Which Protestants regard Catholics as non-Christian?

[AngloCatholic1]

Let me start by explaining that I just became a Roman Catholic this past Easter. It was a long spiritual journey over many, many years that lead me here. Over the course of this time I investigated a huge number of churches, and I think it safe to say that the “newer” the church, the less likely they are to consider us Catholics as Christians. I have to admit that in the early years I was a victim of this popular bias myself. I was initially attracted to Anglicanism because of it rich ceremonial liturgy. Then, as the church drifted into the arms of secular liberalism (at least here in Canada), I started considering what I hoped were more conservative alternatives… but I didn’t think for one second of checking out the RC at that time because too many people (not Anglicans) had said “they’re not Christian”! So, instead, I took the LONGEST possible road to Rome sweet home.

The baptist church I attended for a while lost me when they sent “missionaires” into Catholic countries; somehow it just didn’t seem right to me. The Presbyterians and Methodists didn’t have very many kind words for Catholicism either. But the most anti-catholic were the churches that aren’t even recognized by the World Council of Churches; the Mormons and the JW’s (yes, I looked into both!). In fact, the more questions I asked the JW’s, the more I began to realize how important it was to stand firm with traditional interpretations of scripture! After all, how could Christ found His church on the “Rock” of St. Peter… and then allow it to go wildly astray for 1900 years until the JW’s came “to the rescue”!!!

Then I started giving careful study to Martin Luther and his reasons for starting the Reformation in the first place. I started attending Lutheran services. I attended Bible study once a week with the pastor. They regarded Catholics as Christians, but misguided and naive, serving a power-hungry papacy in ignorance. I watched an old B&W film about Luther and was horrified to see one scene in which he ADDED the word “sola” to a verse from the book of Romans with his own pen, all while exclaiming “by faith ALONE!”. Sorry Mr. Luther, but you’re not allowed to ADD your own words to scripture! That’s when I stopped attending the Lutheran church.

Then I discovered Catholic Radio (EWTN), and for the FIRST TIME I actually heard Catholicism skillfully defended by Catholics. Imagine that! Getting information about Catholicism directly from Catholics! It’s great to be home!

 

[MelanieAnne]

I’m sorry that he adheres to that way of thinking. My friends and relatives were confused when i became Catholic, but none of them have ever thought I would go to Hell because of it. In fact, my SDA grandma seems happier with me than with my parents, because at least I go to church every week. It’s funny, in a way.

My experience is that those Protestant sects that consider Catholics to be non-Christian (I’ve even heard that some call Catholics “pagans”) also consider lots of others to be non-Christian ~ pretty much almost any faith except theirs. I’ve attended a church with family members where the Pastor expressed their belief that the members of ALL other faiths except theirs were going to hell. So they’re often not just picking on Catholics, they’re picking on everyone except their own faith.

 

[NotTooSmart]

My experience is that those Protestant sects that consider Catholics to be non-Christian (I’ve even heard that some call Catholics “pagans”) also consider lots of others to be non-Christian ~ pretty much almost any faith except theirs. I’ve attended a church with family members where the Pastor expressed their belief that the members of ALL other faiths except theirs were going to hell. So they’re often not just picking on Catholics, they’re picking on everyone except their own faith.

From my admittedly limited experience, this is absolutely correct.

 

[NotTooSmart]

Yes: I think that the relationship between a person, their conscience and God is fundamental in the Catholic Church as well

Good answer.

 

[dianaiad]

The newer the denomination the more likely they are to not see Catholics as Christians. You see, in order to justify their very existance and authority to start their own church, they have to discredit everything that came before them. There are some Protestants on this board who recognize us as their brothers and sisters in Christ (as we do to them) who defintely see us as Christians and will even gives us proper credit for a lot of things. They probably go underappreciated on this board sometimes. These tend to be Lutherans or Anglicans who are very similar to Catholic Church and who probably get condemned for their “rituals” by these Johnny-come-lately denominations as well.
I don’t know that we can get a difinitive list, since there 38,000 + denoms with new ones popping up ever day. Here’s a small list of which do not think we are Christians (though there are exceptions in every church). Common thread is that mostly any church that describes itself as a bible-church yet refuses to recognize where the bible came from:

church of Christ
Baptist (all hundreds of flavors)
JW
Mormon
Seven Day Adventist
Every church started in some guy’s basement that swears it is not a denomination, the church has just been feeling shy to come out and play for the past 1900+ years.

