Mormons to build temple in Rome

[dianaiad]

“In 1776 the expedition of two Spanish Franciscan priests generated the first heartbeat of Catholicism in Utah. Francisco Atanazio Dominguez and Silvestre V. de Escalante left Santa Fe in search of an overland route to Monterey. They circled northward through Colorado, Utah, and Arizona before returning to New Mexico, the first known non-Native Americans to enter the land that became Utah. Traveling without military escort, they bridged the cultures of white man and Native American and drew the first maps ever made of Utah. A thirty-seven-foot steel cross stands today in Spanish Fork Canyon to mark their entry into Utah Valley on 23 September 1776.” (The Catholic Church in UT)

Ok,

You got me…you guys got there first. However, that cross wasn’t put there until 1981, and the original Spanish missionaries didn’t stick. They were just passin’ through…maps or not.

You didn’t BUILD anything and stick around until BY handed over some land. (OK, he sold it to you, but it was very cheap…)

 

[Finrock]

Good evening ByzCath! It is a pleasure to meet you.

Karen,
How do we build one another in the faith when our faiths are contrary to each other?

Might I suggest that a good place to start to find an answer to your questions is to follow the example of your leaders. Catholics should be grateful (and I’m sure that they are) for the many wonderful examples of Christlike living they have in their leadership! Here are a few examples:

** "Catholics stand in solidarity with our Mormon brothers and sisters in support of traditional marriage — the union of one man and one woman — that has been the major building block of Western Civilization for millennia…As the former bishop of the Diocese of Salt Lake City, I can attest to the fact that followers of the Mormon faith are a good and generous people with a long history of commitment to family and giving to community causes" (Bishop William Weigand, head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Sacramento).

** Archbishop George H. Niederauer of the Catholic Diocese of San Francisco (former Archbishop of Salt Lake City) had close relationships with the LDS Church leadership during his 11 years in Salt Lake City, working hand-in-hand with the LDS church in doing good and establishing righteousness.

** “Catholics and Mormons have the same concerns and similar values [in preserving marriages] rooted in our belief of a loving God. It makes sense to work together and support each other whenever we can, and the Catholics warmly welcome that”

“One of the best things we can do for our own faith is to simply turn off the noise around us one night a week. Computers, televisions, cell phones, DVD players, radios, iPods—turn them all off. Not every night. Just one night. This is a very fruitful habit we can borrow from Mormon families: one night a week spent reading, talking with each other, listening to each other and praying over Scripture. We can at least do that much. And if we do, we’ll discover that eventually we’re sober again and not drunk on technology and our own overheated consumer appetites” (Archbishop Charles Chaput of the Catholic Archdiocese of Denver).

Although there are differences between our faiths, there are also many things that we share in common. Instead of tearing each other down, we can build on those things we do have in common. Thankfully, there are many Catholic leaders who have recognized this leading them to work closely with the Mormon church in their communities to bring about much good. Indeed, a wonderful example has been set by Catholic leaders! In closing, let me just quote from an article on interfaith relationships published by the LDS church:

“In the words of early Church apostle Orson F. Whitney, ‘God is using more than one people for the accomplishment of his great and marvelous work. The Latter-day Saints cannot do it all. It is too vast, too arduous, for any one people.’ Thus, members of the Church do not view fellow believers around the world as adversaries or competitors, but as partners in the many causes for good in the world. For example, the Church has joined forces with Catholic Relief Services in a “collaboration of caring” that aids victims of famine and natural disaster…It is important to note that interfaith cooperation does not require doctrinal compromise. Though the Church asserts its ecclesiastical independence and recognizes its doctrinal differences, this does not prevent it from partnering with other faiths in charitable projects. These efforts are based on universal values. A different interpretation of the atonement of Christ, for example, need not diminish the mandate of Christ to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’” (lds.org).

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Hi zaffiroborant!

There are pictures here of the temple site.

Looks like a beautiful plot of land. Thanks for sharing the link!

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok,

You got me…you guys got there first. However, that cross wasn’t put there until 1981, and the original Spanish missionaries didn’t stick. They were just passin’ through…maps or not.

You didn’t BUILD anything and stick around until BY handed over some land. (OK, he sold it to you, but it was very cheap…)

The priests taught the Native Tribes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the cross they left.

