Why Are We Such Brittle Christians?

[pogi]

what do you consider it if a person has a testimony from the Holy Spirit that the LDS is running after false prophets? 

if everything such a person says agrees with the scriptures of the Bible, but contradicts D&C, and such a person affirms Jesus Christ is Lord, come in the flesh, given as a propitiation for sin on the cross and raised again the third day? 

do humans invalidate the testimony another receives from God? many conflicting testimonies are found among men - this is how apostasy exists - so what is valid? what is wisdom to discern true revelation from false prophecy? 

is there another authority that testimony can be held against - i.e. is scriptural authority greater than the authority of men? 

 

There are people who claim spiritual witness of all sorts of ideas and beliefs that I perceive as false.  The religions outside of Christianity claim to experience similar divine experience which confirms their beliefs.  Do I question their experience?  Absolutely not.

 

I believe that God gives us each bits and pieces of light (revelation).  Sometimes those bits and pieces overlap and we agree, sometimes they don't.  What man would see and know if he had access to all of the bits and pieces of light is God in his fullness in relation to the expanse of eternity and all truth.  Each piece is like a puzzle piece that depicts God in His fulness.  We each have an almost incomprehensibly limited amount puzzle pieces or knowledge in relation to God.  What do humans do when they don't have all of the pieces to make out a clear picture?  They fill in the gaps - sort of like our minds do with pixels on a screen.  We fill in the gaps with culture, bias, familial teachings, etc. etc.  So, we all see the big picture differently, even within Mormonism, as is blatantly obvious by the bickering that goes on in these forums.  The point is that I don't need to reject the spiritual experience of any person on Earth, even if their interpretation of such experience greatly differs from mine.  All I need to know for certain is that I am on the path that God wants me on.  We each do the best with the light that we have, and that is all that matters.  

 

To address the part about scriptural authority vs the authority of man.  Where did the scriptures come from but through man?  It is man who holds the authority of God to dictate scripture as revealed by God.  It is man who writes scripture, not the other way around.  It is man who holds the authority form God to interpret scripture as well.  What authority does the Bible have if you remove the authority of God given to Peter and the apostles (men)?  God gives authority to man, what man does with that authority is thereby authorized by God.  How man interprets that authorized book can not be authorized without the authority of God.  Do you see how it works?

Edited December 20, 2014 by pogi

[ERayR]

Just so you know, by happy accident, Baptists are non-creedal.  Well, at least, in theory.  In fact, Baptists don't even believe in the necessity of baptism.  They simply believe that a baptism before the "time of accountability" is invalid.  Remember, in theory.

 

In practice, Baptists are super creedal and as a result, there are more than a hundred different denominations of Baptists, with beliefs differing over everything from pre-determination to the proper hand with which to accept the sacrament (and no, I'm not kidding).  However, this hyper-creedality (which I think isn't really a word) is balanced by the fact that most Baptists congregations are quite independent in their beliefs.  As a result, we normally take on the beliefs of our local pastor, to the extent that he/she even has a formalized belief structure.  And more often than not, we develop a mishmash of personal "theories" about the various aspects of the Gospel.

 

For example, I'm going back to a church that is part of the Full Gospel Baptist denomination.  It is my understanding that it's main distinctive flavor is that it embraces the "full" range of gospel gifts (e.g., the gifts of prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, etc.).  In short, it is a charismatic black Baptist church (no big surprise there).  In a congregation of 6,000 members, less than 10 of us have probably ever read our denomination's statement of faith.  I know that I haven't.  Nor did any of us make any protestations of faith to become members.  Nor will I have to engage in any ritual or ceremony to return.  I'll simply walk through the doors on January 4th and say, "Remember me?"  Most won't, but a few will come up and give me a hug (or a fist bump) and I'll be back in the fold.

 

This is a long way of answering your question that I won't have any conflicts about embracing some Mormon beliefs while in the Baptist fold.  Quite frankly, it will NEVER be an issue.  It won't even come up.  The only questions will be whether I'm willing to resume my service as a youth advisor, serve as an usher and greeter, and show up at the marches and rallies.

