Question

[Chris_Jodrey]

Alright, I have a sneaking suspicion that Catholic Dude did not read the whole thread. Just so you know, although I have had – and maybe still have to a degree – negative opinions of Catholics. I have also had positive things to say, but the negatives have overwhelmed me, which is why I came here. So first, just trust me that I’m being honest and refrain from flaming. As to your posts, I have a few things to say about them.

First, your biggest problem is that you cant comprehend such differences between America and any other country.

And your basis for this assumption would be what…? Have you ever been to another country? Have you studied the social anthropology of any people, including the US? Do you comprehend what you say I don’t? If not, then how are you so sure I don’t? Have you closely interacted with members of various religions of Mexico or of any other part of the world? It’s easy to say, “You’re ignorant and stupid,” but it’s not so easy to back that up.

I have always liked history and I am now taking an interest in anthropolgy (specifically Latin American) and I might make it a second minor. I lived in Mexico for two years - that’s not study abroad or reading about some place, it’s personal experience. As a missionary I have discussed religion with tens of thousands of Mexicans of many religions (let’s see, 15 lessons a day to about an average of 2 people per lesson, that’s 210 people a week times 96 weeks (minus 8 weeks for MTC) makes 20160 conversations, meaning about 15,000 people since some of those lessons were follow-ups with people we had previously met, give or take a little), most of which have been Catholics. Now, my attitude was the same it is now. I would preach and teach, but I got into many interesting off-topic conversations and even heated debates at times, although usually not with the Catholics, I must admit. So as far as real-world experience goes, I have a lot, really. Therefore your accusations of me not knowing what I’m talking about surprise me. Of course, I don’t understand all the complexities of the issue (and all controversial issues have complexities) so that’s why I’m here… ta-da! The big mystery of my motives revealed…

There are 1 Billion Catholics in the world VS. 7Million Mormons, right here you have zero grounds to comprehend and form any rational conclusions. Your group is less than 1% the size of the Catholic Church…can you really compare who is the better “missionary”?? Thats over 1Billion people Baptized.

continued…

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Referring to the last quote, there are now over 12 million Mormons in the world. You should keep more up-to-date on your dats.

Now, you’re concluding that because the Catholic Church is bigger that it is better and/or true… This is exacltly the kind of closed-minded mentality I have been referring to. Not only that, but you’re implying that Catholic missionaries are better, therefore the RCC is bigger. Catholic Dude needs to take a high school world history class. Catholic missionaries certainly ‘converted’ differently than do LDS missionaries… ever heard of the crusades, conquests or inquisitions? That’s exactly why just about all of Europe and Latin America is Catholic, and if it was up to spiritually uplifting efforts alone then I argue that the RCC wouldn’t be anywhere near as large as it is now.

Second of all from your background you simply cant comprehend history. Catholics were in Mexico 500 years ago, the LDS faith came around about 150 years ago…can you really compare who has stood the test of time yet? Its impossible to draw any conclusions until the LDS faith hits its 500th birthday.

I’m not sure I see your point here. The issues I raised don’t have much to do with history. All history can do is explain why things might be the way they are. What would change once 2330 rolls around?

Also there is another thing which you cant comprehend… evangelizing in the real world. In the rest of the world people cant read, thats why Jesus never left behind the Bible or the Book of Mormon. The rest of the world is poor, they cant afford nor need to print billions of pages of books of Mormon so every home can have a personal copy. The idea that people have a personal copy is unrealistic.

I suppose your point is that Mexican Catholics are as they are because they can’t read. Actually, there is a high literacy rate where I was. Most can read pretty well. I met very few who could not read. In fact, most Catholics there have their own personal copy of the Bible, and they take pride in how big/pretty it is… most just choose not to read it. It is true that in the past Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible. (One convert told me that when she was a girl her mom used to tell her that she shouldn’t read the Bible because it would crazy her brain. That sister loved to read everything, yet was always afraid to read the Bible. That wasn’t an isolated incident, it was the accepted teaching of the time.) That tradition has been changed and Catholics in Guadalajara are now encouraged to read it, and they can.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

… were ready to answer any question and show you that the Catholic Church is the only true Church.

Is that official RCC doctrine? I have met many Catholics who say that the choice of denomination doesn’t matter.

Another thing that we see that you cant comprehend is the relative terms like “closed minded”, “ignorant”, “sinful”, etc.

This is the first valid point you’ve made. Unfortunately though, it is difficult to avoid those kinds of relative terms; however, I have defined more or less what I mean by them.

I have asked before when and where according to LDS teaching did the original Church that Jesus established go into apostasy, and I followed it up with, if that church could go into apostasy why cant the others? Nobody has the answers to that.

According to LDS theology, Catholic Dude, apostasy abounds in all the world, even in the LDS Church (and unless it is remedied quickly excommunications happen), which is why you have had professors who have left it. However, the Church survives, whereas in the early post-apostolic period the Church was dissolved, or distorted to the point of no return. Is your question about whether that can happen in the LDS Church? There are prophecies that this is the last dispensation and that the priesthood will never again be taken from the earth. There may be lots of apostasy later on as there is even now, but the most basic elements of the Church (doctrine, scripture, general leadership, authority, ordinances) will not be taken away. If it wasn’t for these scriptural records then yes, it would be possible for this Church to also fall into darkness eventually. As to the other churches, we believe that except in some essential principles they are already apostate.