You might find[ Father Pierre Jean DeSmet](http://books.google.com/books?id=OFerCXMR_J0C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq="pierre-jean+de+smet"+"brigham+young"&source=bl&ots=rhGZxuDlaZ&sig=BCYVhvvB8YhwhAyccFqzDGOiB7o&hl=en&ei=zr0xSpffFJL0tQOLt5DDBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#PPA29,M1)interesting.

You should note that BY and the Mormons were squatting on Mexican territory. What BY sold he never bought. He took it for free, and “handed it over” for free, or a very small profit. It didn’t cost him anything.

 

[dianaiad]

It’s interesting how they all go to Rome. They know the Catholic Church is the One True Church, no one will admit it though. And the lay can’t, because then they’d realize they’ve been believing a lie.

I think that, given the warm welcome BY gave the Catholics in SLC over a hundred and fifty years ago, don’t you think it would send an odd message to be upset about a Temple in Rome?

I mean, it would be a bit like the old English nobility that liked to go ‘slumming.’ It was Ok for them to build anywhere THEY wanted to, but heaven help the poor schlub that tried to move into THEIR neighborhood…

Especially since an LDS Temple is not something that the Catholics are invited into. It’s not like it could steal your souls or anything; it’s there for the Latter-day Saints who live round about, not to discommode the Catholics.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I think that, given the warm welcome BY gave the Catholics in SLC over a hundred and fifty years ago, don’t you think it would send an odd message to be upset about a Temple in Rome?

I mean, it would be a bit like the old English nobility that liked to go ‘slumming.’ It was Ok for them to build anywhere THEY wanted to, but heaven help the poor schlub that tried to move into THEIR neighborhood…

Especially since an LDS Temple is not something that the Catholics are invited into. It’s not like it could steal your souls or anything; it’s there for the Latter-day Saints who live round about, not to discommode the Catholics.

Uh huh.

 

[dianaiad]

The priests taught the Native Tribes the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is the cross they left.

You might find[ Father Pierre Jean DeSmet](http://books.google.com/books?id=OFerCXMR_J0C&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq="pierre-jean+de+smet"+"brigham+young"&source=bl&ots=rhGZxuDlaZ&sig=BCYVhvvB8YhwhAyccFqzDGOiB7o&hl=en&ei=zr0xSpffFJL0tQOLt5DDBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7#PPA29,M1) interesting.

You should note that BY and the Mormons were squatting on Mexican territory. What BY sold he never bought. He took it for free, and “handed it over” for free, or a very small profit. It didn’t cost him anything.

Actually, Rebecca, Brigham Young made quite a point of buying that land from the people who actually owned it; the native Americans round about there. He did not consider that the Mexicans had any more right to it than you consider that BY had. So BY went to those that actually did have some claim.

It’s one of the reasons that Mormons had so little trouble with the 'Indians."

Shoot, when Clinton did his fancy landgrab in southern Utah, he actually took land away from families who had three separate deeds for it; two from the tribes that had claimed it, and one from the ‘guvmint.’ That was not a bit unusual.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, Rebecca, Brigham Young made quite a point of buying that land from the people who actually owned it; the native Americans round about there. He did not consider that the Mexicans had any more right to it than you consider that BY had. So BY went to those that actually did have some claim.

It’s one of the reasons that Mormons had so little trouble with the 'Indians."

This is a romantic notion that historical fact does not support.

Shoot, when Clinton did his fancy landgrab in southern Utah, he actually took land away from families who had three separate deeds for it; two from the tribes that had claimed it, and one from the ‘guvmint.’ That was not a bit unusual.

What does this have to do with BY?

 

[dianaiad]

This is a romantic notion that historical fact does not support.

What does this have to do with BY?

Actually, historical fact DOES support it. Whenever Mormons could purchase the land from the tribes, they were counseled to do so.

 

[dianaiad]

This is a romantic notion that historical fact does not support.

What does this have to do with BY?

Oh…as to what the note about Clinton had to do with BY…the reason those families HAD more than one deed to the land they lost to Clinton’s amazing landgrab was because their ancestors were counseled by BY to purchase the land from the tribes that lived there.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Although there are differences between our faiths, there are also many things that we share in common. Instead of tearing each other down, we can build on those things we do have in common.