 

Likewise, I won't lose any sleep that my Mormon brothers and sisters are now "going to hell."  I never believed that before I joined the LDS Church and I'll continue to believe that the Lord loves ALL of his children.  SOME of my Baptist brothers will disagree, but I doubt it will ever even come up as an issue for discussion (most of us have too many issues impeding our own salvation to spend time arguing about whether your lack of trinitarian belief will keep you out of heaven).

 

May this move bring you peace.

[pogi]

Just so you know, by happy accident, Baptists are non-creedal.  Well, at least, in theory.  In fact, Baptists don't even believe in the necessity of baptism.  They simply believe that a baptism before the "time of accountability" is invalid.  Remember, in theory.

 

In practice, Baptists are super creedal and as a result, there are more than a hundred different denominations of Baptists, with beliefs differing over everything from pre-determination to the proper hand with which to accept the sacrament (and no, I'm not kidding).  However, this hyper-creedality (which I think isn't really a word) is balanced by the fact that most Baptists congregations are quite independent in their beliefs.  As a result, we normally take on the beliefs of our local pastor, to the extent that he/she even has a formalized belief structure.  And more often than not, we develop a mishmash of personal "theories" about the various aspects of the Gospel.

 

For example, I'm going back to a church that is part of the Full Gospel Baptist denomination.  It is my understanding that it's main distinctive flavor is that it embraces the "full" range of gospel gifts (e.g., the gifts of prophecy, healing, speaking in tongues, etc.).  In short, it is a charismatic black Baptist church (no big surprise there).  In a congregation of 6,000 members, less than 10 of us have probably ever read our denomination's statement of faith.  I know that I haven't.  Nor did any of us make any protestations of faith to become members.  Nor will I have to engage in any ritual or ceremony to return.  I'll simply walk through the doors on January 4th and say, "Remember me?"  Most won't, but a few will come up and give me a hug (or a fist bump) and I'll be back in the fold.

 

This is a long way of answering your question that I won't have any conflicts about embracing some Mormon beliefs while in the Baptist fold.  Quite frankly, it will NEVER be an issue.  It won't even come up.  The only questions will be whether I'm willing to resume my service as a youth advisor, serve as an usher and greeter, and show up at the marches and rallies.

 

Likewise, I won't lose any sleep that my Mormon brothers and sisters are now "going to hell."  I never believed that before I joined the LDS Church and I'll continue to believe that the Lord loves ALL of his children.  SOME of my Baptist brothers will disagree, but I doubt it will ever even come up as an issue for discussion (most of us have too many issues impeding our own salvation to spend time arguing about whether your lack of trinitarian belief will keep you out of heaven).

 

Thanks for the explanation.

 

I wish you well on your new path newb!  I sincerely enjoy your comments on these forums and your humor that you bring to it.  You really have me laughing all of the time.  I hope to continue to see you around these parts and that we can remain brothers.  Please, no speaking in tongues around here though, it is hard enough to communicate as it is!

[intra]

There are people who claim spiritual witness of all sorts of ideas and beliefs that I perceive as false.  The religions outside of Christianity claim to experience similar divine experience which confirms their beliefs.  Do I question their experience?  Absolutely not.

 

I believe that God gives us each bits and pieces of light (revelation).  Sometimes those bits and pieces overlap and we agree, sometimes they don't.  What man would see and know if he had access to all of the bits and pieces of light is God in his fullness in relation to the expanse of eternity and all truth.  Each piece is like a puzzle piece that depicts God in His fulness.  We each have an almost incomprehensibly limited amount puzzle pieces or knowledge in relation to God.  What do humans do when they don't have all of the pieces to make out a clear picture?  They fill in the gaps - sort of like our minds do with pixels on a screen.  We fill in the gaps with culture, bias, familial teachings, etc. etc.  So, we all see the big picture differently, even within Mormonism, as is blatantly obvious by the bickering that goes on in these forums.  The point is that I don't need to reject the spiritual experience of any person on Earth, even if their interpretation of such experience greatly differs from mine.  All I need to know for certain is that I am on the path that God wants me on.  We each do the best with the light that we have, and that is all that matters.  

