Smithsonian statement on Book of Mormon

[TOmNossor]

AugustineH354:

Second, is there any indication in the writings of the second century Church Fathers (or even in the writings of the second century heretics) that the office of apostle was to be perpetuated?

There are certainly a limited number of places that point to false apostles and false prophets. I generally point to Ephesians 4:11 to suggest that there was a need for apostles until we reach “a unity of faith,” but I would suggest that fairly early the Early Church recognized that it was a tower with a foundation of apostles and that this tower would soon be completed. The office of an apostle was not to continue in the Early Church (there may have been up to 15-19 apostles during the Early Church) it was foundational. This is what I see in the writings of the Hermas.

AugustineH354:
Third, rather than the office of apostles, does not one discern apostolic succession as being the norm in the second century.

I think one does discern the succession of Bishops as the norm in the late 1st and early 2nd century. I believe this is a valid local authority for some period of time (I look to the baptism of heretics as the ending of the valid local authority, but I suggest that the valid local authority erred as they attempted to decided issues for the entire church).

The pointing of Peter as the head of the church and the Bishop of Rome as his successor was first done (with some clarity) by Irenaeus. Tertullian said that this was a usurpation (probably long before he left the church). The pointing to the Bishop of Rome as his successor seems to generally neglect the fact that the Bishop of Antioch was Peters successor too and that the authority of the Pope developed into something different than the authority Peter had.

That’s what I got!

As usual, your questions are excellent and my answers are hopefully at least fair.

I am not sure which is better finishing your book soon or keeping me honest. I will appreciate both.

Charity, TOm

 

[boppysbud]

Tom hath saidst: “The ECFs were all LDS”.

How do you find this possible Tom? The ECFs lived and died over a millenium before the COJCOLDS was ever invented from whole cloth by Joseph Smith. It was all brand new in the 19th century and none of it’s doctrine had ever existed before. That is why I find the so called “restoration” to be ludicrous.

It is impossible to “restore” a church or anything else that never existed in the first place to be “restored”.

Here is the Webster’s definition of the verb “to restore”.

1. to give back:RETURN
2. to put or bring back into existence or use
3. to bring back to or put back into into a former or original state.

Since the Mormon teachings were all brand new in the 19th century such as three seperate “gods” in one “godhead”, "heavenly father having a body of “flesh and bone”, baptism for the dead, the “gods” organising matter that already existed, they could not have been a “restoration” of anything previously existing.

Tom you say that you beleive in only one “god”, but that is not what your church teaches. Have you nver heard of Snow’s couplet: “As man is now God once was, as God is now man may become”? That shows that Mormons do beleive that their “god” is merely an exhalted human being, and that human beings can become “gods”. There are dozens of statements to the same effect in the writtings of the Mormon “prophets” and “general authorities”. Brigham Young taught that Adam is our “god”. All anyone has to do is read these statements in your “Journal of Discourses” and other Mormon writtings to realise that you engaging in deception and dishonesty here.

No the Mormon church does not limit itself to the BOM, Bible, D&C and Pearl of Great Price.

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

Tom hath saidst: “The ECFs were all LDS”. How do you find this possible Tom? The ECFs lived and died over a millenium before the COJCOLDS was ever invented from whole cloth by Joseph Smith.

Actually, the words I said were, “I claim the ECF are LDS.” This was directly in response to your claim that LDS misunderstand what the ECFs say wrt deification. I went on to explain that eh ECFs are polluted by the error of Creation ex Nihilo. I do not accept that the ECF are necessarily proto Catholics. In my discussion with Oat Soda, we see a common Catholic misconception that the ECF taught the Catholicism of today and not the Mormonism of today. This is not reality. I claim that I have as much of a right to define what the ECF mean when they speak as do modern Catholics.

boppysbud:

It was all brand new in the 19th century and none of it’s doctrine had ever existed before. That is why I find the so called “restoration” to be ludicrous.

It is impossible to “restore” a church or anything else that never existed in the first place to be “restored”.

Here is the Webster’s definition of the verb “to restore”.

1. to give back:RETURN
2. to put or bring back into existence or use
3. to bring back to or put back into into a former or original state.

Since the Mormon teachings were all brand new in the 19th century such as three seperate “gods” in one “godhead”, "heavenly father having a body of “flesh and bone”, baptism for the dead, the “gods” organising matter that already existed, they could not have been a “restoration” of anything previously existing.