While we might share values and support each other in those we do not share a faith and I fail to see how we can work to build each others faith.

The two faiths are contrary to each other, both claim to be the One True Faith, LDS goes so far as to call the Catholic Church (and all other Christian Churches) apostates.

The LDS church may claim to be Christian but it is not when it denies the Trinity.

How can we work to build the faith of a group that shuns those who leave it for our Church?

We can not work to build each others faith but we can work with common values.

 

[GodIsGracious]

Actually, historical fact DOES support it. Whenever Mormons could purchase the land from the tribes, they were counseled to do so.

It’s amusing to see you insist on this. You do realize that Native Americans had NO CONCEPT of land ownership, right? None. Since they did not actually OWN the land, they didn’t have land to SELL.

The idea of selling land was alien to them. It was the Europeans who had the idea of land ownership. If anything, the native tribes may have allowed land USE to Brigham Young, but they didn’t SELL him the land. Even I learned this as a child in school.

Perhaps that is why Clinton snagged that land back. It wasn’t theirs to begin with.

landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us1.htm

You will, of course, dispute this because it completely contradicts what you want to continue to believe about Brigham Young.

 

[dianaiad]

It’s amusing to see you insist on this. You do realize that Native Americans had NO CONCEPT of land ownership, right? None. Since they did not actually OWN the land, they didn’t have land to SELL.

And it amuses me to see your stereotypical idea of native Americans, who were as different from one another as nations are different now. SOME had 'no idea of land ownership." Others very much did. As well, most of those who did not deal with personal land ownership understood the idea of tribal ownership/territories. Nor were they stupid. They got the gist of land ownership as soon as the white folks came in and started claiming it for themselves. They were quite able to understand the advantages of getting money/goods/cattle/whatever in return for allowing these farmers to come in and sit on land–especially since part of the agreement with those ranchers was that they would not only allow the tribes to hunt, travel over and live on the land as before, but also (in many cases) had access to the cattle the ranchers were holding. To the tribal nations it was a win-win situation; after all, those deeds had meaning only to the white folks.

The idea of selling land was alien to them. It was the Europeans who had the idea of land ownership. If anything, the native tribes may have allowed land USE to Brigham Young, but they didn’t SELL him the land. Even I learned this as a child in school.

Perhaps that is why Clinton snagged that land back. It wasn’t theirs to begin with.

landandfreedom.org/ushistory/us1.htm

You will, of course, dispute this because it completely contradicts what you want to continue to believe about Brigham Young.

Actually, I dispute this because I have a healthy understanding that not all Indians are ‘noble savages’ with no concept of property or land ownership. That is a stereotypical and condescending view of a people who were highly intelligent and figured things out in very short order.

I dispute your condescending view of native Americans as stupid children because I understand and have studied the history of that area…and I’ll bet you still believe that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree.

As to the Clinton land grab, lessee…the folks that owned that land (not all Mormon, by the way) had one deed from the feds (that’s the USA, for homesteading…and you need to be VERY careful about disputing that, because if you do, you are saying that the government can come in and take the house you live in away from you without so much as a by your leave—because originally the land you are occupying had no more ownership validity than the land you claim the Utahn’s ‘didn’t own in the first place.’) and one from the tribes that occupied the land; sometimes more than one tribe shared occupancy/ownership, and they purchased the land from those tribes.

Alisha, the ‘noble savage’ was as smart, as stupid, as gentle, as vicious, as politically savvy and as naive as any other human, and those tribes in Utah knew precisely what they were doing. They were pulling one off on the Mormons…and they got away with it. It worked well for everybody until Buchanan sent his army to occupy Utah. THEN things got a little dicey…but the Indians around there didn’t blame the Mormons.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I didn’t bother to read this because I already know that you were going to dispute this.

No, this is NOT a condescending view of Native americans nor is it stereotypical. I have a heritage that goes back here in the Americas before it was “discovered” and I have done reading up on what I can on how the people on this continent lived.

Infact, I have posted HERE in CAF that people here were even far more advanced than those in Europe, and were even great mathematicians and astronomers, even before the Greeks, and had an EQUAL educational system between boys and girls long before anyone else.