 

To address the part about scriptural authority vs the authority of man.  Where did the scriptures come from but through man?  It is man who holds the authority of God to dictate scripture as revealed by God.  It is man who writes scripture, not the other way around.  It is man who holds the authority form God to interpret scripture as well.  What authority does the Bible have if you remove the authority of God given to Peter and the apostles (men)?  God gives authority to man, what man does with that authority is thereby authorized by God.  How man interprets that authorized book can not be authorized without the authority of God.  Do you see how it works?

there are many divisions among men that claim to be "the one true restored church" and declare all others apostate. that is in fact the very heart of 'denominations' -- 

the perspective you're presenting, that every path is valid, being justified within each person individually, leaves every church both apostate and reformed. 

am i understanding you wrong, or are you saying that the one who says "i have the truth" and the one who says "what you have is a lie" are equally valid? 

do you not in this make every man his own god, denying the sovereignty of the One who made all men and has said "I am the Way" ? 

"what is truth?" said Pilate. 

Jesus didn't deign to answer him.  

[ERayR]

there are many divisions among men that claim to be "the one true restored church" and declare all others apostate. that is in fact the very heart of 'denominations' -- 

the perspective you're presenting, that every path is valid, being justified within each person individually, leaves every church both apostate and reformed. 

am i understanding you wrong, or are you saying that the one who says "i have the truth" and the one who says "what you have is a lie" are equally valid? 

do you not in this make every man his own god, denying the sovereignty of the One who made all men and has said "I am the Way" ? 

"what is truth?" said Pilate. 

Jesus didn't deign to answer him.  

 

Everyone must find where they are comfortable but not all paths are equal. 

[pogi]

there are many divisions among men that claim to be "the one true restored church" and declare all others apostate. that is in fact the very heart of 'denominations' -- 

the perspective you're presenting, that every path is valid, being justified within each person individually, leaves every church both apostate and reformed. 

am i understanding you wrong, or are you saying that the one who says "i have the truth" and the one who says "what you have is a lie" are equally valid? 

do you not in this make every man his own god, denying the sovereignty of the One who made all men and has said "I am the Way" ? 

"what is truth?" said Pilate. 

Jesus didn't deign to answer him.  

 

If you consider the ordinance of baptism for the dead as mentioned in the bible, one can be both apostate and have hope for exaltation after death.  This can only happen through those who hold the authority of God.  The same authority that dictates scripture and interprets scripture.

 

Conflicting perspectives are to be expected given the explanation I offered.  Both paths are justified through the atonement if they are both true to the light they have been given and remain humbly open to new light. 

[Calm]

what do you consider it if a person has a testimony from the Holy Spirit that the LDS is running after false prophets? 

 

I consider them nonLDS and generally wonder if they spend too much time on LDS themed message boards.

[intra]

I consider them nonLDS and generally wonder if they spend too much time on LDS themed message boards.

does this sound familiar? 

Then Amaziah the priest of Beth-el sent to Jeroboam king of Israel, saying, Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel: the land is not able to bear all his words. For thus Amos saith, Jeroboam shall die by the sword, and Israel shall surely be led away captive out of their own land. 

Also Amaziah said unto Amos, O thou seer, go, flee thee away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy there: but prophesy not again any more at Beth-el: for it is the king’s chapel, and it is the king’s court.

(Amos 7:10-13) 

or this? 

Despise not prophesyings.

(1 Thessalonians 5:20) 

those disciples of Christ a century or two ago, who wondered if Joseph Smith spent too much time in Christian assemblies, and rejected him as a false prophet -- were they wrong, or right, do you think? 

does God not send His servants to those among whom He would do a work? 

 

[Calm]

does God not send His servants to those among whom He would do a work? 

 

Indeed.  He sent Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and other prophets and they sent in turn missionaries to send God's word to the world and at the moment there are over 80,000 out there doing God's work.

Edited December 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[intra]

Indeed.  He sent Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and other prophets and they sent in turn missionaries to send God's word to the world and at the moment there are over 80,000 out there doing God's work.

hmm. 

"wonder what those missionaries are doing spending too much time among unbelievers" 

i am come to testify that Christ should be lifted up, and all things put beneath Him.

