc

Kikkichan,
Rebecca J had provided the following link which I appreciated:

deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705316077,00.html

Here is the conclusion of the article:

"Calling it “a moment of grace,” Bishop Wester explained "You can either set your heels in and say to yourself, ‘Well, I’m just going to put up all my defense shields and be nice,’ or say, ‘This is an opportunity to get to know people, to appreciate the beauty of their faith, their religion and to see how God is being given glory through all this.’ "

Both instances confirmed to Bishop Wester “We have unity through diversity and not unity through conformity.” It resulted in a memorable, positive experience.

“It’s proof positive to me,” he said, “that our different cultures — religious and otherwise — can come together. We can work together, respect each other and develop friendships that are great gifts from God.”"

I liked the entire article, especially the Bishop’s desire to work together to help the poor and his genuine thanks that, quote, “I’m building upon that which has already been done, and I’m grateful for that.”

 

[kikkichan]

Parker,

Thanks again, and thanks, Rebecca

–kc

Kikkichan,
Rebecca J had provided the following link which I appreciated:

deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705316077,00.html

…
I liked the entire article, especially the Bishop’s desire to work together to help the poor and his genuine thanks that, quote, “I’m building upon that which has already been done, and I’m grateful for that.”

 

[guanophore]

If you don’t have any fault in the matter, then why did you say “I have no delusions that I have that much power over anyone”.

Because I know that my faults and shortcomings are not sufficient to interfere with the plan of God. If He wants Zundrah to become a Catholic, He will bring His work to completion, regardless of any personal impediment I may have.

You agreed that people can be swayed by calumny, but it did not interest you to engage mormons, from that it can be said that you either don't care or think that all mormons are honest so therefore you don't engage them.

You are free, of course, to make any conclusions that you so desire. There is no requirement here that your assumptions or conclusions be accurate. Neither of your conclusions here are correct, but you have the right to espouse them, and I affirm your right to reach them erroneously.

That is not what you said, see the quote below:

It is what I said, Answers. Your either/or mentality seems to be preventing you from seeing that both things are true. These are my opinons. “Catholics” who reject the authority of the Church have become Protestant, often without realizing it. These “catholics” are easy to convert to Mormonism, fundamentalism, or just about anything. There are many Protestants that know more about the Catholic faith than so called “Catholics”.

Just because a Catholic may not be knowledgeable about every aspect of their Faith, does NOT mean that they reject an earthly authority.

Lack of knowlege is wrong, rebellion is more wrong. Some have both.Some Catholics continue to obey, even though they don’t understand.

Seems you like the posts in the forum, I guess thats why you follow people around and criticize them so they can post something that makes you more humble.

I love CAF! It has greately helped me to improve my understanding of the faith. However, I fail to see what your psychoanalysis here has to do with the topic.

Thats nice, to know that you like to criticize or correct everyone except mormons and SDA.

For some reason it seems important to you that I do not engage in debate with these members. I am not sure why. Perhaps you feel you need more support? I have no criticism for you, if you wish to debate with them. I find myself mystified by why you would criticize me for refraining. It seems perhaps you agree with Zundrah, that they actually “prey” upon people, and need to be stopped. Do you feel, as she does, like doing physical violence to them?

So you were lying when you said you react when you see anti-Catholic misinformation, you reaaly only react sometimes.

It is inappropriate to make accusations against the other members of the forum such as this. Calling people “liars” or reacting to their opinons and posting as “lies” does not foster productive discussion.

I react all the time. I don’t always post my reactions.

I’m sure that some people who stalk are attached to the people they stalk as well.
You intentionally follow people around just to correct them, if that is like your puppy following you then, that speaks volumes of how you live.

Again, I fail to see how your psychoanalysis relates to the topic. Posting off topic can get a thread closed, and result in sanctions for the offender. If you have had personal difficulty in your life with regard to being “stalked” by someone, or being criticized for misbehavior, you may need professional help. CAF is not the place to work out these issues.

How nice that you have taken it upon yourself to be an authority by criticizing people except for mormons and SDA.

Noticing bad behavior gives me no authority. Nor does it require an authority figure to notice bad behavior. I fail to see how this relates to the topic. Authority problems may be something to add to that list requiring professional assistance.

And I did’nt mention anything about the official forum rules, you just brought it up to make it seem that I had a problem with authority, no not authority in general, just your self imposed authority over everyone here except the mormons and SDA.

The forum rules apply to all of us Answers. They are here to make the threads function better. The goal here is to have a productive discussion about the differences in our faith experiences. I think the OP may have the perception that a Mormon is trying to “prey” upon her. I know she has at least one in her life that talks to her about matters of faith.