Rather than re-visiting this and potentially being ignored again, please go to post #161. If you have concerns, we can address them.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

boppysbud:

Tom you say that you beleive in only one “god”, but that is not what your church teaches. Have you nver heard of Snow’s couplet: “As man is now God once was, as God is now man may become”? That shows that Mormons do beleive that their “god” is merely an exhalted human being, and that human beings can become “gods”. There are dozens of statements to the same effect in the writtings of the Mormon “prophets” and “general authorities”. Brigham Young taught that Adam is our “god”. All anyone has to do is read these statements in your “Journal of Discourses” and other Mormon writtings to realise that you engaging in deception and dishonesty here.

While I have heard the Snow couplet quite regularly it is almost exclusively quoted by non-LDS. I have also read and quoted (on this very thread) “There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” (D&C 20:17).

It is amazing to me that you believe I should accept what you say Snow meant and not interpret it in light of D&C 20:17.

Snow’s couplet is not binding LDS doctrine and D&C 20 is. Also there are a number of ways to acknowledge truth associated with Snow’s couplet without embracing heresies you claim LDS must embrace.

If you want to get an in depth discussion of what LDS must and can believe regarding the Godhead, I recommend this essay by Blake Ostler. It is very long though.

http://www.nd.edu/~rpotter/ostler_element1-1.html

I assure you I am not engaging in dishonesty and deception. I could very easily point to differences in the words of ancient Catholics and what you claim to believe and suggest that you are being dishonest. What does, “No salvation outside the Catholic Church mean to you?”

Also, if you look at post #224 and #225 again. I point to the words of past prophets too, and as a LDS I am more likely to properly understand and represent my religion than you.

I suggest that you are unwilling or incapable of dealing with what I actually believe so you insist on mischaracterizing me. There are places on the internet where you can find non-Catholics who will not allow Catholics to define their beliefs. It might be interesting for you to seek these places out and see what is like to be continually told what you believe.

boppysbud:

No the Mormon church does not limit itself to the BOM, Bible, D&C and

Pearl of Great Price.

Past Popes have taught heretical doctrines. When discussing infallibility the more scholarly contingent was very clear that they opposed the doctrine because it was not true. Still the uninspired Catholic Church embraced it. Catholics may try to get around this with statements like “from the Chair of Peter,” but NO.

End TOm’s silliness.

Unlike the Catholic Church’s Pope, the first LDS prophet knew he was a prophet. He also said, “a prophet is a prophet only when acting as such.” It took the Catholic Church 1800 years to realize the Pope was infallible (but only in very specific instances). I suggest the CoJCoLDS position is more solid when it comes to defining the limitations of the prophet in a timely manner. The D&C defines the need for common consent to establish binding LDS doctrine. Again a very early definition within the CoJCoLDS.

I perceive that you cannot address the views I actually hold and so you demand I address views I do not actually hold. Perhaps I am wrong, but that is my best guess.
Charity, TOm

 

[boppysbud]

"We can produce the best men and the worst, the best women and the worst, and thus prove, according to the sayings of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, that this is the kingdom of God, or at least answers to the Saviour’s description of that kingdom.

"I have many a time, in this stand, dared the world to produce as mean devils as we can; we can beat them at anything. We have the greatest and smoothest liars in the world, the cunningest and most adroit thieves, and any other shade of character that you can mention.

"We can pick out Elders in Israel right here who can beat the world at gambling, who can handle the cards, cut and shuffle them with the smartest rogue on the face of God’s foot-stool. I can produce Elders here who can shave their smartest shavers, and take their money from them. We can beat the world at any game.

“We can beat them, because we have men here that live in the light of the Lord, that have the Holy Priesthood, and hold the keys of the kingdom of God. But you may go through all the sectarian world, and you cannot find a man capable of opening the door of the kingdom of God to admit others in. We can do that. We can pray the best, preach the best, and sing the best. We are the best looking and finest set of people on the face of the earth, and they may begin any game they please, and we are on hand, and can beat them at anything they have a mind to begin. They may make sharp their two-edged swords, and I will turn out the Elders of Israel with greased feathers, and whip them to death. We are not to be beat. We expect to be a stumbling block to the whole world, and a rock of offence to them.”

Brigham Young: Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, p. 77.

 

[boppysbud]

You know. those remarks of BY’s sound remarkably like those of Adolf Hitler and his address to the German General Staff, when he explained his policy and reasons for invading Poland. “I shall find a propagandist’s reading for starting the War. Never mind whether it is plausible or not; the victim will not be asked later whether he was telling the truth. Close your hearts to pity. Be harsh, remorseless. In starting a war, it is not right that matters, but victory!”

History, and lies, speak for themselves. Very little, IMHO, can be kept hidden.