[Calm]

Who are you quoting?

 

The missionaries are not spending too much time at all since they are doing God's work.

 

i am come to testify that Christ should be lifted up, and all things put beneath Him.

 

Then please testify instead of criticize.

Edited December 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[saemo]

Do you not have Sacred Tradition adding understanding and depth and information to what is in the Scriptures?

 

For example the teaching of the Immaculate Conception.  How do you see it since it appears to add information that isn't found directly in the scriptures?

The Immaculate Conception is not an addition of information. It is a formalized doctrine of what has always been believed. It is rooted in two main things, Mary, who was called by the angel Gabrielle "full of grace"and by the catholic understanding of her as the New Eve.

[saemo]

Absolutely nothing was left out of Jesus Christ's gospel.  But we don't have all of Jesus Christ's gospel.  No conspiracy theories necessary.

 

John 21:25

"And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

Acts 1:3

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:"

 

The idea that the BIBLE contains 100% everything of Christianity without any error or missing information is neither biblical OR accurate.  But CHRIST himself was the perfect and full revelation.

I don't believe the Bible contains the entirety of faith. Catholics and Orthodox are not Bible only. We view that idea as a heresy introduced by the so-called Reformers.

I believe the Apostles handed on the faith, given once, for all. What they taught lives in their successors and is handed on through the ages, and exists still today. There is no secret knowledge or things lost. Christianity is not a religion of secrets.

[Avatar4321]

When someone loses their faith and rejects the witness they received from the Holy Ghost that Joseph Smith is a prophet, why do you think they would continue to have faith in the Spirits witness of Christ? The same Spirit testifies to both. The same fruits are manifest. It makes little sense to reject one witness of the Spirit and accept another from that same Spirit.

it may also be evidence that they have received neither witness.

[saemo]

If you don't mind sharing, would you say you received a spiritual confirmation of your choice to leave the LDS Church and join the Catholic Church?

I left Mormonism for atheism. I was born into the LDS Church but I just didn't believe what I was taught. I experimented for a few years before leaving with ideas Mormons had taught me, like feeling different because certain things would cause the spirit to leave me. My experiments showed nothing different happened. I felt the same, neither more happy or less so. Neither more at peace or less. Just nothing at all.

I converted to Catholicism from atheism, more than 20 years after I left Mormonism. My spiritual experiences related to my conversion and life as a Catholic were and are new experiences that I had never known for my entire life.

[Spammer]

I left Mormonism for atheism. I was born into the LDS Church but I just didn't believe what I was taught. I experimented for a few years before leaving with ideas Mormons had taught me, like feeling different because certain things would cause the spirit to leave me. My experiments showed nothing different happened. I felt the same, neither more happy or less so. Neither more at peace or less. Just nothing at all.

I converted to Catholicism from atheism, more than 20 years after I left Mormonism. My spiritual experiences related to my conversion and life as a Catholic were and are new experiences that I had never known for my entire life.

My experience leaving Mormonism and converting to the Catholic tradition is virtually the he same, including the post-Mormon experiments, except while LDS I believed what I was taught and the promises and actively sought a spiritual witness. The result was nothing at all until I united with the ancient church. Edited December 21, 2014 by Spammer

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't think it's exclusive to Mormonism

I'm sure that it's not exclusive to us, but it's not NEARLY as common among the other mainline branches of Christianity.

I'd like to see the statistical data you are working from in making that assertion, newby.  Nearly all branches of Protestantism are losing members rather quickly.  Especially in Europe, where most simply become non-religious.  Americans are behind the curve, but catching up now.  Secularism is a very popular ideology, and with many Mormons being converts, it is no surprise that such apostasy by first generation converts would tend to go in the direction of secularism.  After all, most such converts bring a lot of religious baggage with them, some of which they retain.  The consequent confusion and misinformation sets them up for cognitive dissonance, which leads to apostasy.  However, that is all part of the test which they must undergo, part of the crucible they must endure.  Part of the necessary winnowing among the Saints of the Last Days.  Most LDS converts manage that test of their faith rather well.

 

..............................................  But for the most part, mainline Protestants don't tie their faith in Christ so closely to their faith in their church.  Why do we do so?