In terms of “closed minded”, around here we beg for an lds proof texts of how their views square with the Early Church Fathers writings, I dont think I have see any.

LDS don’t consider the writings of the early Church Fathers to be scriptural… This is like saying, “Why don’t the Jehovah’s Witnesses accept the Book of Mormon? There’s obviously contradictions between the JW teachings and the BoM.”

However, there are things that coincide, moreso the earlier you go. Actually, I believe that in their writings there are evident evolutions in doctrine, which is interesting in relation to the general apostasy.

In terms of “ignorant”, I ask where did the KJV Bible come from if the Church went into apostasy?

Again, I fail to see the relevance. But I do believe that it came from England and is not associated with the Catholic Church. One of the good things about the Catholic Church is that they tried their best to preserve the scriptures, and their success is amazing. So much corruption had already gone on that it was difficult to distinguish canon from ****. The Catholic Church had a major role in the preservation of scriptural texts, which I respect.

As for “sinful”, it all depends on what you define a “sin” as and how that “sinner” is treated. Some groups dont have “sinners” because they refuse to associate with them, others have sinners, but the non-members dont know about them. Groups dont always consider the same things sins, eg polygamy, if the Catholic had multiple wives they are simply an adulterer.

Except that I already defined this clearly in an earlier post… Go check.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

People are not entitled to their own personal copy of the Bible, nor are they entitled a personal 800sqft bedroom with heating, water and electricity to sit and read it.

What kind of nonsense is that? One of the biggest problems that the RCC faced in medieval times was that its people were ignorant sinners because the only instruction they received was at mass… which they heard in Latin… which was a language that most didn’t understand… and they weren’t allowed to read the Bible… in fact, the Bible wasn’t even translated into their lay languages. The reason the Reformation happened was because Martin Luther decided to read it.

In terms of placing statistics, I had a few professors in college who grew up lds and left when they were adults, they always cited reasons like bizzare teachings and they left and wanted nothing to do with it, do I conclude that any lds who decides to go to college is “intelligent” so he sees something wrong with LDS and leaves?

I have seen the same thing with Catholics. That is why I said that there are complications that need to be understood, which is why I’m here. Every religion has bizarre teachings. Try asking an educated Muslim just how logical Christianity is. That’s never the only reason for one to leave a religion. It all has to do with personal experience. If you decide that your history is terrible and that science refutes it at every corner, yet you know that the members of that religion are the best people in the world, science and history doesn’t mean much. Usually people who run into that conflict give precedence to their experience and try to slowly understand the other issues. They admit they don’t know everything and that they need to persist. That has been my observation. Have you noticed something different, or have you never met an ex-Catholic?

We can make they same claim to you right here right now, we have access to all sources, its relative depending on what side your on.

I don’t understand what kind of sources you mean. Have you really seen this with a large number of LDS? I’ve met very few Mormons like that, honestly. But then again, I’m not from Utah, although I have lived there before… Share your experience if you wish.

How many LDS know the NT in the language it was written (greek)? How many accept the KJV as the one and only? Around here thats small talk, Im not saying were experts in any field, but we do ask the tough questions and try to get the best answers. “Ignroace of Scripture” in this case is relative, another factor is that Catholics dont accept the BoM and stuff as Scripture, so sure we would be “ignorant of your Scripture”

Again, you lost me. What kind of tough questions? I’m talking about knowledge of the Bible.

Here it is. You simply cant comprehend the continental divide of cultures.

I’ve got to ask again… what’s the base of this statement? Do you have that comprehension?

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

If your really really interested in what Catholics believe you will ask it here or look it up on an official page.

I thought I was in the process of doing that…

To “evangelize” uneducated Mexican Catholics with doctrines, concepts, passages, etc WITHOUT running them by official Catholic sources FIRST (or aksing around at places like this) then thats simply unChristian and deception to go at uneducated people with them. In that case you havnt prooved to yourself that LDS is correct and Catholicism is not.

I don’t know how else to drive this in… religion isn’t all intellectual. It really comes down to two things: society and feeling. Being taught something as a child usually makes a person loyal to the thing taught and study against that loyalty isn’t going to easily pursuade that person to abandon it. Then there is also feeling. When a person has had good experiences they’re not going to forsake them just like that. It really has nothing to do with proof. You can’t prove any religion right or wrong by reason.

I could replace almost this whole thing with UTAH words and it would sound almost the same. Are you telling me that there is not an redneck Mormon equivalent to “lazy Mexicans”? Are you saying the local cops dont favor one person over the other, even though both carry the badge that says “to protect and serve”.

Is there an equivalent? Yes, there is. But there are a few differences. First, the proactivity of the organization in preventing that from happening. I didn’t see it in the Catholic Church in Mexico. It seems to be up to every individual priest, what he wants to put into it. Whereas, in the LDS Church there are programs set up to deal with that. The presence is stronger. The other difference is that it is far more widespread in some parts. Maybe you’re not used to this, being in the states. That was the original topic here, which you would have understood if you had read at least the first half of this toopic. Go back and read if you’re confused. I don’t feel like going round in circles. As far as the LDS community goes, 85% are not immoral gossipy entirely ignorant pretenders. I know Utah, and I know it’s not a perfect place, but judging by state statistics it actually stacks up really well against other states in many areas. Is that because of the presence of the LDS Church? Good question. Maybe many would be quick to say no, and at the same time say that the corruption of Mexico is not due to the Catholic Church. I had not considered this aspect before. Thank you for bringing it to my attention, Dude.