Your assertion and claim that I am ignorant or condescending continues to show your great ignorance and latching on to beliefs that are simply untrue and unfounded, as well as made up to continue to believe in the false religion of Mormonism.

Further. Mormonism is founded on and based on such racists views. Your false religion would claim that “my” people were lazy and uncultured. I don’t remember what your fairy tale of a book called them. So please, coming from someone who supports a false and racist religion (yeah, yeah, I know you’ve “allowed” other non-whites to join as of late) to call ME condescending is hilarious at best.

Keep talking, Diana, since clearly you MUST have the last word. Everytime I see your posts you just continue to show your ignorance. Sad to say, you do nothing for you or your faith.

And it amuses me to see your stereotypical idea of native Americans, who were as different from one another as nations are different now. SOME had 'no idea of land ownership." Others very much did. As well, most of those who did not deal with personal land ownership understood the idea of tribal ownership/territories. Nor were they stupid. They got the gist of land ownership as soon as the white folks came in and started claiming it for themselves. They were quite able to understand the advantages of getting money/goods/cattle/whatever in return for allowing these farmers to come in and sit on land–especially since part of the agreement with those ranchers was that they would not only allow the tribes to hunt, travel over and live on the land as before, but also (in many cases) had access to the cattle the ranchers were holding. To the tribal nations it was a win-win situation; after all, those deeds had meaning only to the white folks.

Actually, I dispute this because I have a healthy understanding that not all Indians are ‘noble savages’ with no concept of property or land ownership. That is a stereotypical and condescending view of a people who were highly intelligent and figured things out in very short order.

I dispute your condescending view of native Americans as stupid children because I understand and have studied the history of that area…and I’ll bet you still believe that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree.

As to the Clinton land grab, lessee…the folks that owned that land (not all Mormon, by the way) had one deed from the feds (that’s the USA, for homesteading…and you need to be VERY careful about disputing that, because if you do, you are saying that the government can come in and take the house you live in away from you without so much as a by your leave—because originally the land you are occupying had no more ownership validity than the land you claim the Utahn’s ‘didn’t own in the first place.’) and one from the tribes that occupied the land; sometimes more than one tribe shared occupancy/ownership, and they purchased the land from those tribes.

Alisha, the ‘noble savage’ was as smart, as stupid, as gentle, as vicious, as politically savvy and as naive as any other human, and those tribes in Utah knew precisely what they were doing. They were pulling one off on the Mormons…and they got away with it. It worked well for everybody until Buchanan sent his army to occupy Utah. THEN things got a little dicey…but the Indians around there didn’t blame the Mormons.

 

[dianaiad]

I didn’t bother to read this because I already know that you were going to dispute this.

No, this is NOT a condescending view of Native americans nor is it stereotypical. I have a heritage that goes back here in the Americas before it was “discovered” and I have done reading up on what I can on how the people on this continent lived.

Infact, I have posted HERE in CAF that people here were even far more advanced than those in Europe, and were even great mathematicians and astronomers, even before the Greeks, and had an EQUAL educational system between boys and girls long before anyone else.

Your assertion and claim that I am ignorant or condescending continues to show your great ignorance and latching on to beliefs that are simply untrue and unfounded, as well as made up to continue to believe in the false religion of Mormonism.

Further. Mormonism is founded on and based on such racists views. Your false religion would claim that “my” people were lazy and uncultured. I don’t remember what your fairy tale of a book called them. So please, coming from someone who supports a false and racist religion (yeah, yeah, I know you’ve “allowed” other non-whites to join as of late) to call ME condescending is hilarious at best.

Keep talking, Diana, since clearly you MUST have the last word. Everytime I see your posts you just continue to show your ignorance. Sad to say, you do nothing for you or your faith.

Wow.

Alisha, back up. I’m not the one spouting the racist views. I’m not the one who was claiming that they were too childlike to know what was happening when the white men arrived on the land they used.

As well, claiming that my religion ‘would claim that ]your] people were lazy and uncultured’ at the same time you say that you don’t know what ‘my fairy tale of a book’ says about them is, well…make up your mind, sweetie.

