My visit to Utah

[PeanutBono]

when was the Catholic church headquartered in Rome?

 

[Caprica]

Which thing would, by logical consequence, make him the founder of some new thing (though stated politely and in a round-about way) ; namely, a new, “united” Christianity, which, up-to-that-point (according to this, which “[he] hold true”) had not existed.

He holds true that before Constantine there was one thing, and after him some new thing, that was begotten by him (Constantine), and thus through him (which, as Catholics, we know is no different than saying is founded or wrought by him, as when we confess of the Lord as Church, “In him, with him, through him…”) ; hence, he must argue that Constantine founded some new Church, which I am arguing against, as we know the Church Catholic preceded him and already had Apostolic tests and pedigrees for determining Catholicity, which process was made manifest to all, especially due to heresies that arose, which made Catholics demand evidence of Apostolicity, the first being of Simon Magus, which also demonstrated Peter’s use of the keys, which he was given by Christ Himself, as Scripture attests.

Pax,
Tim

I do not see how what he actually said was that “the man Constantine founded the Church Catholic”. The role of Constantine I (venerated as a saint by the Orthodox Church) in early Christianity is well known historically, especially his calling of the Council of Nicaea. Stating that he had a major role in unifying various “factions” does not mean that one is also saying that “the man Constantine founded the Church Catholic”, which was not Peanut’s assertion, but your (incorrect) inference.

 

[PeanutBono]

Okay, first problem : this is an essay, not a doctrine : the author manifestly declares his intention to prove his thesis, “the decline of the Christian religion,” which quite stupendously he also confesses to actually be Christian religion. So he begins with his thesis, then sets to work proving it, and if as you believe the conclusion leads to such incredulous statements as Constantine in any way founding, organizing or constructing the Church Catholic, which history demonstrates to have preceded him by many generations, than what conclusion can we draw, except this doctrine is erroneous, and lends itself to errors ?

It is an easy thing to cherry pick historical facts and events in order to manipulate a desired conclusion or interpretation. It is also incredulous, but - I will give the author this much credit, at least he bothers to confess forthwith his particular intention, namely, to prove that the Christian religion he is exploring is somehow not actually Christian, though he quite speaks against himself by confessing it to be “Christian religion.”

This comes from the preface of a book Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. The whole purpose of this thesis is to show historically and scripturally that an apostasy took place in order to establish a doctrinal history to why a restoration would need to take place. there are many historical and scriptural references throughout the document. The document itself is not well known amongst members of our own church. We do not preach against other churches openly. It took me days to read this and study the documentation and months to ponder its significance and claim.
As you will note in the reading, scripturally you can see the falling away of the church began while Peter and Paul were still alive. Thus the many epistles written to people in different parts of the area to try to correct incorrect doctrines that were being taught. It is my understanding that many other Christian religions feel that everything was good up until Constantine and that he was the sole source of the break away. We read scripturally that the falling away took place long before that and that Constantine merely used Christians for his own political purposes
Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

I do not see how what he actually said was that “the man Constantine founded the Church Catholic”. The role of Constantine I (venerated as a saint by the Orthodox Church) in early Christianity is well known historically, especially his calling of the Council of Nicaea. Stating that he had a major role in unifying various “factions” does not mean that one is also saying that “the man Constantine founded the Church Catholic”, which was not Peanut’s assertion, but your (incorrect) inference.

Incorrect.

One must either confess that Constatine played some minor role in the Church’s history, or he played a foundational role such as actually organizing it, but for that to be the case, you need to demonstrate the underlying thesis, which is that the Church Catholic was somehow disorganized preceding Constantine, or non-existant, and was therefore one kind of thing before him, and another after. You cannot hold both opinions, as they are opposites. I stated the history of events, that Constaine found the Church as it was - that is, it preceded him, and he then attempted to play a role in it, which attempts he met with many frustrations, as the Church naturally only recognized Christ as its Head, and not the emperor, much to Constantine’s displeasure. Constantine did not find some distopia of Christians running about, and then organize them into some new Church or religion around his sceptre, which indeed would give him a foundational role, similar to that of King Henry and the Anglican dispensation - but even in that case, it would be incredulous to assert that King Henry the VIIIth founded Christianity, as it is manifestly clear it is something that existed prior to his even being born.