Uh, Mercy?

Mormons do not deny Catholics their Christianity.

It’s quite the other way around, I’m afraid.

Nor do Mormons deny that the Catholics were responsible for the preservation and compilation of the bible.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, I’d like to know this as well. It’s an odd concept, to be kicked out of a church body. I can understand being kicked out of a physical church building for any reason, but, that’s not how it sounds in the post… Do they have a hierarchy or committee that can keep tabs on him, that is, say, make sure he doesn’t go to another Church of Christ Church the next two counties over or something? Catholics have excommunication (but, they’re always allowed to be forgiven, and, if they cannot or do not repent, they can still GO to church, just not recieve the Sacraments), Mormons have their ex-fellowshipping thing, JWs, I think, will shun you, as will the Amish, but, still, one I believe is allowed to go to meetings. …I don’t know any mainline Protestant branch that will kick a member out of it’s church.

To the OP: Apologies for going off topic.

That’s disfellowshipping, not exfellowship, in terms of Mormonism. Someone who is disfellowshipped is NOT 'kicked out." Quite the contrary. He or she is asked not to take the Sacrament, serve in a church calling, go to a Temple, preach in Sacrament meeting or exercise his priesthood until the process of repentance is complete, but he or she is expected to attend church, including all meetings. It is meant to give the disfellowshipped person a ‘breather’ of sorts: time for reflection and repentance without having to deal with all the minutia of church life and church jobs.We are specifically told to care for those in this situation,. and NOT shun or cast them out of our lives.

Excommunication is a more serious matter; the ex communicant (who has committed adultery, a serious crime, public apostasy or is a blatant homosexual, generally) is 'kicked out." That is, he or she is no longer a member of the church. However, He or she is still quite welcome to come to church and there is absolutely no ‘shunning,’ officially. If that person is shunned, it’s not because of the excommunication; it’s generally because of whatever he or she did to earn it. It is, I have found, a little much to ask the wife of the guy who ran off with his secretary to be all that loving and helpful.

It’s also a little hard to ask the family of the character who has publically trashed their most sacred beliefs, along with their culture and family life, and who makes it very clear that he or she wants nothing to do with them, to get all snugly about inviting him to the family barbecue.

I’m not claiming that ‘shunning’ unjustly never happens, but it’s not supposed to.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Uh, Mercy?

Mormons do not deny Catholics their Christianity.

It’s quite the other way around, I’m afraid.

Nor do Mormons deny that the Catholics were responsible for the preservation and compilation of the bible.

True.

 

[adstrinity]

That’s disfellowshipping, not exfellowship, in terms of Mormonism. Someone who is disfellowshipped is NOT 'kicked out." Quite the contrary. He or she is asked not to take the Sacrament, serve in a church calling, go to a Temple, preach in Sacrament meeting or exercise his priesthood until the process of repentance is complete, but he or she is expected to attend church, including all meetings. It is meant to give the disfellowshipped person a ‘breather’ of sorts: time for reflection and repentance without having to deal with all the minutia of church life and church jobs.We are specifically told to care for those in this situation,. and NOT shun or cast them out of our lives.

Excommunication is a more serious matter; the ex communicant (who has committed adultery, a serious crime, public apostasy or is a blatant homosexual, generally) is 'kicked out." That is, he or she is no longer a member of the church. However, He or she is still quite welcome to come to church and there is absolutely no ‘shunning,’ officially. If that person is shunned, it’s not because of the excommunication; it’s generally because of whatever he or she did to earn it. It is, I have found, a little much to ask the wife of the guy who ran off with his secretary to be all that loving and helpful.