Again, around here we take on any challenge. Would it be fair to call you a “bad mormon” if you were not open to answering the tough questions?

No, but you could say that a bad Mormon is one who drinks, smokes, is permiscuous, swears, doesn’t keep the Ten commandments, read the scriptures, and/or pray. The requisites are almost the same for Catholics and Mormons.

Again, you cant comprehend the real world. The Catholics already went through these countries, its not like your starting from scratch here, your going at ignorant people who have heard of Jesus, but are still ignorant. Yet you go in and say “Church of Jesus Christ”, well they know Jesus, know he was a good guy, maybe your not so bad…SNAP…the trap door shuts on them.

This could be restated positively, you know.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Thats why the Catholic Church blows every protestant and LDS group combined out of the water, the Catholic Church has schools, hospitals, orphanages, shelters, food, etc. The other guys have either zero or just enough to sound good from the outside.

Or, the other churches don’t brag about it.

The Catholic Church does do much good in the world today, but saying that others do just enough to get by (or nothing at all) betrays your ignorance and bias. I encourage you to do some research there.

I dont believe that, otherwise you wouldnt pray on the weak minded. You would challenge semi competant Catholics, or even people like Fr Pacwa and show him LDS docrine is correct.

This is another statement that shows me that you have no real-world experience in this. Usually the poor, stupid people are too afraid to “change religions” and we generally wouldn’t work with them. When you have to ask them, “What is a prophet?” more than three times, that is your cue to leave. There is a big difference between ‘humble’ and ‘weak-minded’. We don’t work with haughty know-it-alls either.

As far as I can see, groups like SDA, LDS, JW, etc simply pray on the countries of unfortunate, less educated Catholics who were there hundreds of years before those groups even existed.

And again, you demonstrate your ignorance of how the natives became Catholic in the first place.

I dont want to leave you with a bad taste in your mouth, but the problem is the source of that bad taste… if you dont strive to learn why the Catholic Church is wrong from a doctrinal view from official sources, then you will always have that taste in your mouth, the bad taste that your gospel is not clearly the correct one.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that I should look at things doctrinally so that I can decide, and learn what true Catholic doctrine teaches. I have explained why this only works to a point. It has to be spiritual, not intellectual. People become Mormons because of the way they feel and how they change, not because we convince them of anything. Every single statement you’ve made here makes me think that you feel that you can prove and disprove religion. I used to think that before my mission, and I have since learned that it doesn’t work that way. If somebody wants to believe something they’ll believe it, and there’s nothing you or even God Himself can (or will) do about it. By the time it is proven to them it will be too late. This is the whole principle of faith. If you could prove true Catholicism then where is your faith? If you can prove to me that Mormonism is untrue then where is mine?

I’ve gotta repeat this I guess. My purpose in coming here isn’t to bash Catholics, it’s to understand them better. If you don’t believe me then keep your comments to yourself. Don’t be a Mexican Catholic!

 

[RobNY]

Chris Jodrey:

What kind of nonsense is that? One of the biggest problems that the RCC faced in medieval times was that its people were ignorant sinners because the only instruction they received was at mass… which they heard in Latin… which was a language that most didn’t understand… and they weren’t allowed to read the Bible… in fact, the Bible wasn’t even translated into their lay languages. The reason the Reformation happened was because Martin Luther decided to read it.

Sorry to drop in in the middle of your conversation, Chris, but as far as vernacular translations go, there were hundreds before Martin Luther translated his German bible. It’s a common misconception, but still a misconception.

Is that official RCC doctrine? I have met many Catholics who say that the choice of denomination doesn’t matter.

Yes. We believe we are the one, true Church. We say, and have said stuff like “no salvation outside the Church,” (which, when refomulated positively is taken as, the Church is God’s instrument of salvation). You don’t have the choice to abandon Catholicism for another demonination. They were woefully misinformed if they told you that.

However, there are things that coincide, moreso the earlier you go. Actually, I believe that in their writings there are evident evolutions in doctrine, which is interesting in relation to the general apostasy.

Perhaps you should try to understand John Henry Cardinal Newman’s idea of the Development of Christian Doctrine. Coming to a deeper understanding of doctrine is not the same as changing it. As time progresses, we can understand the truth we have better, and thus come to a deeper, fuller understanding from the raw material (Scripture) we already have. It’s a mistake to invalidate Christianity on the basis of the development of doctrine.

However, the Church survives, whereas in the early post-apostolic period the Church was dissolved, or distorted to the point of no return.

I suppose it really does hinge on the apostasy theory, no? Catholics would tend to wonder how this fits into Jesus’ injunction that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church. I suppose the LDS have a far different translation for that passage? I guess that’s why it’s convenient to have a different, special translation (disclaimer: this sounds snarky, on a second read, but isn’t intended to be). In any case, can you historically prove the apostate theory?

So much corruption had already gone on that it was difficult to distinguish canon from ****.