Furthermore, Peanut quotes an official teaching of the Mormonic religion asserting their pre-conceived belief that Christianity was pure at one point, impure at another : it rests upon him to demonstrate this, and as I have said, if he is going to use Constantine as a crux or example for this argument, then historical facts work against this assertion, as we can continue to debate.

Now inventing pseudo-histories to justify your beliefs is an easy, but incredulous thing to do. To at once claim that Constatine wrought some new religion or Church, which word [ekklesia] itself means a form of assembly or organization, would force us to accept that there was no real Church preceding Constantine, otherwise he would have to dis-organize it in order to re-organize it. I cannot possibly accept such a thesis, no matter how subtly it is manifested, as in Constatine taking an un-organized Church, and then organizing it, or even the other way around.

If you want to determine the doctrinal continuity of the Church, then we can look at the doctrine of the Eucharist, and the Real Presence. We can see that before Constatine it was held with Catholic Faith, and following him it was kept and held with Catholic Faith. It thus follows to prove exactly what Constatine himself changed or effected in the Church’s structure, either in form or matters / doctrines of belief, which would evince any capacity of his in any way changing it from what it already was.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Timothy17]

This comes from the preface of a book Published by the Church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints. The whole purpose of this thesis is to show historically and scripturally that an apostasy took place in order to establish a doctrinal history to why a restoration would need to take place. there are many historical and scriptural references throughout the document. The document itself is not well known amongst members of our own church. We do not preach against other churches openly. It took me days to read this and study the documentation and months to ponder its significance and claim.
As you will note in the reading, scripturally you can see the falling away of the church began while Peter and Paul were still alive. Thus the many epistles written to people in different parts of the area to try to correct incorrect doctrines that were being taught. It is my understanding that many other Christian religions feel that everything was good up until Constantine and that he was the sole source of the break away. We read scripturally that the falling away took place long before that and that Constantine merely used Christians for his own political purposes

I therefore invite an argument or dialogue about specific Catholic doctrines ; namely, the Eucharist or Real Presence, and to test and see its presence throughout time. If, as you believe, the doctrine was invented or at some point falsified - or anything similar to such an effect - than the claim that Catholic Christianity fell away from the teachings of the Apostles could be demonstrated ; otherwise, it is in the Church’s capacity to demonstrate her doctrines as pure and undefiled, and each stemming from the Apostles, and to Christ Himself, in unity, which thing would make her the True bearer of the Gospel of Christ.

Pax,
Tim

 

[PeanutBono]

Incorrect.

One must either confess that Constatine played some minor role in the Church’s history, or he played a foundational role such as actually organizing it, but for that to be the case, you need to demonstrate the underlying thesis, which is that the Church Catholic was somehow disorganized preceding Constantine, or non-existant, and was therefore one kind of thing before him, and another after. You cannot hold both opinions, as they are opposites. I stated the history of events, that Constaine found the Church as it was - that is, it preceded him, and he then attempted to play a role in it, which attempts he met with many frustrations, as the Church naturally only recognized Christ as its Head, and not the emperor, much to Constantine’s displeasure. Constantine did not find some distopia of Christians running about, and then organize them into some new Church or religion around his sceptre, which indeed would give him a foundational role, similar to that of King Henry and the Anglican dispensation - but even in that case, it would be incredulous to assert that King Henry the VIIIth founded Christianity, as it is manifestly clear it is something that existed prior to his even being born.

Furthermore, Peanut quotes an official teaching of the Mormonic religion asserting their pre-conceived belief that Christianity was pure at one point, impure at another : it rests upon him to demonstrate this, and as I have said, if he is going to use Constantine as a crux or example for this argument, then historical facts work against this assertion, as we can continue to debate.

Now inventing pseudo-histories to justify your beliefs is an easy, but incredulous thing to do. To at once claim that Constatine wrought some new religion or Church, which word [ekklesia] itself means a form of assembly or organization, would force us to accept that there was no real Church preceding Constantine, otherwise he would have to dis-organize it in order to re-organize it. I cannot possibly accept such a thesis, no matter how subtly it is manifested, as in Constatine taking an un-organized Church, and then organizing it, or even the other way around.

If you want to determine the doctrinal continuity of the Church, then we can look at the doctrine of the Eucharist, and the Real Presence. We can see that before Constatine it was held with Catholic Faith, and following him it was kept and held with Catholic Faith. It thus follows to prove exactly what Constatine himself changed or effected in the Church’s structure, either in form or matters / doctrines of belief, which would evince any capacity of his in any way changing it from what it already was.