 

[guanophore]

As for the personal attacks, your the one who lied and twist my words around.

It does seem that you are having a personal problem. The threads are not the venue to work these things out. It is possible to have differences of opinon with each other without becoming petty and accusatory.

Like I care.
I’ll just go cry some more.(sarcasm)
Your supposed christian charity speaks volumes.

People don’t get upset about things they dont care about. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. For example, if Zundrah were indifferent about Mormons,she would not post some of the hostile things she posts, or would not title the thread “Momons prefer to prey…”. Choices of words such as these denot feelings. People dont’ get strong feelings about things that don’t matter. Your sarcastic remarks and attempts to foster a spat with me demonstrate that you are emotionally engaged. This does not happen when you don’t care. You care enough about something to foster a conflict in a public forum. It might be useful for you to figure out what that is. I don’t think it has anything to do with the thread topic.

For someone who says they don’t post because of me, you seem to answer my posts often enough.

I came here because Zundrah opened the thread. However, I am happy to take it upon myself to find your posts, and respond to them as well. I cherish the opportunity. However, let us stay on the topic if we can, ok?

You need help for that.

I get lots of help, because she starts lots of threads. None of them have fizzled out for lack of interest from others.

I said WHY BRING IT UP IF YOU DID"NT THINK IT WAS OK.

What does that mean “ok”? I am in no position to arbitrate what is “ok” for Mormons to do! We live in a free market society, they are allowed to market their product, just like anyone else. There is plenty of dishonest marketing going on. What are you going to do, amend the constitution, so that the right to free speech is taken out?

Debating is axe grinding according to you.

Oh, no, not a bit! Taking out personal hostilities during a debate can be a form of grinding your axe. The OP may be grinding an axe, saying that “Mormons prey”. It is a pejorative formulation that indicates hostility and does not foster good communication.

More of your twisting, Break down of above post showing basically the same 3 questions.

You may find, if you mature, that other people see things differently, and that this does not mean they are “lying” or “twisting”. It just means that people perceive things differently. Our perceptions are based upon our experiences and education (or lack of it)
I think this whole matter is off topic, so I think it would be better to let it drop.
:

You go beyond what is not allowed and try to silence ANYTHING you consider offensive.

No, Answers. Members here have no authority or ability to “silence others”. All we can do is give one another feedback about what might be offensive, and why. Understanding how our expressions are offensive to others is part of understanding the differences in our faith. Here in the ND area, people often make remarks that they don’t even realize are offensive until it is explained to them.

As for the personal attacks, your the one who lied and twist my words around.

It does seem that you are having a personal problem. The threads are not the venue to work these things out. It is possible to have differences of opinon with each other without becoming petty and accusatory.

Like I care.
I’ll just go cry some more.(sarcasm)
Your supposed christian charity speaks volumes.

People don’t get upset about things they dont care about. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. For example, if Zundrah were indifferent about Mormons,she would not post some of the hostile things she posts, or would not title the thread “Momons prefer to prey…”. Choices of words such as these denot feelings. People dont’ get strong feelings about things that don’t matter. Your sarcastic remarks and attempts to foster a spat with me demonstrate that you are emotionally engaged. This does not happen when you don’t care. You care enough about something to foster a conflict in a public forum. It might be useful for you to figure out what that is. I don’t think it has anything to do with the thread topic.

You should take your own advice.

Indeed

One of the things I learned here was to accept feedback and redirection from my fellow members. I learned that it is inappropriate to tell others what they should do.

For someone who does’nt like to revel in a contentious style you seem to enjoy snide remarks

I do apologize if my remarks seemed “snide”. It was meant to be a sincere observation. I did not characterize the OP’s choice of title as “snide” either, but I do think it has hostile connotations.

You seem to like answering my posts, you don’t live up to the above statement you made was it another lie?

I think it was a misperception on your part. I said that I did not come here to debat with Mormons, but with Zundrah. I dont’ think the choice of title for the thread is one that fosters productive discussion. Neither do I think slinging the word “lie” around so liberally fosters discussion.

 

[Answersplease]

It does seem that you are having a personal problem. The threads are not the venue to work these things out. It is possible to have differences of opinon with each other without becoming petty and accusatory.