Can you, factually and/or historically support your claim about the corruption of Scripture and the mixing up on canon and “****?”

If you could prove true Catholicism then where is your faith? If you can prove to me that Mormonism is untrue then where is mine?

While I cannot absolutely prove Catholicism true, it is far easier to prove another position *false. *In answer to both of your rhetorical questions, if I could prove it true, my faith would be unshakable. And if I could prove to you that Mormonism was untrue, then your faith (in Mormonism) would be nonexistent.

Good luck, though, on trying to understand us Catholics, Chris.

 

[AquinasXVI]

Chris:

Welcome!!!

Christ came for the sinners more than the saints. He says this himself. So, the sinners you’ve encountered in the CC in Mexico. We love them to death. We won’t give them up for the world. They have a home in the church. The CC is Christ’s hospital for sinners, we have doctors in this church–they’re called the Saints.

Catholics come in all shapes and sizes the last 2000 years. What you’ve seen is a micro cross section. We do not discriminate educated or wealthy. All are welcome. If a particular country is financially poor and thus uneducated, that doesn’t disqualify them from the Household of God. They receive the same Holy Eucharist as the Pope.

I actually don’t think you’re here to kick us around. I do think you have a point from your particular vantage point. Stick around and ask more questions. Just keep in mind that some people are more sensitive and make allowance on the nuance of text. Inadvertently, innocent questions sometimes come off as an insult.

in XT.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Chris Jodrey-
(edited for size)

And your basis for this assumption would be what…? Have you ever been to another country? …

I made that assumption from what I had seen you say already. And yes I have been to another country, but lets just say they dont take kindly to modern prophets.

As a missionary I have discussed religion with tens of thousands of Mexicans of many religions (let’s see, 15 lessons a day…

Id like to know the definition of “15 lessons per day”, including the content of these “lessons”…Especially after all that talk of yours how “evangelizing” is not about doctrine its about making people feel good.

Now, you’re concluding that because the Catholic Church is bigger that it is better and/or true…

I listed off multiple factors, one of them was size. Not that its the only factor, but it must be factored in. Dont tell me that LDS dont make claims about the size and growth rate, because I have heard it before, size does matter.

Catholic missionaries certainly ‘converted’ differently than do LDS missionaries… ever heard of the crusades, conquests or inquisitions? …

The crusades and inquistions werent out to make converts. This is very interesting though, the same person who claims converting is about emotions is trying to use facts/data to refute the Catholic position. If it werent for the CC then no country wouldnt have Christians. As I said before, Catholics were in places like South America 500 years ago, that IS part of world history.

I suppose your point is that Mexican Catholics are as they are because they can’t read. Actually, there is a high literacy rate where I was. Most can read pretty well. I met very few who could not read. In fact, most Catholics there have their own personal copy of the Bible, and they take pride in how big/pretty it is…

most just choose not to read it. It is true that in the past Catholics were not allowed to read the Bible. (One convert told me that when she was a girl her mom used to tell her that she shouldn’t read the Bible because it would crazy her brain. That sister loved to read everything, yet was always afraid to read the Bible. That wasn’t an isolated incident, it was the accepted teaching of the time.) …

You start off with reasonable facts and then turn it into an emotions battle. The second half of this is kind of stange, they all owned a copy but were not allowed to read it?

According to LDS theology, Catholic Dude, apostasy abounds in all the world, even in the LDS Church… However, the Church survives, whereas in the early post-apostolic period the Church was dissolved, or distorted to the point of no return.

Im all ears for more information, dates, reasons, places, etc?? Facts please. Its not fair to tell people that their church “dissolved” but not have any sort of proof.

Is your question about whether that can happen in the LDS Church?** There are prophecies that this is the last dispensation and that the priesthood will never again be taken from the earth.**…

Your reasoning seems to be “your church dissolved, but my church cant dissolve, believe it”.

LDS don’t consider the writings of the early Church Fathers to be scriptural…

Im asking for any, any sort of proof. Any sort of historical writings. You guys have that Discourses thing, is it not logical to conclude the early Christians wrote down nonScriptural, yet helpful information regarding doctrine?

The truth is the Fathers, though not considered Scripture, are a valuable tool to what the early Church believed…to flat out reject them is simlpy saying history is insignificant in your plans.

However, there are things that coincide, moreso the earlier you go. Actually, I believe that in their writings there are evident evolutions in doctrine, which is interesting in relation to the general apostasy.

Here is where backing up your assertions with facts or better yet quotes from the fathers themself would give your position considerable merit. Here is a protestant page of the Fathers, now is your chance to show me what your talking about.
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

But I do believe that it [KJV] came from England and is not associated with the Catholic Church. … The Catholic Church had a major role in the preservation of scriptural texts, which I respect.

The relevance is that the Church went into apostacy, but your official Bible came about 1500 years later some how? They managed to preserve the texts all the while not being able to read and understand it?

What kind of nonsense is that? One of the biggest problems that the RCC faced in medieval times was that its people were ignorant sinners because the only instruction they received was at mass… which they heard in Latin… which was a language that most didn’t understand… and they weren’t allowed to read the Bible… in fact, the Bible wasn’t even translated into their lay languages. The reason the Reformation happened was because Martin Luther decided to read it.