Pax,
Tim

well obviously you have not read the link I listed to read our stance. There is of course no need for you to do this but it is in that text that you will see outlined the disorganization of the church from Peters time to Constantine and thus how he was able to unify the group. The council of Nicaea was called by Constantine and from that council comes mens understanding of the nature of God and his teachings which is universally accepted as doctrine in most Christian religions. Our church disagrees and believe that doctrines created in that council are the philosophies of man mingled with scripture and that many plain and precious parts of the doctrines were left out.

 

[Timothy17]

when was the Catholic church headquartered in Rome?

Where Peter was, there was the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church was originally headquartered, as you call it, in Jerusalem, but you are misguided if you imagine that the Papacy is some temporal location, such as a place : it is not. Both Peter and Paul were at Rome, and both were there martyred. So the Church at Rome had, from the very beginnings, the special claim to have received her Faith, her Tradition, her teachings and doctrines, from the two most illustrious of the Apostles, and the Prince of the Apostles himself, Peter, to whom Christ promised His Church would be built upon, as a Rock. There Peter’s successors were brought up in the Faith, and held it and defended it, and continue to do so, even to this, our present day.

Pax,
Tim

 

[PeanutBono]

I therefore invite an argument or dialogue about specific Catholic doctrines ; namely, the Eucharist or Real Presence, and to test and see its presence throughout time. If, as you believe, the doctrine was invented or at some point falsified - or anything similar to such an effect - than the claim that Catholic Christianity fell away from the teachings of the Apostles could be demonstrated ; otherwise, it is in the Church’s capacity to demonstrate her doctrines as pure and undefiled, and each stemming from the Apostles, and to Christ Himself, in unity, which thing would make her the True bearer of the Gospel of Christ.

Pax,
Tim

We do not deny that there have been Christians on this earth from the time of Christ until the present day nor that 95% of the doctrines taught are not that of Christ himself. We only claim that none contain the fullness of the everlasting gospel and that they were lost as a result of Man using the gospel for other purposes whether that be Politics or Money. From our doctrinal standpoint it is God himself who claimed this falling away when he spoke to the Prophet Joseph Smith in what we refer to as the first vision lds.org/library/display/0,4945,104-1-3-4,00.html

 

[Caprica]

Incorrect.

One must either confess that Constatine played some minor role in the Church’s history, or he played a foundational role such as actually organizing it, but for that to be the case, you need to demonstrate the underlying thesis, which is that the Church Catholic was somehow disorganized preceding Constantine, or non-existant, and was therefore one kind of thing before him, and another after. You cannot hold both opinions, as they are opposites. I stated the history of events, that Constaine found the Church as it was - that is, it preceded him, and he then attempted to play a role in it, which attempts he met with many frustrations, as the Church naturally only recognized Christ as its Head, and not the emperor, much to Constantine’s displeasure. Constantine did not find some distopia of Christians running about, and then organize them into some new Church or religion around his sceptre, which indeed would give him a foundational role, similar to that of King Henry and the Anglican dispensation - but even in that case, it would be incredulous to assert that King Henry the VIIIth founded Christianity, as it is manifestly clear it is something that existed prior to his even being born.

Furthermore, Peanut quotes an official teaching of the Mormonic religion asserting their pre-conceived belief that Christianity was pure at one point, impure at another : it rests upon him to demonstrate this, and as I have said, if he is going to use Constantine as a crux or example for this argument, then historical facts work against this assertion, as we can continue to debate.

This is all still relying on your incorrect reading of Peanut’s statement. Your first sentence presents a false dilemma, since there are many more positions to take on Constantine’s role in early Christianity. I would hardly call summoning the Council of Nicaea a “minor role”. Indeed, as already mentioned, the Orthodox Church (as well as the Eastern rites of the Catholic Church) regards Constantine as a Saint.

You continue with an argument that no one has made in this thread (that Constantine founded the Catholic Church), which ignores what Peanut had actually stated, and the implication of his statement does not have to mean that Constantine founded an entire new church (i.e. the “Catholic Church”). The importance of Constantine in early Christianity cannot be ignored (and isn’t by historians, nor by those that regard him as a Saint), and such importance does not mean that he either had a minor role in Christianity or that he founded/organized a new religion.