It’s also a little hard to ask the family of the character who has publically trashed their most sacred beliefs, along with their culture and family life, and who makes it very clear that he or she wants nothing to do with them, to get all snugly about inviting him to the family barbecue.

I’m not claiming that ‘shunning’ unjustly never happens, but it’s not supposed to.

Thank you for the many clarifications and explinations. And, this is all what I was getting at; you all do this for the sake of the sinner, but, at no point is he or she not allowed to still go to church (yes, I understand, they cannot go to a Temple, but, that doesn’t altogether exclude them…). They are not asked to not come back is what I was getting at. Also, I didn’t think the LDS shunned, but, I have read that the JWs do.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Thank you for the many clarifications and explinations. And, this is all what I was getting at; you all do this for the sake of the sinner, but, at no point is he or she not allowed to still go to church (yes, I understand, they cannot go to a Temple, but, that doesn’t altogether exclude them…). They are not asked to not come back is what I was getting at. Also, I didn’t think the LDS shunned, but, I have read that the JWs do.

I have witnessed routine “shunning” by Mormons of persons who simply ceased attending their meetings, no serious offense was required. The persons that this happened to were deeply offended. It is not formal Mormon policy, but it is common and widespread and we have seen similar reports right here on the forum from all over. The people I know that this has happened to were shocked to learn that their “friends” at church were only “friends” as long as they went to church. I have never seen a reasonable explanation for this behavior.

 

[surfgirlusa_200]

What I have learned from the SDA is that if you worship on Sunday instead of Saturday you are worshiping the “Beast” from the book of St John’s Apocalypse. Protestant or Catholic it makes no difference you are condemned if you worship on Sunday.

The ones I know believe that Saturday is the sabbath and is the day on which you are supposed to worship, but they have never mentioned that those who worship on Sunday are worshipping the “Beast.” I have heard a few on forums and such talk about the Catholic Church as the whore of Babylon though, which gets me riled up.

 

[dianaiad]

I have witnessed routine “shunning” by Mormons of persons who simply ceased attending their meetings, no serious offense was required. The persons that this happened to were deeply offended. It is not formal Mormon policy, but it is common and widespread and we have seen similar reports right here on the forum from all over. The people I know that this has happened to were shocked to learn that their “friends” at church were only “friends” as long as they went to church. I have never seen a reasonable explanation for this behavior.

Let’s see.

A typical week for a Mormon woman, active in the church:

Sunday morning: get the kids up, breakfasted and off; have your lesson prepared. Attend choir practice, then Sacrament meeting, Sunday School and Relief Society. That has pretty much taken up the morning, from dawn to at least noon, perhaps 1 or 2 o-clock.

Sunday Afternoon: Scripture study…prepare the lesson for next week (if you are organized, or prepare for tomorrow’s Family Home Evening…WHERE is that game the kids like?) Concentrate on seeing to it that everybody in the family actually RESTS on Sunday, if it kills you.

Monday: most Mormon women work, just as most non-Mormon women work, unless they are very, very lucky. If they don’t work outside the home earning money, they work their tails of INSIDE the home. Office associations are office associations; Mormons don’t generally go bar hopping, etc., If your hypothetical inactive Mormon has decided to join that crowd, oh well…

Monday evening: Family Home Evening. With the family. Games. A Lesson. Perhaps a movie. Something fun with the family, anyway.

Tuesday Evening: Sometime during the month, we are going to have to go do our visiting teaching…and you can bet that your inactive family is going to be on someone’s list. If Sister Mormon isn’t doing that, she’s dealing with her family and/or working on her church job, of which she probably has two. Oh, Sister Elderly died, and the funeral is Thursday. You are assigned one cassarole dish of funeral potatoes.

Wednesday: Mutual, or Scouts, or ??? Relief Society is probably having some activity once a month, anyway. The Elders Quorum President calls: a new family is moving in—they need a crew to unload the truck and get them settled in their new home. Saturday after the Primary activity, right?