This is full of unfounded information:

1)the instruction at mass was sufficient for what was available at the time,
-most people couldnt read (fact),
-most people didnt have a personal copy of the Bible (fact),
-Latin was not as “foreign” as people seem to think, not only that, languages like french, italian, spanish, etc were offshoots of latin.

2)not allowed to read the bible, doesnt say much
-if they werent educated and didnt own a copy then to say they “were not allowed” is misleading in light of reasonable considerations.
-also the Bible was translated into “modern” languages

4)Do you really think Martin Luther was the first to read the Bible? What are you saying here?

…It all has to do with personal experience. If you decide that your history is terrible and that science refutes it at every corner, yet you know that the members of that religion are the best people in the world, science and history doesn’t mean much. Usually people who run into that conflict give precedence to their experience and try to slowly understand the other issues. They admit they don’t know everything and that they need to persist. That has been my observation. Have you noticed something different, or have you never met an ex-Catholic?

Im not sure I follow you. The CC doesnt teach nor encourage people to stick with a program where they find out that things like science, history, Scripture, etc refutes that religion. That doesnt mean jump at every time their faith is questioned, but dont go against common sense for long periods of time, especially when their religion doesnt supply those answers for them. It is hard for people to leave when their family and friends dont come, but thats not an excuse for ignoring the truth to the point where the person knows what they now believe is a lie but wont change.

As far as exCatholics here is a quote by an wise Archbishop:There are not one hundred people who hate the Catholic Church, but there are thousands who hate what they think the Catholic Church teaches.
That quote rings true to the ex-Catholics I have talked to.

I don’t understand what kind of sources you mean. Have you really seen this with a large number of LDS?..

By sources I mean anything with some level of objective information, eg, encyclopedias, historical texts, early Christian writings/documents, science reports, etc.

I have talked with a few LDS I knew but I didnt go indepth with them, I tend to ask questions like “when did the early Church go into apostasy…how did it?”, but I dont get back a answer other than stuff like “it just did, its true, I dont have the information with me now”.

don’t know how else to drive this in… religion isn’t all intellectual. It really comes down to two things: society and feeling. Being taught something as a child usually makes a person loyal to the thing taught and study against that loyalty isn’t going to easily pursuade that person to abandon it. … It really has nothing to do with proof. You can’t prove any religion right or wrong by reason.

Reason does play an important part in it, yes there is a degree of faith and feeling, but reason isnt excluded. The Bible never excludes reason, infact it says “test everything”. In the case of being a missionary, its not right to play on people’s emotions and feeling when you dont have a level of objective proof. The Gospel is all about convincing non Christians why it is correct and they dont have the full truth. It does hold a element of faith, but it is not some pie in the sky. The Gospel is full of OT quotes that were fulfilled, explainations, eye witness accounts, living testimonies, etc. Did this just “dissolve” all of the sudden?

You cant tell people their priesthood is invalid and yours is true without a good argument. There are documents that list the successors of the Apostles, there are lists of all the popes. Is there something like this for you?
(cont)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(last page)

As far as the LDS community goes, 85% are not immoral gossipy entirely ignorant pretenders. …

Im saying your conclusions on why Catholicism is so lousy is unfounded. Whats 85% of 12M?..about 10Million people. Now 10M is 1% of the size of the CC, do you think that there are at least 11M Catholics in the world who are not “immorl gossipy ignorant preteners”? See the numbers game?..the comparison is not the same. Id bet there are 11M Catholics just in Mexico who are just as “good” as the 85% of your whole church, see what Im saying?

One thing I saw a few months ago was a ABC news show where an exLDS woman from desert LDS community wanted to go back and help other women. She claimed she was abused as a young woman, especially after being forced to marry at a early teen age with a man 4 times her age. She talked about the first time as a teen the “husband” forced her into bed with him and one of his other wives was in the room watching. There were other things as well. The exLDS talked about how bad and wounded she was and couldnt get help from anyone for years. The family and neighbors looked down at her for even suggesting that she was being mistreated. When she called the local police (all lds) they were “biased” towards the men of the town and forced her to go back home. One day she ran away and didnt come home. Anyway she came back years later with ABC news reporters with hidden cameras and they showed some sad pictures. The kids of the town were told to go inside if anyone from the outside even drove by (which didnt happen often), the community was so cut off from reality those kids didnt know any different from reality and that community. Other clips showed the local cops making threats and violating personal rights and stuff, but when the reporters showed them the camera’s they changed their attitude. They interviewd some local people and they were clearly uneducated yet dimissed anything that didnt come from one of their own. Also they finally did confront her husband and after a while did admit the way he treated her was not good, it clearly wasnt all intentional mistreatment, but still it was mistreatment and it was swept under the rug by neighbors, family and cops. I know this is an isolated case for many reasons, one because I live near Mormons who dont act anything like that desert community.
I dont go concluding that all LDS or even the majorty act that way just because I saw that desert community.

If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that I should look at things doctrinally so that I can decide, and learn what true Catholic doctrine teaches. I have explained why this only works to a point. It has to be spiritual, not intellectual. People become Mormons because of the way they feel and how they change, not because we convince them of anything. Every single statement you’ve made here makes me think that you feel that you can prove and disprove religion. I used to think that before my mission, and I have since learned that it doesn’t work that way. If somebody wants to believe something they’ll believe it, and there’s nothing you or even God Himself can (or will) do about it. By the time it is proven to them it will be too late. This is the whole principle of faith. If you could prove true Catholicism then where is your faith? If you can prove to me that Mormonism is untrue then where is mine?