Peanut can speak for himself and state whether he believes that Constantine founded the Catholic Church (as you assert he believes, from your inference, and not any direct statement by him), however from reading what he has actually stated, it is clear to me that he was not implying anything of the sort.
FYI, there is no such thing as the “Mormonic” religion. You can simply say “Mormon religion”.

 

[Timothy17]

…] but it is in that text that you will see outlined the disorganization of the church from Peters time to Constantine and thus how he was able to unify the group. The council of Nicaea …] Our church disagrees and believe that doctrines created in that council are the philosophies of man mingled with scripture and that many plain and precious parts of the doctrines were left out.

Good heaven, are you actually asserting that the Apostolic letters found in Scripture are evidence of a disorganized Christianity ? I fully admit they are admonishments, warnings, teachings and corrections, and this very tradition of maintaining the Faith pure and undefiled has continued to this very day in the epistles of the Pontiffs and Bishops, and in the sermons and homilies of our Priests and Religious.

Does a corporate memo standardizing operating procedure (an “S.O.P”) demonstrate that the corporation is disorganized ? No ! Quite the contrary, it demonstrates the corporation is in unity with a recognized head and system of authority, and is working.

Does an admonishment of a minister to his congregation to take care, be safe, or be weary prove your religion is disorganized ? Heavens no ! It proves the exact opposite : that the organization is alive and well, and being administered in an orderly manner.

For your argument to work, we would have to believe that the Apostles laboured in vanity ; that is, they occupied themselves with a doomed enterprise, wherein all their efforts would come to not ; however, the very obvious and real presence and existence of the Church Catholic, now and throughout history, directly down to the Apostles, and especially Peter, acts as a witness and testimony against such a belief, for the Church is still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Again, I cannot see how one can gleam honestly through history and not recognize the mark and voice of the Church continually throughout it, even in times of great - seemingly impossible or hopeless - adversity ; in fact, it is the very perpetual threat of destruction and disunity amidst all the calamities of the world that demonstrates the Catholic Church’s divine institutional nature, for yet nothing has managed to tear her asunder or destroy her, though much has, and many have and do, try.

Pax,
Tim

 

[PeanutBono]

Good heaven, are you actually asserting that the Apostolic letters found in Scripture are evidence of a disorganized Christianity ? I fully admit they are admonishments, warnings, teachings and corrections, and this very tradition of maintaining the Faith pure and undefiled has continued to this very day in the epistles of the Pontiffs and Bishops, and in the sermons and homilies of our Priests and Religious.

Does a corporate memo standardizing operating procedure (an “S.O.P”) demonstrate that the corporation is disorganized ? No ! Quite the contrary, it demonstrates the corporation is in unity with a recognized head and system of authority, and is working.

Does an admonishment of a minister to his congregation to take care, be safe, or be weary prove your religion is disorganized ? Heavens no ! It proves the exact opposite : that the organization is alive and well, and being administered in an orderly manner.

For your argument to work, we would have to believe that the Apostles laboured in vanity ; that is, they occupied themselves with a doomed enterprise, wherein all their efforts would come to not ; however, the very obvious and real presence and existence of the Church Catholic, now and throughout history, directly down to the Apostles, and especially Peter, acts as a witness and testimony against such a belief, for the Church is still One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. Again, I cannot see how one can gleam honestly through history and not recognize the mark and voice of the Church continually throughout it, even in times of great - seemingly impossible or hopeless - adversity ; in fact, it is the very perpetual threat of destruction and disunity amidst all the calamities of the world that demonstrates the Catholic Church’s divine institutional nature, for yet nothing has managed to tear her asunder or destroy her, though much has, and many have and do, try.

Pax,
Tim

perhaps you should read my link. I would post it but it is 94,000 words longer than this board allows. It goes through each point you are wishing me to explain. From there we can have the best dialog

 

[Timothy17]

This is all still relying on your incorrect reading of Peanut’s statement.

Madamme, you force me to repeat myself,
earlierpost:

Originally Posted by Peanut

I hold true that after the death of Peter and Paul there were great divisions amongst the remaining Chrisitians until they were united by Constantine emperor of Rome and when it became the official religion of Rome

Which thing would, by logical consequence, make him the founder of some new thing (though stated politely and in a round-about way) ; namely, a new, “united” Christianity, which, up-to-that-point (according to this, which “[he] hold true”) had not existed.