Thursday. The funeral…remember the Primary activity coming up on Saturday, isn’t there? Oh, and we are feeding the Elders tonight. The Relief Society President calls: she needs a musical number for Sunday—can you sing “Oh Lord My God” again?

Friday. Date night with Hubby. You grit your teeth; you are going to be romantic tonight if it KILLS him…and eventually everything relaxes and you have fun; he falls asleep at the movies.

Saturday…that Primary activity—did I remember the cookies? Hubby and son help move. You deliver dinner; the new family needs to eat, right?

Sunday…and here we go again. Did I ever get that lesson/talk/ prepared? I’m leaving out stuff. I’m not claiming that Catholics are less committed than we are to their faith; I’m simply pointing out the realities of living ours.

Don’t kid yourself, guys. Being a Mormon is a full time proposition. We do NOT attend an hour or two of church a week. We are constantly there, at one meeting or another, doing things with our families, meeting people as part of our church responsibilities…remember, we don’t have a paid clergy. We ARE the clergy, doing everything your priest or minister does in addition to our workaday jobs.

If someone bows out of all that, becomes ‘less active,’ Just WHEN are the friends they made in church supposed to socialize with them? In order to do so, they would also have to become 'less active. What activity do you suggest that they abandon? Family night? Date night? Scouting? Relief Society? their callings?

I am constantly bemused by this complaint that people who leave us say that WE have abandoned THEM. It’s a little like the nun who leaves the convent, and then complains that her former sisters don’t hang out with her any more.

She forgets that she’s the one who left.

In the case of those who become inactive, and then feel abandoned by their former friends, who moved? THEY didn’t. By insisting that their old friends associate with them in venues outside their church activities, they are asking a lot, y’know; adding yet one more demand on their time, time that is already stretched to the limit.

If some of them decide that ‘your choice to abandon the things we most have in common does not equal a requirement that I abandon them too,’ then perhaps the one that left has to bear some part of the responsibility for the rift.

Is this always the reason that ‘inactive’ people are avoided? No, not always, but far more often than the inactive one thinks, it is. They leave, then wonder why we don’t follow them. they don’t go to the places where their friends are, then wonder why they never see their friends.

A very real story: a young man was very bitter because his friends refused to see him anymore; he was very angry, and accused them of thinking they were better than him.

Well, three of his friends were on missions, two of them were in the military, several more were in college, and he?----was going out dirt biking with the group he met at work, not one of which was LDS. He could have joined the Marines–he promised he would when his friends did. He could have gone on a mission; he and his friends had planned on it from the time he was seven. He could have gone to college; his friends and he had applied to the same schools, but he decided not to go. Oh, but his friends didn’t hang out with him any more, so it’s their fault.

 

[adstrinity]

?

What is “visiting lesson” and “Mutual”?

 

[dianaiad]

?

What is “visiting lesson” and “Mutual”?

Visiting teaching: the Relief Society (the women’s group) assigns every woman in it a ‘teacher,’ or two, whose responsibility it is to visit them, make certain that they are OK physically, to see to it that if they need something (like someone to cut down that tree in the back yard) they get it, and to provide a spiritually uplifting lesson at least once a month.

Mutual: the organization for the youth from twelve to 18 years of age. Lots of activities…Scouting is part of it, and the Young Women’s program is just as challenging.

 

[MercyMia]

Uh, Mercy?

Mormons do not deny Catholics their Christianity.

It’s quite the other way around, I’m afraid.

Nor do Mormons deny that the Catholics were responsible for the preservation and compilation of the bible.

Thanks for the clarification. I had heard otherwise from a Mormon BUT I know that one person’s view is not always representative of the whole story and I certainly believe your word. I am HAPPY to hear it.

 

[cthulhubryan]

Hi

Following a recent question in the AAA forum I would like to know which Non-Catholic Churches regard Catholicism as Non-Christian and why?