 

[boppysbud]

"While I have heard the Snow couplet quite regularly it is almost exclusively quoted by non-LDS. "

Funny that this couplet which is “almost exclusively quoted” by “gentiles”, was originally written by Eliza Snow, the fifth President, “Prophet, Seer, and Revelator” of the COJCOLDS.

When did you guys change your collective mind? Can you just drop the teachings of your previous “prophets” when they become politically incorrect, or oppose the new Mormon effort to be seen as just another Christian denomination?

 

[boppysbud]

Have the words of your second “prophet, seer, and revelator” also been discredited by the new, deceptive, polititcally correct COJCOLDS?

 

[mlchance]

“There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” (D&C 20:17).

Interesting. Seems reasonable. There are also these to consider:
“I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity” (Moroni 8:18).

“For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today and forever, and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing? And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles” (Mormon 9:9-10).
Sounds good so far. Oh, but wait. Joseph Smith later received revelation that the Book of Mormon was wrong, that God had changed, and that there were many Gods.
“I will preach on the plurality of gods. I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see” (King Follett Discourse).

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and the great God who upholds all worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another” (King Follett Discourse).


– Mark L. Chance.

 

[TOmNossor]

Bobbysbud and Mlchance,

Let me say this again. Not only will I not defend every word of past LDS prophets, not only will I not attempt to post the horrors that are the heretical teachings of past Popes and the horrible behavior of past Popes, but I will assume that your focus on these aspects of the CoJCoLDS mean that you are unable to defend your church against what I actually believe.

Bobbysbud (FYI to Mlchance),

I referred you to post #161 and posts #224 &#225, but you have not dealt with what I said. And I linked you to Blake Ostler’s paper which deals with much of what seems to be so important to you wrt the LDS Godhead. I have showed evidence of the apostasy. I have showed evidence of the supernatural origins of the BOM. I have listed restored doctrines for you to peruse and address. But you and now Mlchance seem to only wish to bring up new issues and in this case attempt to assign beliefs to me that I do not hold.

Study the discussions on infallibility during Vatican I. Study the teachings of Pope Honorius. Study the life and behavior of Pope Benedict IX and Pope Alexander VI. Spend some time understanding your faith and history.

The D&C teaches the concept of common consent. LDS are bound by those doctrines we receive by common consent. The doctrines accepted by common consent are then placed in our canonized scriptures. While this is not a guarantee of INFALLABILITY it is the closest parallel for LDS beliefs. The clearest summary of LDS beliefs on this matter (not some infallible statement, but solidly in line with what the D&C teaches) is this statement from Harold B. Lee:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

TOm:

So I will go on assuming that my beliefs are too difficult for you to deal with (or even engage). You may continue on the path you have laid before yourself/yourselves or you may:

1. Study your own history and doctrine.

Or

1. Address beliefs I actually hold.

I will wait to see the path you choose.

Charity, TOm

 

[flameburns623]

boppysbud:

. . . . .And why do the Mormons insist of using the indecipherable KJV version to the exclusion of all other Bibles. Even the BOM which was written in 1830 a few centuries after the KJV style English was obsolete is written in this KJV style English.

But I’m not just picking on the Mormons here, on this site you will find several “Catholics” (I beleive they are really not Catholics at all but SSPV schismatics) insisting on using the Douay-Rhiems with the same obsolete English as the only English Bible.

Is “thou” holier than “you”?

Boppy:

Very little time to answer this but–Louis Tarsitino and Peter Toon point out in two books published in 2004 on the topic of traditional language that the “you-god” of contemporary liturgy and modern-language Bibles is alien to human beings, devoid of holiness, unworthy of worship–unlike the “thou-God” of traditional language, the “you-God” does not evoke the sense of sacredness.

Moreover–repeated studies have shown that reading comprehension declines when employing contemporary English as opposed to traditional Bible translations such as the KJV. This despite regular efforts to ‘dumb down’ the modern translations.

May I commend to you–fully confident that you don’t actually give a fig about this subject and won’t exert yourself to read a thing I suggest–that you pick up a copy of “Neither Orthodoxy Nor Formulary: The Shape and Content of the 1979 Prayer Book of the Episcopla Church” and “Neither Archaic Nor Obsolete: The Language of Comman Prayer and Public Worship”., both by Toon/Tarsitino, both published by The Prayer Book Society of the USA. It will give you some sense of the ground on the topic you raised before you launch into further unthoughtful, unconsidered sallies on the subject. Otherwise we’re just talking at each other and not dialoguing with one another.

 

[oat_soda]

more wacky mormon facts. how can you say drinking caffene is wrong but until 1978 not let blacks become priests??

And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

“skin of blackness”, this stuff is priceless. what’s with all of this “yea” stuff.