People don’t get upset about things they dont care about. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. For example, if Zundrah were indifferent about Mormons,she would not post some of the hostile things she posts, or would not title the thread “Momons prefer to prey…”. Choices of words such as these denot feelings. People dont’ get strong feelings about things that don’t matter. Your sarcastic remarks and attempts to foster a spat with me demonstrate that you are emotionally engaged. This does not happen when you don’t care. You care enough about something to foster a conflict in a public forum. It might be useful for you to figure out what that is. I don’t think it has anything to do with the thread topic.

I came here because Zundrah opened the thread. However, I am happy to take it upon myself to find your posts, and respond to them as well. I cherish the opportunity. However, let us stay on the topic if we can, ok?

I get lots of help, because she starts lots of threads. None of them have fizzled out for lack of interest from others.

What does that mean “ok”? I am in no position to arbitrate what is “ok” for Mormons to do! We live in a free market society, they are allowed to market their product, just like anyone else. There is plenty of dishonest marketing going on. What are you going to do, amend the constitution, so that the right to free speech is taken out?

Oh, no, not a bit! Taking out personal hostilities during a debate can be a form of grinding your axe. The OP may be grinding an axe, saying that “Mormons prey”. It is a pejorative formulation that indicates hostility and does not foster good communication.

You may find, if you mature, that other people see things differently, and that this does not mean they are “lying” or “twisting”. It just means that people perceive things differently. Our perceptions are based upon our experiences and education (or lack of it)
I think this whole matter is off topic, so I think it would be better to let it drop.
:

No, Answers. Members here have no authority or ability to “silence others”. All we can do is give one another feedback about what might be offensive, and why. Understanding how our expressions are offensive to others is part of understanding the differences in our faith. Here in the ND area, people often make remarks that they don’t even realize are offensive until it is explained to them.

It does seem that you are having a personal problem. The threads are not the venue to work these things out. It is possible to have differences of opinon with each other without becoming petty and accusatory.

People don’t get upset about things they dont care about. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. For example, if Zundrah were indifferent about Mormons,she would not post some of the hostile things she posts, or would not title the thread “Momons prefer to prey…”. Choices of words such as these denot feelings. People dont’ get strong feelings about things that don’t matter. Your sarcastic remarks and attempts to foster a spat with me demonstrate that you are emotionally engaged. This does not happen when you don’t care. You care enough about something to foster a conflict in a public forum. It might be useful for you to figure out what that is. I don’t think it has anything to do with the thread topic.

Indeed

One of the things I learned here was to accept feedback and redirection from my fellow members. I learned that it is inappropriate to tell others what they should do.

I do apologize if my remarks seemed “snide”. It was meant to be a sincere observation. I did not characterize the OP’s choice of title as “snide” either, but I do think it has hostile connotations.

I think it was a misperception on your part. I said that I did not come here to debat with Mormons, but with Zundrah. I dont’ think the choice of title for the thread is one that fosters productive discussion. Neither do I think slinging the word “lie” around so liberally fosters discussion.

Answers, but you are not the center of my world, and you are not the motive for my posting or not.

For someone who does’nt post because of me, you like to answer my posts all the time.

Do you even know how to use the ignore function? Don’t answer that was rhetorical since you need me to explain things to you.

Listen, guanophore, get some help with your extreme sensitivity and your anger and your “following people” around.

I won’t talk to someone like you forever.

These multiple tirades of yours show your mentallity and you are just not worth my time.

 

[guanophore]

Wolves “preying” on sheep.

Hmmm,

I wonder who these “wolves” are?

Since ParkerD is with the LDS church, I wonder which group he is talking about are “wolves” who “did’nt spare the flock”?

Don’t all Mormon’s believe these are the Apostate Catholics? Iread where the whole church (members) were not considered apostate, just the priests lost the authority of the priesthood.

 

[guanophore]

For someone who does’nt post because of me, you like to answer my posts all the time.

Do you even know how to use the ignore function? Don’t answer that was rhetorical since you need me to explain things to you.

Well, you have my attention now, so I will do my best to give your posts the attention they deserve. I apologize for giving others more of my attention, it is true, I have not been following everything you have written, but I will try to do better.

Listen, guanophore, get some help with your extreme sensitivity and your anger and your “following people” around.

What has this counsel to do with the thread topic?

I won’t talk to someone like you forever.

Mercy triumphs over judgement!

These multiple tirades of yours show your mentallity and you are just not worth my time.

Thank you for your discernment in this matter. I cannot figure out how it is related to the thread topic, but since I see that you tend to vociferously engage Mormons, and seem to agree with the OP that they prey on people, I will conclude that this decision means you have discovered that I am not Mormon.

 

[Answersplease]

Well, you have my attention now, so I will do my best to give your posts the attention they deserve. I apologize for giving others more of my attention, it is true, I have not been following everything you have written, but I will try to do better.