Generally speaking the farther away from the original schism you get the more anti-catholic you get.
Lutherans and Anglicans are usually not that anti-catholic. The Anglicans used to (still do?) pray for the Pope. The break offs from these are not that anti-catholic (Methodist from Anglican) but that changes in different parts of the country. The Methodist church was never anti-catholic but many United Methodists churches have that tendancy (Methodist + Evangelical United Brethren = United Methodist)
Churches that started farther “out there” are more likely to be anti-catholic. Those that started from the poisoned tree of Calvin or Zwingli tend that direction. The Presbyterians used to state that the RCC was the church of satan. The Baptists (especially the Southern Baptists who are quite Calvinistic) generally tend to despise not only the Catholic Church but others that they do not like as well.

Also, churches without Ecclesiastical Hierarchies and without Liturgies tend to wander into the realm of Catholic bashing.

However I do get the impression that there is a continuous, and disappointing, trend among Non-Catholics to attack The R.C.Church; its almost as if some think that the only way to promote their own Church is to attack the R.C. Church.

Whereas subjects like Ecumenism and different interpretations of Scripture are interesting and, sometimes, enlightening I cannot see the point in deliberately attacking another Church; unless, of course, you are dealing with extremists.

What think ye?

As noted in the world famous tome “Cthulhu Bryan’s Book of Cults” One of the many features of pseudo Christian Cults is that they almost always feel a need to distinguish themselves from the Catholic Church in order to justify their position. We can see this trend all the way back to the Arianistic cults that started in the early AD 300s. Interestingly enough, William Henry Conly and Charles Taze Russell took Arianism as one of his central planks when forming the Zions Watch Tower Tract Society in 1881. The group changed it’s name to the Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1931.

This group is very interesting for they meet 2 of the main Cult criteria and 1 one of minor indicators of Cults. The 2 main being that a) They attack the Catholic Church and b) they teach that the Bible is incorrect and therefore it must be re translated with words added or remove to suit the purpose of the “translators” .

The minor indicator is a common one “Anytime a suspected Cult has (incorrectly) predicted the end of the world at least once then there is significant reason to suspect Cult activity” Please note that any group CORRECTLY predicting the end of the world will immediately lose all cult consideration.

 

[SkinnyJay]

Let’s see.

A typical week for a Mormon woman, active in the church:

Sunday morning: get the kids up, breakfasted and off; have your lesson prepared. Attend choir practice, then Sacrament meeting, Sunday School and Relief Society. That has pretty much taken up the morning, from dawn to at least noon, perhaps 1 or 2 o-clock.

Sunday Afternoon: Scripture study…prepare the lesson for next week (if you are organized, or prepare for tomorrow’s Family Home Evening…WHERE is that game the kids like?) Concentrate on seeing to it that everybody in the family actually RESTS on Sunday, if it kills you.

Monday: most Mormon women work, just as most non-Mormon women work, unless they are very, very lucky. If they don’t work outside the home earning money, they work their tails of INSIDE the home. Office associations are office associations; Mormons don’t generally go bar hopping, etc., If your hypothetical inactive Mormon has decided to join that crowd, oh well…

Monday evening: Family Home Evening. With the family. Games. A Lesson. Perhaps a movie. Something fun with the family, anyway.

Tuesday Evening: Sometime during the month, we are going to have to go do our visiting teaching…and you can bet that your inactive family is going to be on someone’s list. If Sister Mormon isn’t doing that, she’s dealing with her family and/or working on her church job, of which she probably has two. Oh, Sister Elderly died, and the funeral is Thursday. You are assigned one cassarole dish of funeral potatoes.

Wednesday: Mutual, or Scouts, or ??? Relief Society is probably having some activity once a month, anyway. The Elders Quorum President calls: a new family is moving in—they need a crew to unload the truck and get them settled in their new home. Saturday after the Primary activity, right?

Thursday. The funeral…remember the Primary activity coming up on Saturday, isn’t there? Oh, and we are feeding the Elders tonight. The Relief Society President calls: she needs a musical number for Sunday—can you sing “Oh Lord My God” again?