“Lazy” and “uncultured?” Neither one. The culture may be different, but that doesn’t mean there is none…and as for ‘lazy?’ That’s not something a native American could be, really, and survive.

As well, my ‘fairy tale of a book’ did NOT describe a lazy or uncultured people, whether it describes the specific group whose stories it tells, or whether it makes reference to those other groups that the BoM peoples came into contact with.

Well, the point is, Alisha, all I did was claim that the native Americans dealing with the Mormons in Utah were intelligent, savvy, and aware of what was going on around them.

How you could possibly turn that into an insult is utterly beyond me.

By the way, dear, in close to 2000 years, and about 265 popes, HOW many have been ‘black?’

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, historical fact DOES support it. Whenever Mormons could purchase the land from the tribes, they were counseled to do so.

Original Land Titles In Utah Territory

“Brigham Young intended to populate the territory as rapidly as possible, and from the start declared that “no man should buy land…but every man should have his land measured off to him for city and farming purposes, what he could till.” In 1847 he had a survey made of Great Salt Lake City. Plats selected for urban purposes were divided into ten-acre blocks, each containing eight lots of 1 1/4 acres. Each settler received his lot by lottery for $1.50, which was to cover the cost of surveying and recording. Settlers received separate portions outside the city for agricultural purposes. All disputes were resolved by an appeal to ecclesiastical authority. In 1850 Governor Young approved “An Ordinance Creating the Surveyor General’s Office.” This ordinance created the office of surveyor general and established methods of surveying. It ordered that all surveys in the territory should be made to correspond with the original survey of Great Salt Lake City [see Sketch of Salt Lake City Survey”]Salt Lake survey image and blocks and lots image]. The following year the first Legislative Assembly passed “An Act to Regulate Surveyors and Surveying.” This law required surveyors to provide a certificate to each person for whom a survey was made. These certificates were considered title of possession [see sample Examples of Land Certificates”]land certificates]. The law also required each county surveyor to submit true copies of the diagrams of his surveys to the surveyor general and to the county recorder.”

After the territory became the property of the US govt., the entire state of UT became public lands. From then on people purchased property from the US govt. In 1862 the Homestead Act was passed and any US citizen could claim 120 acres of public land. All they had to do was live on it and cultivate it and it became theirs.

Natives were removed to reservations without compensation.

Perhaps you can show where Mormon or other settlers of the area paid Natives for the land they settled on.

 

[twopekinguys]

By the way, dear, in close to 2000 years, and about 265 popes, HOW many have been ‘black?’

Actually there have been 3. All from North Africa, and all in some of the earlier days of the church.

nbccongress.org/black-catholics/african-popes.asp

Let’s see, how many Black prophets have the LDS had? Or in the quorums of 12 or 70? Those are the upper echelons of the LDS faith right?

 

[dianaiad]

Original Land Titles In Utah Territory

"Brigham Young intended to populate the territory as rapidly as possible, and from the start declared that “no man should buy land…but every man should have his land measured off to him for city and farming purposes, what he could till.” In 1847 he had a survey made of Great Salt Lake City. Plats selected for urban purposes were divided into ten-acre blocks, each containing eight lots of 1 1/4 acres. Each settler received his lot by lottery for $1.50, which was to cover the cost of surveying and recording. Settlers received separate portions outside the city for agricultural purposes. All disputes were resolved by an appeal to ecclesiastical authority. In 1850 Governor Young approved “An Ordinance Creating the Surveyor General’s Office.” This ordinance created the office of surveyor general and established methods of surveying. It ordered that all surveys in the territory should be made to correspond with the original survey of Great Salt Lake City [see Sketch of Salt Lake City Survey”]Salt Lake survey image

and blocks and lots image]. The following year the first Legislative Assembly passed “An Act to Regulate Surveyors and Surveying.” This law required surveyors to provide a certificate to each person for whom a survey was made. These certificates were considered title of possession [see sample Examples of Land Certificates”]land certificates]. The law also required each county surveyor to submit true copies of the diagrams of his surveys to the surveyor general and to the county recorder."

After the territory became the property of the US govt., the entire state of UT became public lands. From then on people purchased property from the US govt. In 1862 the Homestead Act was passed and any US citizen could claim 120 acres of public land. All they had to do was live on it and cultivate it and it became theirs.