What has this counsel to do with the thread topic?

Mercy triumphs over judgement!

Thank you for your discernment in this matter. I cannot figure out how it is related to the thread topic, but since I see that you tend to vociferously engage Mormons, and seem to agree with the OP that they prey on people, I will conclude that this decision means you have discovered that I am not Mormon.

You’ve just been reported for stalking, get some help.

 

[zerinus]

I think the OP may have the perception that a Mormon is trying to “prey” upon her. I know she has at least one in her life that talks to her about matters of faith.

The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. For example, if Zundrah were indifferent about Mormons, she would not post some of the hostile things she posts, or would not title the thread “Momons prefer to prey…”.

I don’t think that zundrah is “hostile” to Mormons. I think that she is a very impressionable person, and easily gets swayed by what people tell her. When she originally started posting messages here about Mormonism, she was not being hostile. She was just being inquisitive. But when the anti-Mormons here discovered that she was seeing Mormon missionaries, and that she had made an appointment with them to visit the LDS Church, they sent her PMs and prejudiced her mind against the LDS Church. That is when she posted the thread about “preying Mormons”. I think that she still remains very impressionable, and is equally likely to be swayed at a later date by someone else towards something else.

Don’t all Mormon’s believe these are the Apostate Catholics? I read where the whole church (members) were not considered apostate, just the priests lost the authority of the priesthood.

Absolutely! This is one of the things that distinguishes Mormonism form Protestantism. Mormonism is not “anti-Catholic” in any shape or form. This is not just a pragmatic decision—live and let live, I scratch your back you scratch my back—type of thing. It is a fundamental theological difference. We do not see the Catholic Church as being (or having been) an evil or undesirable influence in the world. I certainly don’t, and I am convinced that the LDS Church from an official stand point does not either. The LDS Church is not “opposed” to the Catholic Church, it is not “against” the Catholic Church, does not seen it as a “rival” that needs to be “defeated,” or something that they wish would just “go away,” or any other such description that you might think of. It is true that we regard the Apostasy of the early Christian church as a fundamental theological tenet of Mormonism; but that does not translate into the idea that the Catholic Church is somehow an evil or an undesirable influence in the world. It just doesn’t work that way.

You’ve just been reported for stalking, get some help.

That is just daft. The forum software provides the facility so that if you are interested in what a particular poster has to say, you can look at all their latest posts in one place, rather than having to hunt them down through numerous threads and forums. It is a very useful feature, and perfectly legitimate to use. I have used it myself several times when I have taken a special interested in what somebody has had to say for a time, and wanted to follow up on their latest posts. It is also very useful when you want to know someone with whom you have not interacted before. By looking at all their posts in one place, you quickly get an idea of what their interests are, and what stance they take in relation to them. It is the dumbest thing I heard to call that “stalking”.

 

[dianaiad]

How does one make restitution molesting children or raping a person? Even with stealing, one can make restitution for the amount stolen but can one ever restore the trust and security the victim felt before the crime? Stealing, adultery even gossip have an impact on the victim that can not be restored by the person sinning against them.
I don’t agree with your definition of repentance simply because there is always damage that a person can not make restitution for, only God can restore completely.

You have a point regarding rape and child abuse. Which is why I personally place both things right up there with murder.

On the other hand, even with those actions, the victim remains so that you can ask for forgiveness. They are still around to participate in that. They CAN forgive you. They may not want to. Certainly a rapist does not deserve, nor is he at all guaranteed, the forgiveness of his victim. However, it is at least possible for the request to be made.

As to forgiveness—I’ve always thought that forgiving one’s trespasses, while it is very good for the trespasser, is even better for the victim; it is freeing. It is healing. It allows the victim to get on with life and find joy again.

How can a murder victim ever have that? Or find that? the murderer has cut short all hope of that for either one of them, the victim or the sinner.

 

[zaffiroborant]

You have a point regarding rape and child abuse. Which is why I personally place both things right up there with murder.

On the other hand, even with those actions, the victim remains so that you can ask for forgiveness. They are still around to participate in that. They CAN forgive you. They may not want to. Certainly a rapist does not deserve, nor is he at all guaranteed, the forgiveness of his victim. However, it is at least possible for the request to be made.

As to forgiveness—I’ve always thought that forgiving one’s trespasses, while it is very good for the trespasser, is even better for the victim; it is freeing. It is healing. It allows the victim to get on with life and find joy again.

