The Catholic Herald....Mormons Are Not Christian

[Ron Beron]

If we look at the history of this then Catholics (Universalists) have no more claim on being true than does any faith. They are simply a piece of evolution of the the Christian faith begun by Jesus, promoted by the apostles, filtered (corrupted in my opinion) by Paul, interpreted by hundreds of myriads sects, and finally codified to some degree by successive councils which eventually resulted in the supremacy of the Roman Empire induced Catholics sponsored by Constantine and pushed by Athanasius et al. This was further "nourished" by 1500 years of overlying beliefs, schisms, injustices, and downright evils which further obfuscated the pure truth of the teachings of Jesus. Catholics were as much Christian to the early Judaizers as Mormons are to Catholics et al. God is not homoousious with the Son, Jesus is not to be consumed transubstantionally, Mary was not born without sin, and saints do not need to be prayed to for their intervention with Jesus or God. The question, therefore, is not whether Mormons are Christian, but are Catholics and therefore all symbiotic religions that exist today, Christian?

Edited April 16, 2012 by Ron Beron

[blueadept]

I understand that LDS do not accept the Tradition that was passed down but WOW!!! With that understanding and explanation I don't blame your thoughts on the apostasy. Fortunately the more I study Catholic history the more I enjoy my faith.

[Bob Oliverio]

I started a thread over a week ago titled "Christianity: It's Tebow and the Pope". I got a lot of criticism and complaints for various reasons although I really just stated the obvious.

I think this article and this thread now demonstrate what I was trying to get at in defending our claims and doctrines.

While we complain what other churches or media outlets say about our claims to Christianity, where are our leaders and where is our Prophet in the public media to defend and explain our doctrine?  Our world today is one of public exposure and media medium.  As I asked before, "do we have the confidence of taking this challenge head on with our Prophet explaining and defending our doctrine in front of the media"?

We sit here in the insulation of message boards and complain about how everyone doesn't understand our beliefs or doctrine.  But with no disrespect to our Church and our leaders, we really don't do a good job of bringing our Prophet to the forefront of public exposure to lead and explain what we believe - outside of Sunday sacrament meetings.

[Ron Beron]

I understand that LDS do not accept the Tradition that was passed down but WOW!!! With that understanding and explanation I don't blame your thoughts on the apostasy. Fortunately the more I study Catholic history the more I enjoy my faith.

How do you understand this transmission and doctrine? For the record I was a staunch Catholic for 20 years and still respect and love the Catholic Church I grew up with. I don't hate the doctrine nor do I feel they are not Christian. Simply, they are following a Christian doctrine within the Christian philosophy as are the LDS.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Ron Beron

[Ron Beron]

I started a thread over a week ago titled "Christianity: It's Tebow and the Pope". I got a lot of criticism and complaints for various reasons although I really just stated the obvious.

I think this article and this thread now demonstrate what I was trying to get at in defending our claims and doctrines.

While we complain what other churches or media outlets say about our claims to Christianity, where are our leaders and where is our Prophet in the public media to defend and explain our doctrine? Our world today is one of public exposure and media medium. As I asked before, "do we have the confidence of taking this challenge head on with our Prophet explaining and defending our doctrine in front of the media"?

We sit here in the insulation of message boards and complain about how everyone doesn't understand our beliefs or doctrine. But with no disrespect to our Church and our leaders, we really don't do a good job of bringing our Prophet to the forefront of public exposure to lead and explain what we believe - outside of Sunday sacrament meetings.

Are you saying we need better PR? The leadership of the church is not what we are "selling", but the gospel of Jesus and the Kingdom of God.

Edited April 16, 2012 by Ron Beron

[why me]

While we complain what other churches or media outlets say about our claims to Christianity, where are our leaders and where is our Prophet in the public media to defend and explain our doctrine? Our world today is one of public exposure and media medium. As I asked before, "do we have the confidence of taking this challenge head on with our Prophet explaining and defending our doctrine in front of the media"?

We sit here in the insulation of message boards and complain about how everyone doesn't understand our beliefs or doctrine. But with no disrespect to our Church and our leaders, we really don't do a good job of bringing our Prophet to the forefront of public exposure to lead and explain what we believe - outside of Sunday sacrament meetings.

LDS church leaders are out there speaking to the members on an almost daily basis. And if you remember correctly Gordon B. Hinckley attempted to be on television when he did interviews with Larry King and Mike Wallace. And the critics are still using such interviews against the lds church by calling him a liar. I have seen this on the catholic forum. I think that it is a no win situation. However, I don't see the Pope doing interviews with Piers Morgon or any other TV interviewer. Much is scripted when he speaks and there is nothing wrong with this. It is just prudent since going public can be problematic for any leader of any church.

