Another Evangelical-Turned Catholic Bashes Mormons

[Hamilton Porter]

Move over, Father Longnecker!

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2158/revisiting_joseph_smiths_novel_history.aspx#.Ud2qlqy0TBg

Pulls out the "other Gospel" prooftext from Galatians, goodness gracious. Seems like when evangelicals convert to other traditions, they remain in their provincial mindset.

[thesometimesaint]

Ignorance can be cured it is called an education. Religious bigotry is harder to cure.

[Calm]

Seems like when evangelicals convert to other traditions, they remain in their provincial mindset.

Another example where a shift of beliefs does not automatically result in a shift of behaviour or perception, as much as we would expect it to be so.

I have heard more than one Catholic lament about EV converts bringing with them their aggressive tactics to their new faith, creating tension and dislike in the greater community where little to none existed before.

[Calm]

Ignorance can be cured it is called an education. Religious bigotry is harder to cure.

Someone has to be wiling to be educated before ignorance can be cured unfortunately. Not only must there be a teacher, but there must be an actual student as well, not just someone taking up a seat so to speak.

[Hamilton Porter]

Another example where a shift of beliefs does not automatically result in a shift of behaviour or perception, as much as we would expect it to be so.

I have heard more than one Catholic lament about EV converts bringing with them their aggressive tactics to their new faith, creating tension and dislike in the greater community where little to none existed before.

You can take a boy out of the trailer park...

[EllenMaksoud]

Ignorance can be cured it is called an education. Religious bigotry is harder to cure.

It is so easy to see that Mormons are Christians. Why can they not see it? Perhaps it is the others who are not christians ... NO Wait, I am not allowed to say that.

[why me]

From the article:

Is Mormonism a cult? Of course it is not, if we are talking Jim Jones associations; by conventional standards the LDS are blue-chip respectables—witness Mitt Romney and Gladys Knight. But show me a group that believes in living prophets and ongoing public revelations and I will show you an unusual, somewhat healthy charismatic body, that cannot help but flirt with cultishness. That may offend some readers, given the ever-improving LDS profile, but a bit of reading in the history of Utah and LDS doctrine might enlighten the unpersuaded. Samuel W. Taylor’s trilogy—Nightfall at Nauvoo, The Kingdom or Nothing, and Rocky Mountain Empire—is well-written, riveting history and thus a good entry point for the uninitiated.

The LDS may have a prophet but the catholics have a pope who they do follow rather blindly also, especially those who believe strongly in the catholic faith. And catholics do believe that the pope is a voice of god on earth. And one can also read anticatholic books to support such a claim as made above.

The LDS have become a threatening church because of its message. We now see many critical sites about mormonism with the usual twist of mormons are nice people but their religion is unchristian and mormons are not christian. Which of course is a strange statement to make since how mormons behave toward others is often christlike as noted by many people who have mormons as neighbors.

Edited July 10, 2013 by why me

[Hamilton Porter]

From the article:

Is Mormonism a cult? Of course it is not, if we are talking Jim Jones associations; by conventional standards the LDS are blue-chip respectables—witness Mitt Romney and Gladys Knight. But show me a group that believes in living prophets and ongoing public revelations and I will show you an unusual, somewhat healthy charismatic body, that cannot help but flirt with cultishness. That may offend some readers, given the ever-improving LDS profile, but a bit of reading in the history of Utah and LDS doctrine might enlighten the unpersuaded. Samuel W. Taylor’s trilogy—Nightfall at Nauvoo, The Kingdom or Nothing, and Rocky Mountain Empire—is well-written, riveting history and thus a good entry point for the uninitiated.

The LDS may have a prophet but the catholics have a pope who they do follow rather blindly also, especially those who believe strongly in the catholic faith. And catholics do believe that the pope is a voice of god on earth. And one can also read anticatholic books to support such a claim as made above.

The LDS have become a threatening church because of its message. We now see many critical sites about mormonism with the usual twist of mormons are nice people but their religion is unchristian and mormons are not christian. Which of course is a strange statement to make since how mormons behave toward others is often christlike as noted by many people who have mormons as neighbors.

He doesn't explain how ongoing revelation produces cultishness.

[Calm]

It is so easy to see that Mormons are Christians. Why can they not see it? Perhaps it is the others who are not christians ... NO Wait, I am not allowed to say that.

It all depends on how one chooses to define "Christian".

[Calm]

He doesn't explain how ongoing revelation produces cultishness.

I was just about to point that out myself. He presents what he supposedly is setting out to demonstrate as a "given".