I wont change my views on faith vs reason. I dont believe in selling people a feel good show, I will show them where we agree and where we disagree and ask questions and make points of why I believe my Church is correct. As you can see the thing that bothers me is when people like you act as if its a feel good testimony that makes people change…“see, I dont drink, smoke, stay out past 8pm, say my bedtime prayers, etc”
Those arent the areas you should focus, they should be more important ones. Do you believe in the same God? The same Scriptures? The same church? Same Gospel? etc. Im not saying good moral qualities shouldnt show, but they shouldnt be the show.

My best advice is for you to check out the LDS subforum on this site and see that Catholicism isnt what you think.

 

[Michael_Paul]

I think my follow-up question then would be, what if a person commits a very grievous sin thinking that he is serving God, such as a Muslim blowing himself and many innocent people to smitherines?

The person must KNOW that it is a grievous sin and do it anyway. There is a law written on our hearts called the natural law. I believe that murder is one of those laws so the murderer would not have the “invincible ignorance” excuse here. The Mexican couple who told you that the murder could go to heaven was telling you that a person who is ignorant of the true Church, if he tries to live for God as he understands Him CAN but not necessarly will go to heaven. I think the Mexican couple might know about invincible ignorance but failed to take into account natural law.

MP

 

[Michael_Paul]

Michael Paul:

I think my follow-up question then would be, what if a person commits a very grievous sin thinking that he is serving God, such as a Muslim blowing himself and many innocent people to smitherines?

The person must KNOW that it is a grievous sin and do it anyway. There is a law written on our hearts called the natural law. I believe that murder is one of those laws so the murderer would not have the “invincible ignorance” excuse here. The Mexican couple who told you that the murder could go to heaven was telling you that a person who is ignorant of the true Church, if he tries to live for God as he understands Him CAN but not necessarly will go to heaven. I think the Mexican couple might know about invincible ignorance but failed to take into account natural law.

MP

Does anyone know what I’m doing wrong that some of my replies appear as part of the quote rather than a separate post?

MP

 

[reggie]

Chris,

Haven’t been on in a while as I have very little time for forums and then had PC trouble. Finally got it fixed. I don’t know if you will see this post or respond but, I can’t let what you said go without challenge, as if it is true.

It is a common tactic of non-Catholics to point to the crusades, conquests and inquisitions to discredit the Church. You claim to love history but don’t show much inclination to learn all facets that pertain to the Church’s historical record. When one is a student of history, one must know not only historical events, one must understand what led to those events, the political and social climate of the times and the ultimate consequences.

The crusades were undertaken to free the Holy Land from the Arab Muslims who had conquered it and were persecuting and killing Christians. While there were abuses, the crusades were noble in intent. The Church at the time was not only spiritual, it was political in that most of the world’s leaders looked to the Pope for support. This is because all Christians at the time were Catholic and in a world without secularism, people put God ahead of country. The Church has always held that while we must “give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”, Christians must first do what is righteous before God. Thousands of European men left their homes, families and countries and walked thousands of miles to defend the birthplace and Holy Sites of their faith. The very small percentage of men who used the crusades as a means to gain power, land and money do not detract from the noble intent of the good and faithful men who sought only to stand for God. Rather, those abuses illustrate what is unfortunately human nature; namely, that there has always been greed, sadism, oppression etc. But, because humans were created by God and are therefore good, there is also selflessness and heroism. It is not surprising to me that you as well as most Catholic bashers choose to ignore the nobility of the majority of crusaders and instead focus on the minority of men who were mercenaries. It would be good to keep in mind also that without the brave men who fought for the faith, the Christians of today may not have the freedom to worship that we now enjoy. The Muslims were not content to live ecumenically, their desire was and still is to destroy all those who are not Muslim and in every country where they dominate, Christians are persecuted and must worship in secret or flee.

Next, let us look at the conquests. I assume you speak of North and South America. Again, we must understand the times and intent of the Church. When the new world was discovered, all European countries tried to get a piece of the pie. The conversion, sometimes by force, of the native people was carried out by nearly all Christian denominations. Protestants and Catholics believed the Native Americans to be heathens and that it was their duty to bring the Gospel to these savages and save souls. It was believed by many that God had led them to this new world to do just that, with force if necessary. Not all went about winning souls with force, but the practice was not limited to Catholics. It is worth noting that the greatest conversion of Latin America came with the revelations of Our Blessed Mother to Saint Juan Diego at Guadelupe and not by force. In the end, love is what will win more souls for God. Without a doubt, the good work of Christian missionaries probably did more to advance the Christian faith than force.

Just a side note. Catholics do not need to brag about their hospitals, schools and missions. These were mentioned merely to shed light on the fact that Catholic missionaries do more than just bring God’s word to people, they also work to improve their lives. This is a proud heritage of our faith and one which even the worst of Catholic bashers cannot dispute even if they can ignore it.

con’t

 

[crusader4life]

I apologize that you went throught that bad experience. But as Jesus says,“Forgive them! For they know not what they do!” For if they did, you wouldn’t have seen any of those problems to that extreme.