Friday. Date night with Hubby. You grit your teeth; you are going to be romantic tonight if it KILLS him…and eventually everything relaxes and you have fun; he falls asleep at the movies.

Saturday…that Primary activity—did I remember the cookies? Hubby and son help move. You deliver dinner; the new family needs to eat, right?

Sunday…and here we go again. Did I ever get that lesson/talk/ prepared? I’m leaving out stuff. I’m not claiming that Catholics are less committed than we are to their faith; I’m simply pointing out the realities of living ours.

Don’t kid yourself, guys. Being a Mormon is a full time proposition. We do NOT attend an hour or two of church a week. We are constantly there, at one meeting or another, doing things with our families, meeting people as part of our church responsibilities…remember, we don’t have a paid clergy. We ARE the clergy, doing everything your priest or minister does in addition to our workaday jobs.

If someone bows out of all that, becomes ‘less active,’ Just WHEN are the friends they made in church supposed to socialize with them? In order to do so, they would also have to become 'less active. What activity do you suggest that they abandon? Family night? Date night? Scouting? Relief Society? their callings?

I am constantly bemused by this complaint that people who leave us say that WE have abandoned THEM. It’s a little like the nun who leaves the convent, and then complains that her former sisters don’t hang out with her any more.

She forgets that she’s the one who left.

In the case of those who become inactive, and then feel abandoned by their former friends, who moved? THEY didn’t. By insisting that their old friends associate with them in venues outside their church activities, they are asking a lot, y’know; adding yet one more demand on their time, time that is already stretched to the limit.

If some of them decide that ‘your choice to abandon the things we most have in common does not equal a requirement that I abandon them too,’ then perhaps the one that left has to bear some part of the responsibility for the rift.

Is this always the reason that ‘inactive’ people are avoided? No, not always, but far more often than the inactive one thinks, it is. They leave, then wonder why we don’t follow them. they don’t go to the places where their friends are, then wonder why they never see their friends.

A very real story: a young man was very bitter because his friends refused to see him anymore; he was very angry, and accused them of thinking they were better than him.

Well, three of his friends were on missions, two of them were in the military, several more were in college, and he?----was going out dirt biking with the group he met at work, not one of which was LDS. He could have joined the Marines–he promised he would when his friends did. He could have gone on a mission; he and his friends had planned on it from the time he was seven. He could have gone to college; his friends and he had applied to the same schools, but he decided not to go. Oh, but his friends didn’t hang out with him any more, so it’s their fault.

Ok I understand but you also said earlier:

That’s disfellowshipping, not exfellowship, in terms of Mormonism. Someone who is disfellowshipped is NOT 'kicked out." Quite the contrary. He or she is asked not to take the Sacrament, serve in a church calling, go to a Temple, preach in Sacrament meeting or exercise his priesthood until the process of repentance is complete, but he or she is expected to attend church, including all meetings. It is meant to give the disfellowshipped person a ‘breather’ of sorts: time for reflection and repentance without having to deal with all the minutia of church life and church jobs.We are specifically told to care for those in this situation,. and NOT shun or cast them out of our lives.

It just seems weird that you are told specifically to care for those in that situation but then say that it’s not your fault if it doesn’t happen because the Mormon schedule is so busy, one can’t do everything!

I understand the point you trying to make though. I suppose in reality it is somewhere in the middle.

 

[OHCAC]

Uh, Mercy?

Mormons do not deny Catholics their Christianity.

It’s quite the other way around, I’m afraid.

Nor do Mormons deny that the Catholics were responsible for the preservation and compilation of the bible.

Thanks for the clarification. I had heard otherwise from a Mormon BUT I know that one person’s view is not always representative of the whole story and I certainly believe your word. I am HAPPY to hear it.