Natives were removed to reservations without compensation.

Perhaps you can show where Mormon or other settlers of the area paid Natives for the land they settled on.

Look up what happened to the survivors of the Bear River massacre, Rebbeca; you know, that massacre of Soux in Cache valley perpetrated by the army shortly after it arrived in Utah? They wer enot shipped off to any reservation. The church did an end run around the government by having them all get baptized so that they could be given the land where they lived.

They weren’t all that good about keeping track of the land titles, but the church saw to it that the land stayed, if not in the names of the people to whom it was given, at least in the church’s legal hands. After the entire area was repossessed by the church in the 70’s (because most of the tribespeople had moved out) negotiations began to turn over a newer area to them as ‘tribal lands’ that the government can’t tax…only this ‘ranch’ is better, since it has a modern irrigation system, water and everything they need ready to hand. Not some out of the way ‘we don’t want to see you’ place, but good land within ten miles of their old lands, but this time with water.

Yes, there were conflicts early on, even though Brigham Young often said that it was easier to feed them than to fight them…the trouble is, the Indians tended to raid farms and ranches, and people who had just been kicked out of homes and property didn’t take kindly to that sort of thing. it was a huge clash between cultures and survival needs.

However, the MORMONS didn’t send any Indians to reservations. That didn’t happen until after Johnson’s army showed up and the feds took over the ‘problem’ with the Indians. As I have already stated, the church solution to the situation was quite different; it was actually in league with the Indians to prevent precisely those sort of moves.

I’m sorry, Rebecca, but the church simply isn’t as evil, cold hearted and murderous as you want to think it is.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Look up what happened to the survivors of the Bear River massacre, Rebbeca; you know, that massacre of Soux in Cache valley perpetrated by the army shortly after it arrived in Utah? They wer enot shipped off to any reservation. The church did an end run around the government by having them all get baptized so that they could be given the land where they lived.

They weren’t all that good about keeping track of the land titles, but the church saw to it that the land stayed, if not in the names of the people to whom it was given, at least in the church’s legal hands. After the entire area was repossessed by the church in the 70’s (because most of the tribespeople had moved out) negotiations began to turn over a newer area to them as ‘tribal lands’ that the government can’t tax…only this ‘ranch’ is better, since it has a modern irrigation system, water and everything they need ready to hand. Not some out of the way ‘we don’t want to see you’ place, but good land within ten miles of their old lands, but this time with water.

Yes, there were conflicts early on, even though Brigham Young often said that it was easier to feed them than to fight them…the trouble is, the Indians tended to raid farms and ranches, and people who had just been kicked out of homes and property didn’t take kindly to that sort of thing. it was a huge clash between cultures and survival needs.

However, the MORMONS didn’t send any Indians to reservations. That didn’t happen until after Johnson’s army showed up and the feds took over the ‘problem’ with the Indians. As I have already stated, the church solution to the situation was quite different; it was actually in league with the Indians to prevent precisely those sort of moves.

I’m sorry, Rebecca, but the church simply isn’t as evil, cold hearted and murderous as you want to think it is.

I never said your church is/was evil. What I said is they did not compensate the tribes for the land they settled.

I never said Mormons created reservations.

What I said was, BY settled the Mormons in, they did not buy or sell land, they settled it. UNTIL the territory became a part of the US, at which point the land belonged to the US Govt and had to be purchased.

Allowing Natives to “settle” on their own land is not a form of compensation. Still nothing of BY paying for the land that was settled by non-Natives prior to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

 

[bacalzoLDS]

This forum is supposed to be about the temple in Rome. I am a former Catholic who is LDS, converted at the age of 34 in 1999.

I don’t like being called a false religion. Why can’t we just talk w/o insulting one another. The Great and Abonindable (sp?) church is not any one religion, guys! It is those who do not believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. That is what I was taught. I stand by it.

On our LDS forums in Facebook, we do not bash other religions. Yet on every Catholic one I have gone on someone calls LDs names. Believe what you want, but the respect shown here is minimal. I was not taught to be disrespectful at any time by any Catholic priest or CCD teacher. Maybe that is something new taught in the Catholic church, to bad mouth other religions. Is it???