[blueadept]

How do you understand this transmission and doctrine? For the record I was a staunch Catholic for 20 years and still respect and love the Catholic Church I grew up with. I don't hate the doctrine nor do I feel they are not Christian. Simply, they are following a Christian doctrine within the Christian philosophy as are the LDS.

I have a shirt that lists all the Popes with Peter being the first. Our bishops of today are our modern day apostles. As a Catholic I acknowledge we had 11 bad Popes but nothing in regards to faith and morals was changed during these Popes reign.

I respect the LDS position as a restoration church even if I don't see the need for an apostasy.

My two cents

[Ron Beron]

I have a shirt that lists all the Popes with Peter being the first. Our bishops of today are our modern day apostles. As a Catholic I acknowledge we had 11 bad Popes but nothing in regards to faith and morals was changed during these Popes reign.

I respect the LDS position as a restoration church even if I don't see the need for an apostasy.

My two cents

Thanks for the response. While I disagree with the provenance you indicate I certainly respect the religious lineage I share with billions of Catholics past and present.

[spartacus]

Another way that traditional Christians think of the difference between LDS and trads (and thus leads them to say that LDS are not Christian) is like this:

Say my best friend is Jim. I know Jim is 33, brown-haired, caucasian, 6 ft. Then a guy comes to me and says that he is best friends with Jim, too. He can tell me that Jim is 33, brown-haired, caucasian and 6 ft. But then he tells me that Jim has a bunch of siblings, that he's an investor and motivational speaker, has been married several times, and sits on a board of executives over a medium-sized company. This is when I know he doesn't know my Jim, because my Jim is an only child, is a philanthropist and conflict-resolutionist, has never been married, and is the sole founder, owner, and CEO of a massive mission.

So who is really "best friends with Jim"? Well, if there was confusion and they are talking about two different Jims, then that's one thing. But if the guy points at my Jim and says "yep, that's Jim, and we're best friends" then I know that the guy is either mistaken or lying.

Now, another level, say it isn't "best friends" but "best pen pals". Then either I or the guy or Both could be wrong about Jim. We've never met him face to face. We are not completely certain that a real Jim exists and that it's not someone else just messing with us. We could even compare return addresses and see that they say the same thing. Either both descriptions of Jim are based on deliberately different correspondences about an imaginary Jim by some punk writing to each of us, or the other guy or me are getting false correspondence one way or another.

If I have good reason to believe that my Jim is correct and that Jim would not want someone spreading misinformation about him, then it is my duty as Jim's best friend to defend his name and work from this guy who claims he is Jim's best pen pal and friend. Now I can either say to people "he's talking about a different Jim" or "an imaginary Jim", or I could list all the differences point by point, or I could simply say "he's not Jim's best pen pal" and then with more time go into the details. But actually, if we both know that our letters come from the same address, then a "different Jim" claim would not be appropriate - "imaginary" or "mistaken" or "not Jim's best pen pal" become the only options.

[thesometimesaint]

Whether you believe US President Bill Clinton was the worst person in the world, or the greatest thing since sliced bread we are still talking about they same person.

[spartacus]

Whether you believe US President Bill Clinton was the worst person in the world, or the greatest thing since sliced bread we are still talking about they same person.

I will assume, though I don't want to, that this is a reply to my last post immediately preceding it. If so, your example is one of differing JUDGEMENTS about the content of a person, not different CONTENT DESCRIPTIONS of that person. "Jim" above isn't called "the worst person in the world" by the other guy and the "best person in the world" by me - we both claim to be his best friends or best pen pals - read "followers".

[why me]

Another way that traditional Christians think of the difference between LDS and trads (and thus leads them to say that LDS are not Christian) is like this:

Lets just say that maybe it shoujld be like this:

Jim is a mormon and reads the scriptures that his church believes in. The scriptures Jim reads are full of mentions of Christ. And Jim believes that Christ is his personal savior. And jim prays to his heavenly faither in the name of jesus in the morning, before he eats his breakfast, lunch and dinner and says an evening prayer in jesus name with his family. Jim attempts to live the words of christ. He is a gospel centered man and follows the words of jesus as close as he can, realizing that he is not perfect. But Jim is a mormon and attends his church.

Harry is a catholic and harry is a devout catholic. He prays to the saints for intercession, says the rosary once a day, says his evening prayers and makes the sign of the cross. Attends masses of obligation and occasionally goes on retreat. Says a prayer before each meal: breakfast, lunch and dinner. And attempts to follow the words of jesus. Harry meets jim and asks what church does he belong to. Jim says the lds church. Harry tells jim that he is not a christian because he is mormon and harry goes on to tell jim that he is a christian because he is catholic. .