 

[catholic-rcia]

Would you contrast evidences found that support the Old and New Testaments, compared to the book of Mormon? The Old Testament and the New Testament.

Places? Writings? Historical events? And such.

As to the New Testament and my Christian Beliefs I find it humbling that the greatest sells man on earth was Jesus. He preached for just three years and yet his preaching have pretty much covered the whole Earth and even the Moon… If there is a race to spread the Gospel in these Modern times, Christians in Christ have already won this race. Many of us are at peace. The faith that I have come to hold came to me in a line that can be historically documented. The Gospel came to me by Christ, passed on to those who were saved by Him, then on to me by my wife who is of Mohawk, Huron and French blood. She found Christ because of the missionaries that came to France, then those from France came to the New World to bring Christ to the natives of the America’s. These natives who mixed with the French became missionaries and through my wife I found Jesus. Jesus did not need to go anywhere other than where He preached two thousand years ago to bring His living Word to me. This Word has not been changed nor has it been added upon, a better understanding maybe, but not added upon. A tribute to the Holy Spirit, to Christ and His promises to us as a people, to his church, found in the New Testament, found throughout the world today. I have personally witnessed a jealousy of Christ in my own soul. It comes out as envy and jealousy of another. But with God I have been able to p(name removed by moderator)oint this sin, come to Christ and be embraced by Him. I know of the attacks on His Church well, the reason and the why. I could never place myself above these attacks. It is why I go to confession, it is why I receive Communion, and it is why I place my fallen self into His will. Our Church consists of the good grain as well as the tares. The Good Grain is Christ in us, the Tares our fallen Nature. You cannot separate the two. This is the Job of the Christ. This is our Church. You have to admire it. Do not fight against it. And yes this is a warning to those that our loved so much by Jesus. It is a warning that stems from pure love. Not a human kind of love. Not a human kind of warning.

God Bless

 

[tkdnick]

While I have heard the Snow couplet quite regularly it is almost exclusively quoted by non-LDS. I have also read and quoted (on this very thread)

“There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God…” (D&C 20:17).

TOm: I do not doubt what you say. However, you are the ONLY member of the LDS faith I have EVER spoken with who has stated this!!! EVERY other LDS I have ever spoken with has stated that God progressed and is still progressing. Why the huge difference in beliefs?

Past Popes have taught heretical doctrines.

Could you give examples?

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

this statement from Harold B. Lee:

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.

If this is the case, does your church not have an awful lot of false teachers??? And if I can add another question…when was the last time your church “sustained” something and had it added to the standard works? Another aside…what is your belief on the book Gospel Principles?

 

[tkdnick]

flameburns623:

Moreover–repeated studies have shown that reading comprehension declines when employing contemporary English as opposed to traditional Bible translations such as the KJV. This despite regular efforts to ‘dumb down’ the modern translations.

So do you hold this eventhough the KJV was translated based on imperfect manuscripts and the tranlators acknowledged that they made mistakes?

 

[tkdnick]

TOmNossor:

Again, let us look at what a LDS prophet has said.

John Taylor, Mediation and Atonement, Ch.20

A man, as a man, could arrive at all the dignity that a man was capable of obtaining or receiving; but it needed a God to raise him to the dignity of a God. For this cause it is written, “Now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him.” And how and why like Him? Because, through the instrumentality of the atonement and the adoption, it is made possible for us to become of the family of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ; and that as He, the potential instrument, through the oneness that existed between Him and His Father, by reason of obedience to divine law, overcame death, hell and the grave, and sat down upon His Father’s throne, so shall we be able to sit down with Him, even upon His throne. Thus, as it is taught in the Book of Mormon, it must needs be that there be an infinite atonement; and hence of Him, and by Him, and through Him are all things; and through Him do we obtain every blessing, power, right, immunity, salvation and exaltation. He is our God, our Redeemer, our Savior, to whom, with the Father and the Holy Spirit, be eternal and everlasting praises worlds without end.

Did this statement follow the proper LDS “canonization” process? Was this statement “sustained” by the faithful?

 

[catholic-rcia]

The Book of Mormon is designed to convert using Christian principles such as the Christian belief in only one Creator, Trinity, no line of gods. The Milk before the meat. Then once a member the meat is fed slowly from other sources within their Church. Progression towards Godhood, to become a God as God is, is not hidden in Utah. It is considered a very good thing. As one member of the Church told me “Rich, this is what we believe” The way he said this made me pause for a moment and pray. He just said this in a way that demands respect of His faith. The state that he was in at the time. I could say nor do anything as I did not want to distance myself from him. He said it humbly. The spirit told me to move on, on that day. I still have contact with him.