Time and prayer is the answer to this. I understand what you’re going through, but there really is no immediate cure for this. It seems that this experience has really effected you. Don’t be disheartened so quickly either. You know we all have our free will. Some just don’t know how much our choices can affect others.

 

[reggie]

Let us now consider the Inquisitions. This sad aspect of the faith is the primary jewel in the Catholic bashers treasure trove. It is trotted out whenever the basher falls flat with doctrinal dispute. It is used to demonstrate that the Church must be apostate as it has so many sinners and sinful actions in its history. Again, let he without sin cast the first stone. I will not get into the ignomious personal history of your founder Joseph Smith or that of any other denomination as that would indeed be stooping to your level. I will focus on facts instead.

I do not attempt to excuse the exesses of the Spanish Inquistion and the others that followed. It is not my intent to defend religious coercion in any way, but we must consider the times, the people and the motivation for the inquisitions to understand what they were and why they happened. I do not stand apart from the Church in this respect, I stand in agreement with Her. Further, it must also be stated that the leaders of reformed Christianity also used violence toward those who disagreed with their doctrine. Let us not forget that thousands, possibly millions of Catholics were killed in the wake of the reformation. This does not excuse bloodshed but reinforces the fact that the Church is not just an institution but made up of humans who, though members of the Body of Christ, are still subject to their human nature. Shall we hold the Anglican church responsible for the violence of Henry the VIII, or the Lutheran church for that of Luther himself? How about the Calvinists for the inquisition of John Calvin? How about the Puritans for the witch hunts in the early history of the US?

So, that being said, the facts. The Spanish Inquisition came at a time when Muslim Moors had conquered Spain and much of the Iberian peninsula. It took 800 years of fighting for Christianity to triumph over Islam. Ferdinand and Isabella were in power but there were still conflicting forces in Spain. There was concern that the Moors and Jews tolerated by the crown would turn their allegiance to the King of Barbary and undermine the King of Spain. The Inquisition was undertaken by Ferdinand more from political power than religious zeal. Heresy at this time, for reasons stated above, was considered not only a crime against the Church but a crime against the state. That the Moors and Jews did not proscribe to Christianity was seen as being allied to sedition. The Inquisitors were appointed by the crown and could be dismissed by the crown as well. There were clergy within the Church who were willing to carry out the orders of the king for their own personal gain. Those who would not were chared with heresy themselves. Many who opposed the inquisition died for their disobedience. Now it was said in the past that millions died because of the inquisition. That has since been disproven as that would have decimated the population of Spain and Europe since there was not millions and millions of people in existance at the time. Pope Sixtus IV consented to the establishment of the Inquisitions at the behest of Queen Isabella because of his belief that they were necessary to protect the faith. When it became clear that the king and queen were using it to gain power and wealth, the same pope then issued a Bull against them. Moreover, the pope welcomed refugees from the Inquisition in Rome, restored the property seized and excommunicated the Inquisitors. So, while there was participation by the clergy for their own gain, the Inquisition was primarily a tool of the state and once the Church understood the nature of these crimes and abuses, came down vehemently against them and brought an end to them.

The times of the Spanish Inquisitions and others, though on a smaller scale, were brutal times. It has only been in recent history that violence in the Western world is the exception and not the norm. What was acceptable and commonplace then is not so now. What the Church learned from Inquisitional persecution and the subsequent persecution of Catholics at the hands of protestants is that faith must be defended and promoted but never by violence or force. It is the Church’s mission to proclaim the Good News and to dispense the grace of Jesus but it is every individual’s responsibility to accept faith and grace on their own.

con’t

 

[reggie]

It should be understood that the Church has always taken seriously the state of the souls in its care; sometimes to the extreme. What has evolved since the brutal times of the past is the knowledge that people cannot be coerced into the faith.
What the Church now more fully understands is the role of free will not just in the temporal realm of people but also in the spiritual soul. The Church does not and never will temper its message nor will it conform doctrine to what may be the popular will of its members. You say, well I heard this or that from a Catholic. That doesn’t make it true. There are Catholics who believe in abortion rights, gay marriage, the sexual freedom and so on. But those are not the official beliefs of the Church. It has stood strong against the trends of secular society. What it says to its members is “This is the Word of God. This is the way of Salvation. Do not be fooled by the wisdom of the world. Beleive in the faith of Jesus.” The Church sees more clearly now that it cannot force obedience on people, just as God does not force Himself on people. We must be open to the Holy Spirit for Him to find a home in our hearts. What the Church must do is teach not only what a Catholic is and does but why. It has not been strong enough in the area of Catechism and Apologetics but that is changing. People such as myself and the others on these forums are working to change that. Mr. Keating is a pioneer and a hero for his work in this area.

It is true that the Church has lost many of her children. It is true that churches such as the LDS, JW, Pentecostal etc, have drawn people out of the Church. Mostly that has happened through a policy of deception. The only way to buttress your religious beliefs is to first claim apostasy by the True Church, and restoration by your own. That is why each protestant denomination has its own translation of Scripture and discounts the writings of the Early Church Fathers. That is why I find your posts and questions so hostile. You see, you depend on the ignorance of ordinary Catholics. A well catechized Catholic is not an easy target. You claim it is the intellectuals who convert; is that indeed the case or do you credit them as intellectuals because they fall for your well practiced spiel?