Now, as I said, it must be demonstrated that Christianity was not organized before Constantine, which assertion is most contrary to historical facts and evidence. Catholics can demonstrate the continuity of the Church with ease. The Church was called to a Council - demonstrate how this proves anything except that the Church met ? And if it met, how did it know whom was who, who was a Bishop and who was not, which particular Church belonged and which did not, unless these things were already well established ? The Council of Nicea only proves that the Church was already extant throughout the empire, and well established - in fact, the Church reached well beyond the borders of the Roman Empire by this time, stretching even into India.

If Peanut is not trying to imply that Constantine plays a foundational role in the Church, pray tell - why would he even mention Constantine’s name, then ? Why not any of so many emperors or Popes ? For if Constantine’s significance was not characteristic of the Church, in his opinion, then he would have no reason to mention him. Again, as I have said and shown above, to assert that Constantine himself organized the Church is no different than to claim he founded it as it now is, and to assert that it was fundamentally different in character before him, which is exactly the plain meaning and implication of the assertion. The fact remains that the Church was not fractured or disorganized and then rebuilt or repaired or reconstructed by Constantine ; in fact, the Council of Nicea demonstrates, as I have said, that the Church was already alive, well and truly extant. We have no record of Constantine drafting a list of who would be and who would not be Bishops, or of inventing the Bishopric - the Church determined who was and was not a Bishop, and they did this - as I have said - by applying the tests of Apostolic pedigree, which demonstrates Apostolic lineage and carries with it key doctrines retained undefiled ; furthermore, we have the epistles and admonishments of the Roman pontiffs, who usually served as arbiter in resolving disputes or quarrels between particular Churches over doctrines, for example. This practice itself demonstrates the Church’s unity and vitality as a living, working body - and not some mess of bizzarre theories or perverted doctrines which, until the time of Constantine, was somehow disorganized or not united. There was an already existing underlying unity and body of belief well before the time of Constantine : it existed in Apostolic pedigree, Catholic doctrine, and in the active presence of the Roman Pontiff, who were and still are united by him.

Finally, let me again point to the fact that the Church’s doctrines, though primitive, were already established, and it was this that established a Church’s Catholicity. The doctrines were expanded, and clarified over time. The Church had to put into human words what she felt and believed in her divine heart, or what she learned from the ever prompting Holy Spirit, which is - as promised - guiding her always into the fulness of the Truth.

Pax,
Tim

 

[mrmagoo661]

well obviously you have not read the link I listed to read our stance. There is of course no need for you to do this but it is in that text that you will see outlined the disorganization of the church from Peters time to Constantine and thus how he was able to unify the group. The council of Nicaea was called by Constantine and from that council comes mens understanding of the nature of God and his teachings which is universally accepted as doctrine in most Christian religions. Our church disagrees and believe that doctrines created in that council are the philosophies of man mingled with scripture and that many plain and precious parts of the doctrines were left out.

Do you have any historical evidence of that?
This is the 21st century, you just can’t throw out wild accusations and expect people not to want to see evidence.
When the council defined the Trinity (that is what your talking about, right?) it was because arianism was creeping in, and in order to make sure people understood what was always doctrine, the church had to define it. Think of it this way. Marraige never had to be defined as Between a Man and a Woman, because it was never a problem. But, now that it is, it has to be defined.

 

[KathleenGee]

Constantine was a secular leader…there bishops, deacons and presbyters (priests) from the beginning…ancient liturgical sources…formats, disciplines, doctrines…always the work of incarnating the Church that was already there at the beginning of Christianity.

The full revelation of Christ was finally defined at the Council of Nicea, hundreds of years after His death.

Why Rome?..

Peter was named the ‘rock’ or foundation of the Church. He was led to Rome as was St. Paul. St. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles…Peter and Paul hold the keys to the Church. As Peter was the foundation and his death was actually inside the Vatican in front of St. Peter’s – it was actually at the very spot of the lectionary - where the Bible is read - at the funeral of Pope John Paul II. The bones of Ss Peter and Paul are alleged…discovered in recent times and are undergoing scientific tests.