A line of Gods is their teachings, it is their ultimate goal. What Satan offered us in the garden was a good thing for them, this is their thinking. When it comes down to it, God lied, Satan told the truth. This quest is the complete opposite of Christianity. It is the alternate choice. A choice that is rather appealing to many. In the LDS faith is comes down to a story of two brothers. Two different brothers both appearing as the Christ, in the light of Christ. But one is not of this light while the other is the light… It is our sin as Catholics as well to want Glory other than Gods. Which one of us can fully refuse what the devil offers us daily? We have others to look to in these choices, the Saints, but mostly to the only one whom can make such divine choices, Jesus. Jesus as man did not look for equality of God His Father. He was perfect in this sense because he was of God, and He was God. But we are human / Creature, we need a Savior in these matters.

We can only admire this in Jesus, and come to know that through Him we will be set free from the promises of this world.

A promise from a serpent in a garden that brought us death because of the wrong choices.

We all have choices, and the intellect to make the right ones.

God Bless

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

Would you contrast evidences found that support the Old and New Testaments, compared to the book of Mormon? The Old Testament and the New Testament.

Places? Writings? Historical events? And such.

This is a far more reasonable IMO line of discussion than those employed by some others on this thread (with a few exceptions).

I can reproduce Brant Gardner’s list (a little less than half is located on post #100).

I suggested in post #56 that the dearth of archeological evidence is not as unexpected as one might think. This is what I claimed to do in that post.

TOm (post #56):

I will do 4 things. I will give you ONE archeological find that shows that BOM civilizations exited (very limited civilization at the time of this existence, but in complete accord with the BOM, and I have seen an atheist/agnostic label this find as noteworthy). I will suggest that the evidence for New World BOM peoples would be significantly harder to find than Old World evidences. I will suggest that convincing archeology associated with the BOM is radically altering of the faith landscape were Biblical archeology is by comparison barely an eyebrow raiser. And lastly, I will suggest that the presence of archeological evidence is hardly a test for divinity.

TOm:

LDS Apologists have defined plausible settings for the BOM in the New World. Solid links aligning with known history and the BOM at the right time and place have been noted. There is very little writing that survived from this timeframe making certainty virtually impossible.

I suggest that an elaborate civilizations did exist in Mesoamerica. I suggest that political, geographical, historical, and other solid linkages exist between these civilizations and the BOM civilizations. What we do not have is consistent place names or solid written records with which to tie together the BOM and these Mesoamerican cultures and/or demonstrate that some subset of these groups were Christian (note that the writings from the Early Church highlight beliefs that certainly could not be demonstrated from other sources). Would knowledge of Christ from 33-300AD or the remotest clue about what separated Christians from Pagan’s be demonstratable solely from archeological artifacts and royal Roman inscriptions that survived? If you had no written records could you demonstrated the Christian-ness of the followers of Christ. I suggest that the Christian-ness of these followers would be swallowed up in the surrounding Pagan beliefs. All you would be left with would be some crosses perhaps, some verbal myths speaking of great white God and virgin births, and … the same things we have from Mesoamerica.

cont…

 

[TOmNossor]

catholic-rcia:

Our Church consists of the good grain as well as the tares. The Good Grain is Christ in us, the Tares our fallen Nature. You cannot separate the two. This is the Job of the Christ. This is our Church. You have to admire it. Do not fight against it. And yes this is a warning to those that our loved so much by Jesus. It is a warning that stems from pure love. Not a human kind of love. Not a human kind of warning.

It is not I who tries to suggest that the components within Catholic leaders that may be evil, tare-ish, or … are indicative of the fallen Catholic Church. I recognize that the Bible says that the wheat and tares grow together. I believe every person has tares as part of who they are. I believe every church has tares as part of its membership.

I do admire your church and it is my intent to defend my church. I will use what I call the “glass house” argument when Oat Soda puts forth faulty tests such as his Clement test. I also must demonstrate an apostasy of authority. In doing this I question the authority claims of the Catholic Church, but I do not think I have called the foundation of the Catholic Church nonsense, dishonest, ludicrous, … It is Catholics on this board who feel the need to do such thing. Perhaps you might reign in those folks. On a thread devoted to Catholic Divinization beliefs Bobbysbud goes so far as to suggest that he must define Catholicism in its differences to Mormonism. Who is desperately grabbing at anything and everything.

As I have said, I suspect you have love as your motive. I do not even suggest that the silly attacks of others are not in any way motivated by love. I just think you are possibly wrong and certainly wrong when you tell me I am wrong.

Charity, TOm