Although it doesn’t really read right I’m taking the bolded part to say:
“I’ve always thought that being forgiven of ones trespasses, while good for the trespasser, is even better for the victim.” And I agree with that, forgiving others really does heal the injured and lets them get on.

How can a murder victim ever have that? Or find that? the murderer has cut short all hope of that for either one of them, the victim or the sinner.

The communion of Saints and the prayers for those in purgatory.

I never brought up forgiveness in my post nor was it part of the reason I gave for not accepting your definition of repentance:

"Any other ‘sin’ can be repented of, where repentance means understanding the sin, regretting it, making restitution, asking forgiveness, and then not doing it again

My point was restitution is not really possible, half way maybe but the damage to others is done, you can’t undo the hurt, or loss of trust.

But since you bring forgiveness up, as the victim I am supposed to forgive the trespass whether or not the perpetrator is repentant, and without his or her asking. Like you said this benefits me, the victim far and away more than it does the perp. My forgiveness goes to the state of my heart, on the flip side my forgiveness has no bearing on the perps repentance that goes to the state of her or his heart.

 

[Zundrah]

Although it doesn’t really read right I’m taking the bolded part to say:
“I’ve always thought that being forgiven of ones trespasses, while good for the trespasser, is even better for the victim.” And I agree with that, forgiving others really does heal the injured and lets them get on.

The communion of Saints and the prayers for those in purgatory.

I never brought up forgiveness in my post nor was it part of the reason I gave for not accepting your definition of repentance:

My point was restitution is not really possible, half way maybe but the damage to others is done, you can’t undo the hurt, or loss of trust.

But since you bring forgiveness up, as the victim I am supposed to forgive the trespass whether or not the perpetrator is repentant, and without his or her asking. Like you said this benefits me, the victim far and away more than it does the perp. My forgiveness goes to the state of my heart, on the flip side my forgiveness has no bearing on the perps repentance that goes to the state of her or his heart.

This has gone off-topic but hey, I am here for you! Catholics make up for most of the mormon converts! Lol - that is very sad…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

WhIch would a Mormon find it easier to convert to mormonism;

A Protestant or a Catholic?

Keep this in mind;

1 - Protestants don’t believe in Earth authority

Wrong - there are authority structures in Protestant Churches.​

but Catholics do.
2 - A mormon would have to at first convince a protestant that there was a Earthly convenant made.

Explain please ?​

3 - The Mormon would have to convince a Catholic that the “great apastacy” actually happened and that this is why Joseph Smith’s church is the one true chruch but the catholic church is not.

It’s an interesting thought that I’ve been thinking of lately. What do you think?

The use of the words “prey on” is loaded & unfair The meaning of that second point is not at all clear, sorry.​

 

[Zundrah]

Gottle of Geer;5541238]## Wrong - there are authority structures in Protestant Churches.

Explain please ?​

No it’s nothing to do with authority structures! …it’s the keys to the kingdom given to Peter! That authority to have accepted in heaven what he accepted in his church and visa versa, ect! I’m sure you understand that, right?

The use of the words “prey on” is loaded & unfair The meaning of that second point is not at all clear, sorry.​

The word prey, you know what I mean, who they prefer to TARGET! Example; I would prefer to target an athiest!
Also, mormons believe that their church has the authority to baptize alone and no other church is giving authentic baptisms!

Does that help? If not then I’ll explain more?

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[rinnie]

Wrong - there are authority structures in Protestant Churches.​

Explain please ?​

The use of the words “prey on” is loaded & unfair The meaning of that second point is not at all clear, sorry.​

Hi gottle. question for you. You claim that there is authority in Protestant Church’s? Could you tell me who holds this authorty and where does it come from?

Any Protestant I ever talked to said no one has the authority. They say that the Pope has no authority because he is man. What exactly is a authority structure. How can a structure hold authority and teach me???

This one really got me. Especially its plain to see in the bible that Jesus gave it to the Pope and Apostles and Protestants deny that. Then you say that they accept a authority STRUCTURE. Again thanks Gottle and please explain.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

No it’s nothing to do with authority structures! …it’s the keys to the kingdom given to Peter! That authority to have accepted in heaven what he accepted in his church and visa versa, ect! I’m sure you understand that, right?

Yes - even so, there are such structures in Protestant Churches. Such as those in Calvinism, or Anglicanism.​

The word prey, you know what I mean, who they prefer to TARGET! Example; I would prefer to target an athiest!
Also, mormons believe that their church has the authority to baptize alone and no other church is giving authentic baptisms!

Does that help? If not then I’ll explain more?

xxx zundrah xxx