Isn't that a wonderful story of two people?

Edited April 17, 2012 by why me

[blueadept]

Harry tells jim that he is not a christian because he is mormon and harry goes on to tell jim that he is a christian because he is catholic. .

Isn't that a wonderful story of two people?

I would say that Harry needs to learn his faith since that is not dogma and needs to stop listening to OPINIONS even if they came from previous Popes.

JMO

added - For someone who use to go to Mass not too long ago, your posts as of late,has developed a stench IMO.

Edited April 17, 2012 by blueadept

[Lachoneus]

So who is really "best friends with Jim"? Well, if there was confusion and they are talking about two different Jims, then that's one thing. But if the guy points at my Jim and says "yep, that's Jim, and we're best friends" then I know that the guy is either mistaken or lying.

Of course you are ignoring the possibility that you are the one who is "mistaken or lying" about Jim. Everyone always assumes that they are the one who knows the truth and that, therefore, there must be something wrong with the other guy.

Personally, because I do not recognize the authority of any other faith to determine whether or not I am a Christian, I have no interest in these public judgments about my faith.

[Jaybear]

Much ado about nothing.

Mormons think (know) the LDS Church is Christ's one and only true church.

The LDS Church ... you know, Christ's Church ... doesn't recognized baptisms performed by other Churches.

You send missionaries out in the world to bring more members to Christ one and only church.

They think Smith was a false prophet and the LDS Church leads people away from Christ.

They don't recognize baptisms performed by your church.

The only difference between these two groups is that Mormons pretend to take great umbrage.

[blueadept]

The only difference between these two groups is that Mormons pretend to take great umbrage.

I believe both sides take great umbrage in losing members to other faiths. One of the main reasons the Pope visited Mexico was to address this issue in the Central Americas. In some of those smaller countries, the Cathollic faith has lost 40% of its faithful to other faith missionaries.

[altersteve]

Much ado about nothing.

Mormons think (know) the LDS Church is Christ's one and only true church.

The LDS Church ... you know, Christ's Church ... doesn't recognized baptisms performed by other Churches.

You send missionaries out in the world to bring more members to Christ one and only church.

They think Smith was a false prophet and the LDS Church leads people away from Christ.

They don't recognize baptisms performed by your church.

The only difference between these two groups is that Mormons pretend to take great umbrage.

No, the difference is that we define the word "Christian" very differently, and that Mormons believe other Christian churches do NOT lead people away from Christ. We don't "pretend" anything.

[Jaybear]

No, the difference is that we define the word "Christian" very differently, and that Mormons believe other Christian churches do NOT lead people away from Christ. We don't "pretend" anything.

Alright so you do take great umbrage that EVs and Catholics don't believe Mormons are Christians, while at the same time you teach you children that EVs and Catholics are not members of Christ's one true Church.

[altersteve]

Alright so you do take great umbrage that EVs and Catholics don't believe Mormons are Christians, while at the same time you teach you children that EVs and Catholics are not members of Christ's one true Church.

No, I don't "take great umbrage" about anything. Please don't make assumptions.

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

I prefer the dictionary to "Special Pleadings", and "Double Standards".

Edited April 17, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Jaybear]

Jaybear:

I prefer the dictionary to "Special Pleadings", and "Double Standards".

Not sure what your point is?

No, I don't "take great umbrage" about anything. Please don't make assumptions.

I say Mormons pretend to take umbrage.

You say Mormons don't pretend.

I capitulate ... okay you (Mormons) take umbrage.

[thesometimesaint]

Jearbear:

You don't?

Dictionary definition of Christian "a follower of Christ"

Speciel Pleading "But Mormons don't follow Christ the same way I do".

Double Standard "Therefore Mormons are not Christians".

[why me]

added - For someone who use to go to Mass not too long ago, your posts as of late,has developed a stench IMO.

It is not me that developed a stench but the Catholic Herald. What the catholic herald wrote is exactly what harry could do to jim after reading that article.

[Calm]

I believe both sides take great umbrage in losing members to other faiths. One of the main reasons the Pope visited Mexico was to address this issue in the Central Americas. In some of those smaller countries, the Cathollic faith has lost 40% of its faithful to other faith missionaries.

And rightly so if they believe that their faith is the most effective one to bring people to God as well as being commanded by God to care for his flock.

[Jaybear]

Dictionary definition of Christian "a follower of Christ"

As I said, EVs and Catholics genuinely and sincerely believe that Mormonism leads people away from Christ.

People are and should be entitled to express their express their beliefs.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Jaybear