Ancient Rome was the great empire…it was an immense power whose works are still in use today…the spirit of the world is still succumbed by Jesus Christ…He could have picked some place like the Hawaiian Islands to start His church…but He placed it there at the very center of the world.

 

[PeanutBono]

I am a guest on this forum and I do not wish to come here and try to prove anything wrong with the Catholic Church. I merely was responding to an earlier post where my faith was being put up as a fraud. Through this the dialog changed to how the Catholic Church strayed. However I do not wish to further an ugly dialog in which I insult a Catholic persons belief. I liek Catholic people. We have are differences in opinion and I posted our church’s official doctrine on the issue which by appearances not one has even read. we only banter back and forth about what the other person said and stray away from doctrine. In any case who what when and where make no difference if we only know the law but do not live them.

 

[mrmagoo661]

I am a guest on this forum and I do not wish to come here and try to prove anything wrong with the Catholic Church. I merely was responding to an earlier post where my faith was being put up as a fraud. Through this the dialog changed to how the Catholic Church strayed. However I do not wish to further an ugly dialog in which I insult a Catholic persons belief. I liek Catholic people. We have are differences in opinion and I posted our church’s official doctrine on the issue which by appearances not one has even read. we only banter back and forth about what the other person said and stray away from doctrine. In any case who what when and where make no difference if we only know the law but do not live them.

Translation: I have no answer for any of the arguments that have been presented to me.

THE END

 

[PeanutBono]

Translation: I have no answer for any of the arguments that have been presented to me.

THE END

I have another thread I started titled Mormon answer by Peanut Butter. If you wish to go there and ask me questions please feel free to and I will answer accordingly and not just walk away. My discussion on this thread had become off topic and potentially mean spirited towards another belief that is why I did not want it to continue.

I did not join these boards to bash the Catholic Church I joined it to find out what places would be good to see at the Vatican while I am there Next Month. See post titled LDS going to Vatican.

 

[Marie5890]

I have another thread I started titled Mormon answer by Peanut Butter. If you wish to go there and ask me questions please feel free to and I will answer accordingly and not just walk away. My discussion on this thread had become off topic and potentially mean spirited towards another belief that is why I did not want it to continue.

I did not join these boards to bash the Catholic Church I joined it to find out what places would be good to see at the Vatican while I am there Next Month. See post titled LDS going to Vatican.

P-Bono I think your intentions are well meaning…What I dont know if you realize is that there are and have been other Mormons on the board (Diana, Zerinaus, Parker, amongst others) who also are very good at explaining Mormon doctrines and history.

Some of the people asking questions of you arent doing so because they dont know what the answers are…They do…its been hashed to death over and over and over and over…

They pose their questions more to demonstrate why they think Mormon beliefs are lacking in solid theology etc…

Take some time and research the threads that deal with Mormonism…It’s been discussed ad nausium…

 

[PeanutBono]

P-Bono I think your intentions are well meaning…What I dont know if you realize is that there are and have been other Mormons on the board (Diana, Zerinaus, Parker, amongst others) who also are very good at explaining Mormon doctrines and history.

Some of the people asking questions of you arent doing so because they dont know what the answers are…They do…its been hashed to death over and over and over and over…

They pose their questions more to demonstrate why they think Mormon beliefs are lacking in solid theology etc…

Take some time and research the threads that deal with Mormonism…It’s been discussed ad nausium…

Marie- I have read the other threads and felt that they had too much of trying to convince each other of each others doctrine. In reading them there are plenty of just flat our lies which are made about our church and one cannot help but to want to rectify the truth. The same lies that are made about our church are made up of the catholic church. I would love to have a thread similar to mine that a Catholic person who can doctrinally answer any question in a non debate format. my previous account had a very good dialog going in which I enjoyed the conversation and did not find it contentious. Being a former missionary I ran into plenty of people that would bash the Catholic Church and their Doctrines but these same people bash us as well. I would rather get correct information on Catholic Beliefs than hear it from other sources. I have an open mind to all things and feel knowledge leads to understanding beliefs better.

 

[LongJourney]

Peanut, despite your starting out on the wrong foot, I really appreciate your attempts to maintain civil discourse. Obnoxious Mormons on the internet are a dime a dozen. I have a friend on another board who calls them Mopologists. I hope you have the dignity to maintain yourself as a Mormon apologist, until you realize that such a position cannot be maintained. Always seek God’s will in your life.