[Calm]

For those interesting in the books cited:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/showtitle.aspx?title=8833

Looking for reviews of his other books.

[teddyaware]

It is so easy to see that Mormons are Christians. Why can they not see it? Perhaps it is the others who are not christians ... NO Wait, I am not allowed to say that.

It's ironic, Ellen. The Latter-day Saints are following the Biblical pattern of not allowing ourselves to be led by scripture as a substitute for living prophets who can write new scripture. Non-LDS Christians do not at all follow the pattern of the New Testament Church, as outlined in their own Bible; yet the Latter-day Saints are considered the oddballs because we insist the true and living Church must be organized and conducted in the same way the Lord's Church was during New Testament times. There isn't a faithful Christian who lived during the Apostolic era who would recognize this Non-LDS version of the church -- a church that operates without living revelators at the head. Living revelators were an essential and indispensable part of their church world and they couldn't have imagined the Church remaining true without them. Like it or not, that is a fact, and no one can deny it. So we read:

10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

11 And he agave some, apostle; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; (Eph 4)

These words of Paul's were written at a time when living Apostles and Prophets led the Church. It's impossible to imagine the early saints who read these words, and were led by living Apostles and Prophets, would have interpreted them in any other way than to believe Apostles and Prophets were absolutely supposed to remain at the head of the Church of Christ until the entire Church had attained the fullness of the perfection of Christ -- something that has never happened.

Edited July 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

From the article:

Is Mormonism a cult? Of course it is not, if we are talking Jim Jones associations; by conventional standards the LDS are blue-chip respectables—witness Mitt Romney and Gladys Knight. But show me a group that believes in living prophets and ongoing public revelations and I will show you an unusual, somewhat healthy charismatic body, that cannot help but flirt with cultishness.

Wouldn't that mean that ancient Christianity was a cult?

[cesc101]

Move over, Father Longnecker!

http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Item/2158/revisiting_joseph_smiths_novel_history.aspx#.Ud2qlqy0TBg

Pulls out the "other Gospel" prooftext from Galatians, goodness gracious. Seems like when evangelicals convert to other traditions, they remain in their provincial mindset.

Wow...!

Just when i thought the Mormon Moment was over. To think that there was nothing originally new in this article.

[Kenngo1969]

Why Me, from the article:

Is Mormonism a cult? Of course it is not, if we are talking Jim Jones associations; by conventional standards the LDS are blue-chip respectables—witness Mitt Romney and Gladys Knight. But show me a group that believes in living prophets and ongoing public revelations and I will show you an unusual, somewhat healthy charismatic body, that cannot help but flirt with cultishness.

Flirting with coltishness? Oooh, that sounds kinda kinky! (At least tell me she’s sorta good-looking if I’m gonna flirt with ‘er! )

[Buzzard]

The only off-putting thing I came across in what was otherwise just a believer contending for what he percieves to be the truth was the statement that the BOM is an "Incan reimagining of the New Testament". That tells me right there that he has not read the Book of Mormon, but is parroting others critiques.

[Robert F. Smith]

Wouldn't that mean that ancient Christianity was a cult?

Scholars say that early Christianity was a Jewish sect. "Cult" refers to ritual procedures which nearly all religions have.

[Robert F. Smith]

.................................................

. . . And catholics do believe that the pope is a voice of god on earth.

.................................

Actually, Roman Catholics define the Pope as the Vicar of God on Earth, i.e., the deputy of God. He is only infallible when speaking ex cathedra.

Other titles he holds include Pontifex Maximus "High Priest," and Bishop of Rome, who holds the keys of Peter.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Calm]

What is the big deal with the term "Pontifex Maximus" as some sort of pagan title? Or am I mixing up another of the Pope's title with that one. Either one, I have heard it claimed that the use of such a title proves that Catholics are pagan....as if none of the words in the English language have a pagan origin.

Besides Hebrew are there any languages that come even close to being able to be defended as a truly "godly" language...and Hebrew can't actually be defended as a purely Christian one, lol.

Anglo-Saxons, the Germanics, the Norse and all those who contributed to the English language were either pagan or had languages rooted in pagan groups.

So why the issue of adopting one pagan term quite happily and modifying its meaning into the Christian vocabulary while smugly dismissing a whole faith based on the choice of another 'pagan' word?

Edited July 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Avatar4321]

When pressed with the question, “Which Christian church does Mormonism most resemble?” Woodward’s frank retort was, “Well, there are a lot of trees in the Christian forest but none resemble the LDS church. The church it most resembles is the Unification Church founded by Dr. Sun Myung Moon. Both…see themselves as superseding all previous religions.”