Yes, the Church has lost some of her sheep. But that is changing as more and more learn the truth. Many of those coming back or finding their home in the Church for the first time are those very same “intellectuals”. Moreover, were the Church to be reduced to one person, it would not cease being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Christ; for Jesus is her founder, Jesus is her Head and Jesus, present in the Eucharist, is the source and summit of her faith. Neither the LDS nor any other imposter faiths shall prevail against her no matter how many sheep they may be able to deceive.

 

[Jaypeeto3]

Your experiences with bad catholics are quite interesting.
But let me posit this to you:
I am an EX-Jehovah’s Witness. Most - in fact nearly ALL - of the Jehovah’s Witnesses I knew were EXTREMELY devout, very well behaved, would not curse, fornicate, commit adultery or sodomy, they went to five meetings a week, dressed modestly, wouldn’t go to any movie more strongly rated than PG, prayed daily and often, did not cheat their employers nor the IRS, basically some of the best people I ever knew from a moral standpoint.
NOW, your religion and the Jehovah’s Witness religion are as different as night and day doctrinally. Would you say that the general piety and morality of the Jehovah’s Witnesses means that their religion’s TEACHINGS are true?? I doubt that you would.
And, having studied Christianity from it’s earliest days from first-hand sources, I can assure you that the doctrinal SYSTEM of the Jehovah’s Witnesses is completely FALSE, so how do we account for the good behaviour of those people??? My answer would be that they are BETTER than their Creed. And bad Catholics are those who are “Catholic” in name only. And in a church as old and HUGE as the Catholic church, we shouldn’t be surprised to find so many Bad Fish in the “Net” of the Church. Christ predicted that this situation would come to pass.
Love, Jaypeeto3 (a.k.a. Jaypeeto2)

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

Alright, I’m back, but I don’t have much time to respond for now. Obviously this thread has been derailed a bit into topics irrelevant to the original question posed. I didn’t want this to turn into a “My church is better than yours because…” thread. The idea has to do only with the actions of members of a religion defining and judging that religion. So, although I can see that Reggie put some time and effort into these last posts I probably won’t get a chance to read it all soon, much less reply. If I do, it will be in a different thread.

As for Catholic Dude, he has made a few interesting points, but his overall attitude seems fanatical and angry; so I wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea that I was avoiding those issues, I just don’t feel like getting further into an argument that I’m really not interested in anyway. I’d much rather get back to the subject at hand, and I apologize for having taken the bait.

I am an EX-Jehovah’s Witness. Most - in fact nearly ALL - of the Jehovah’s Witnesses I knew were EXTREMELY devout, very well behaved, would not curse, fornicate, commit adultery or sodomy, they went to five meetings a week, dressed modestly, wouldn’t go to any movie more strongly rated than PG, prayed daily and often, did not cheat their employers nor the IRS, basically some of the best people I ever knew from a moral standpoint.
NOW, your religion and the Jehovah’s Witness religion are as different as night and day doctrinally. Would you say that the general piety and morality of the Jehovah’s Witnesses means that their religion’s TEACHINGS are true?? I doubt that you would.

This is a good point. I also have met many good JWs. No, I don’t agree with many of their teachings, but judging by ‘ye shall know them by their fruits’ may lead one to believe in their organization anyway, which often is the case, I think, in many ‘conversions.’ The social environment and good example of what one can become makes a big difference. It is my experience as a missionary that this often has the biggest part to play. When someone begins to investigate a religion the sociability of the members play a huge role in whether that person even decides to take a serious look at the doctrine.

So, then there’s the doctrine and intellectualism of it all. Satan can deceive. He can make some people who are bad seem good and even convert to himself many of a true doctrine. Hmm… So does this invalidate what Jesus said then? I thought that passage was very clear. But then, there are good people in all circles and ‘bad people’ as well. Maybe this has to do with what the rules are and what makes one good or bad. For example, a druggie might go around doing good even though he likes to get high. He might do good, but does that make him good? This may also have relation to the faith / works doctrine.

Well, gotta get going on some things that need doing. I’ll try to post later.

 

[misterX]

Chris Jodrey:

. Perhaps 1 or 2% of Catholics I found knocking on doors were zealous or fanatical. These were ALMOST always closed-minded, always interrupting, unwilling to logically consider anything,

AAAAWWWWWWWWWW you poor little dear thing.How terrible. I mean how dare those people not flock around you on the mount and hang off your every word. Did you tell them that you had enough fish and bread to feed 5,000 of them? And how dare they interupt you while you are doing something. I mean a mormon would never interupt people now would they? And i agree how dare they be zealous or fanatical in their faith. We wouldn’t any of them coming to our country knocking on our doors trying to convert us now would we? You sir are a hypocrite.
Chris Jodrey:

This is not based solely on individual ignorance, laziness, or stupidity of the people.

Um ever thought that their perceived “ignorance, laziness or Stupidity” Is because they haven’t the resources or the time to learn more about their faith? Maybe they thought feeding their familys was more important than sitting around reading the bible trying to find Hidden messages in it? It seems to me you went to mexico full of pride thinking you was going to convert thousands…it also seems God taught you a lesson that you are too proud to see.