MercyMia: Individual Mormons may not deny Catholics their Christianity but statements by LDS prophets, high level members and LDS scripture appear to do so:

– There are several historical references from about 1832 - 1844 of Joseph Smith (founder of the LDS faith) either deciding for himself, or being told by heavenly beings, that all churches (outside his – LDS would say God’s) were corrupt, believed incorrect doctrines, none taught truth, were an abomination to God, etc.

– In 1 Nephi 14 of the Book of Mormon (BoM) an angel tells Nehpi that there are only two churches – the church of the Lamb of God and the church of the devil – and if you don’t belong to the first you belong to the second. If I understand this correctly, only Mormons belong to the Church of the Lamb of God; that would seem to leave everyone else in the devil’s church.

– Bruce McConkie, a member of the Quorum, in “A New Witness for the Articles of Faith” said “The false gods of Christendom bear the same names as the true Gods of the Bible. Beyond that they have little resemblance.”

– Brigham Young, Joseph Smith’s successor, from Journal and Discourses: “With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world” and “Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity”.

And there are many, many other such statements. So LDS may not **directly **say we’re not Christians (although B. Young appears to) but they seem to be saying our Church is not Christian, our gods are false, we are ignorant and our church is an abomination. You can draw your own conclusions.

Regarding the Bible you’ll find a similar type of situation. Part of Dianaiad’s post that “Catholics were responsible for the preservation…of the bible” appears to not be in accord with the BoM or what leaders of the LDS Church have said. 1 Nephi 13:28 says that many plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible. This is echoed in the 8th LDS Article of Faith. Seems rather clear the LDS Church doesn’t think the Bible has been fully preserved.

I take Dianaiad at her word that this is what she believes, but I don’t think it’s what the LDS church believes. Any ex-LDS want to share your experiences?

 

[fbl9]

How can say a pentacostal person who claims that a catholic worships Mary consider a catholic a christain when they beleive that the catholic worhips some other than God?
Or those that call the Catholic Church the “whore of babylon” call individual catholics christains?How can following a “whore” lead one to God?

I never knew of any venom towards catholics from Anglicans till i came here…After reading some history i have found that there was plenty of venom from Lutherans and Anglicans in the past,even up to killing one for pratiscing Catholism.

I have to chew on my tongue for a while when i get accused of worhipping some other than God…Once sharing with another person they accused me of trying to get them into bed with me,that hurt a lot,yet when conforted on this matter latter all this person had to say was that they were misled by their pastor, but they got a new pastor and this now once misleading church is now a leading church, i can’t get that one:shrug:

 

[dianaiad]

Ok I understand but you also said earlier:

It just seems weird that you are told specifically to care for those in that situation but then say that it’s not your fault if it doesn’t happen because the Mormon schedule is so busy, one can’t do everything!

I understand the point you trying to make though. I suppose in reality it is somewhere in the middle.

OK, reconcile the two this way: when one considers how excommunication and disfellowshipping works in other religions (such as the way it used to work in Catholicism, according to the Encyclopedia of Catholicism under ‘Excommunication’) once one is ‘ex’d,’ they are not allowed into the churches, and members are not allowed to talk to them, write to them, live with them, eat with them, or interact with them in any way; it is as if they don’t exist. “Shunning.”

For Mormons, those disfellowshipped or excommunicated folks are invited to attend church, interact with us, come to the meetings, and participate as much as their state of discipline allows. They cannot hold jobs, partake of the Sacrament (take communion) or give talks. The disfellowshipped men are asked not to use their priesthood, which they still hold. The excommunicated ones no longer hold it, so they can’t use it.

If they take advantage of this, and they come and join, then we are absolutely NOT to ‘shun’ them. Nor are we to shun them if they don’t—any more than we shun anybody else who wants us to go bowling instead of Relief Society activities.

To be honest, in all my years I"ve only met one person who was disfellowshipped (that I knew about, anyway. She actually went to the bishop and requested it for something she needed to repent of, something she never told anybody else about). That’s how it worked with her. She used to joke that she had the best end of the deal; she got all the spiritual and fun stuff, and didn’t have to do any of the work!