I have issue with this. We don't see ourselves as superseding all previous religions. But rather restoring the truth of all such religions in one

[Robert F. Smith]

What is the big deal with the term "Pontifex Maximus" as some sort of pagan title? Or am I mixing up another of the Pope's title with that one. Either one, I have heard it claimed that the use of such a title proves that Catholics are pagan....as if none of the words in the English language have a pagan origin.

Besides Hebrew are there any languages that come even close to being able to be defended as a truly "godly" language...and Hebrew can't actually be defended as a purely Christian one, lol.

Anglo-Saxons, the Germanics, the Norse and all those who contributed to the English language were either pagan or had languages rooted in pagan groups.

So why the issue of adopting one pagan term quite happily and modifying its meaning into the Christian vocabulary while smugly dismissing a whole faith based on the choice of another 'pagan' word?

I'm sure you have heard journalists referring glibly to "the Supreme Pontiff," which really comes from the Latin for High Priest. The Roman Catholics mean that to be taken as High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, since that is the priesthood they claim. Of course, in ancient Rome, the Pontifex Maximus was the high priest of a pagan religion, and the full context can be had at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pontifex_Maximus .

[ERMD]

"...in his First Vision, he blithely wrote off all of Christendom as an abomination."

This he states, " after extensive personal contact with Mormons and readings in LDS theology."

Nothing new under the sun.

[bluebell]

Scholars say that early Christianity was a Jewish sect. "Cult" refers to ritual procedures which nearly all religions have.

I was using the author's definition of which religions are 'cultish'.

[Questing Beast]

The only concern I have when dissing other religions, as this fellow does everyone but the RCC he has joined, is that a common attitude to do likewise would resuscitate religious bigotry. As long as the great majority of people go "meh, whatever", I don't care what anybody says negatively about any religion. We reverence freedom of expression, after all.

And I do believe and hope that the great majority of people everywhere possess the attitude of "live and let live" especially about religion. That's why the Islamists have languished with so few adherents: most Muslims are content with their religion in the midst of the world's other religions, and have no need or desire to "jihad for Allah", thank God.

This new RCC fanatic needs to concentrate on his personal religion and stop trying to educate everyone about how different, in a negative way (in his opinion) Mormons are....

Edited July 11, 2013 by Questing Beast

[ChristKnight]

What is the big deal with the term "Pontifex Maximus" as some sort of pagan title? Or am I mixing up another of the Pope's title with that one. Either one, I have heard it claimed that the use of such a title proves that Catholics are pagan....as if none of the words in the English language have a pagan origin.

Besides Hebrew are there any languages that come even close to being able to be defended as a truly "godly" language...and Hebrew can't actually be defended as a purely Christian one, lol.

Anglo-Saxons, the Germanics, the Norse and all those who contributed to the English language were either pagan or had languages rooted in pagan groups.

So why the issue of adopting one pagan term quite happily and modifying its meaning into the Christian vocabulary while smugly dismissing a whole faith based on the choice of another 'pagan' word?

I agree. Perhaps this will also be helpful:

The terms Pontifex Maximus, Summus Pontifex, were doubtless originally employed with reference to the Jewish high-priest, whose place the Christian bishops were regarded as holding each in his own diocese (Epistle of Clement 40). As regards the title Pontifex Maximus, especially in its application to the pope, there was further a reminiscence of the dignity attached to that title in pagan Rome. Tertullian, as has already been said, uses the phrase of Pope Callistus. Though his words are ironical, they probably indicate that Catholics already applied it to the pope. But here too the terms were once less narrowly restricted in their use. Pontifex summus was used of the bishop of some notable see in relation to those of less importance. Hilary of Arles (d. 449) is so styled by Eucherius of Lyons (P.L., L, 773), and Lanfranc is termed "primas et pontifex summus" by his biographer, Milo Crispin (P.L., CL, 10). Pope Nicholas I is termed "summus pontifex et universalis papa" by his legate Arsenius (Hardouin "Conc.", V, 280), and subsequent examples are common. After the eleventh century it appears to be only used of the popes.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

Apparently the word "pontifex" and the word "pontificem/pontifices" are also used in the Vulgate (Latin translation of the Bible), meaning "high priest" and "chief priest" (so I've read, since I don't read Latin ).

Oh and it seems as if Pontifex Maximus is not an official title of the Pope (as it doesn't appear in the Annuario Pontificio, the Pontifical Yearbook, which contains, among other things, the official Papal titles). It is an honorary title used.