We got even with her, though. As soon as her ‘disfellowshipping’ period was over, she got nailed to be the Relief Society President. Vacation over.

I have seen more excommunicants…but almost all of them were utterly disinterested in attending services or being with us. Any ‘shunning’ was on their part, not ours. The few who came back were made welcome.

Oh…and those inactive members still have home teachers and visiting teachers, and they get visited, or should get visited, as long as they let us.

 

[dianaiad]

MercyMia: Individual Mormons may not deny Catholics their Christianity but statements by LDS prophets, high level members and LDS scripture appear to do so:

– There are several historical references from about 1832 - 1844 of Joseph Smith (founder of the LDS faith) either deciding for himself, or being told by heavenly beings, that all churches (outside his – LDS would say God’s) were corrupt, believed incorrect doctrines, none taught truth, were an abomination to God, etc.

Watch the language there. There is a HUGE difference between disagreeing with a belief, and calling the believers 'abomination to God." No statement by any of our leaders does that, and none of them say that believing inaccurate things about Christ makes them ‘unChristian.’ That’s a POV that the Evangelicals and Catholics have, but we don’t.

– In 1 Nephi 14 of the Book of Mormon (BoM) an angel tells Nehpi that there are only two churches – the church of the Lamb of God and the church of the devil – and if you don’t belong to the first you belong to the second. If I understand this correctly, only Mormons belong to the Church of the Lamb of God; that would seem to leave everyone else in the devil’s church.

You don’t understand this correctly. The “Church of the Lamb of God” consists of all those who sincerely believe in Him, and have a personal relationship with Him, no matter where they are doctrinally. It also includes all those who might not believe in Him, but do the best they can with what they DO believe. That means that, from the sheer numbers of people involved, there are probably more Catholics in the “Church of the Lamb of God” than there are Mormons, if only because there are about a billion Catholics and only 13 million Mormons. It might even mean that there are more non-Christians in the Church of the Lamb of God than there are Christians, but perhaps not.

Those of the church of the devil are the liars, hypocrites, evil doers, deliberate mockers of God, those who hurt others…you know what I’m talking about, I’m certain.

– Bruce McConkie, a member of the Quorum, in “A New Witness for the Articles of Faith” said “The false gods of Christendom bear the same names as the true Gods of the Bible. Beyond that they have little resemblance.”

Well now, that’s pretty strong language. No stronger than the language I have heard HERE accusing Mormons of believing in a ‘false Christ’ and a 'false God." You will notice that McConkie, even as he characterizes these beliefs as ‘false gods,’ still acknowledges that they are CHRISTIAN. That’s more than those who accuse me of believing in a ‘false Christ’ do in return.

– Brigham Young, Joseph Smith’s successor, from Journal and Discourses: “With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world” and “Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity”.

And there are many, many other such statements. So LDS may not **directly **say we’re not Christians (although B. Young appears to) but they seem to be saying our Church is not Christian, our gods are false, we are ignorant and our church is an abomination. You can draw your own conclusions.

Well, you have certainly drawn yours. I wonder if my responses make you relieved that you are mistaken about what we think in this matter?

Regarding the Bible you’ll find a similar type of situation. Part of Dianaiad’s post that “Catholics were responsible for the preservation…of the bible” appears to not be in accord with the BoM or what leaders of the LDS Church have said. 1 Nephi 13:28 says that many plain and precious things have been removed from the Bible. This is echoed in the 8th LDS Article of Faith. Seems rather clear the LDS Church doesn’t think the Bible has been fully preserved.

We don’t. However, we are quite aware that the Catholic church is responsible for the preservation of what we do have, and for that we thank you deeply. Just because we don’t think you did a perfect job of it doesn’t mean that we believe you failed greatly, either.

I take Dianaiad at her word that this is what she believes, but I don’t think it’s what the LDS church believes. Any ex-LDS want to share your experiences?

Gee, shall I ask an ex-Catholic to interpret your stand on excommunication?