Possibly because none of those mainstream denominations (Billy Graham didn't distinguish among them) claim to be the only true church of Jesus Christ, with priestly authority from on high.  The higher the claims, the more likely that the fall will be harder and more traumatic.  That is why so many ex-Mormons are intent on getting vengeance against the LDS Church.  They can't admit their own failure to keep the faith.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I don't agree. An often made argument in Catholic-Protestant discussions is the canon of the Bible. It is was decided by the authority of a Church that Protestants say failed at some point. This is problematic for sola scriptura as the NT itself came from something that existed before it did. Namely, Christ's Church. Mormonism has the same problem, accepting the scriptural canon of two so-called failed testaments not really failed. I see no rhyme or reason to what LDS accept as failed or not failed, other than, if it is Catholic it is failed. Which to me, is not rational.

I'm not sure what you are claiming here, saemo.  Mormons don't use the word "failed" in such a context, and do not make such a claim at all anyhow  The same applies to your mention of Protestants as "failed."

 

There was no set NT canon of Scripture in Christianity for centuries after the death of the Apostles.  Various contents were accepted and then rejected, and various lists made, until we had our present canon in the West (Ethiopian Christianity retained the Book of Enoch in its canon until the present time).  As to the Protestant KJV, it retained the Apocrypha until it was excluded from Bibles in the early 19th century.  Indeed, the Bible used by Joseph Smith included it.

[Calm]

The Immaculate Conception is not an addition of information. It is a formalized doctrine of what has always been believed. It is rooted in two main things, Mary, who was called by the angel Gabrielle "full of grace"and by the catholic understanding of her as the New Eve.

So there has never been ever any new information or a new way of understanding spiritual things since Christ was on earth?  It has simply been put in different words?

 

This is not sarcastic, I am trying to figure out your position.

Edited December 21, 2014 by calmoriah

[VideoGameJunkie]

The only way I'm leaving the church is if I'm excommunicated. And even then, I'd still try to come back.

[saemo]

So there has never been ever any new information or a new way of understanding spiritual things since Christ was on earth? It has simply been put in different words?

This is not sarcastic, I am trying to figure out your position.

Both Catholics and Orthodox consider holding to Apostolic teachings as paramount. The disagreements between the two are entirely about who has held to the teachings of the Apostles and who hasn't. That being said, both consider Jesus Christ as God's perfect Word, fully Revealed. We look for no new Revelation or novelties. We await and prepare for His return, continuing the Great Commission that was given to the Apostles, to teach the Good News of Jesus Christ to all nations and people.

The Church was born at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was given to guide and protect Christ's Bride. Of course we view the guidance of the Holy Spirit as revelation, but it is for the purpose of guiding the Church, the faithful, and leading people to Jesus. The Church clarifies as needed when controversy arises, but clarification is not coming up with something new. Think of it like the secular law against murder, and as various new events or circumstances arise, the law may be clarified, but murder remains strictly illegal.

The dogmas of the Catholic and Orthodox are the teachings of the Apostles. They cannot be changed, added to or modified. The doctrines are teachings about the dogmas, and cannot be contrary to the dogmas. Doctrines may be clarified over time, as new events occurs, new circumstances arise, cultures and societies change, etc, but dogmas cannot change.

An example of this in conversations with LDS is the Council at Nicaea, where it is continually asserted that something new came into existence. What we see is a controversy was addressed by clarifying existing doctrine.

And of course, we view the Councils as being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Edited December 21, 2014 by saemo

[Robert F. Smith]

Both Catholics and Orthodox consider holding to Apostolic teachings as paramount. The disagreements between the two are entirely about who has held to the teachings of the Apostles and who hasn't. That being said, both consider Jesus Christ as God's perfect Word, fully Revealed. We look for no new Revelation or novelties. We await and prepare for His return, continuing the Great Commission that was given to the Apostles, to teach the Good News of Jesus Christ to all nations and people.

The Church was born at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit was given to guide and protect Christ's Bride. Of course we view the guidance of the Holy Spirit as revelation, but it is for the purpose of guiding the Church, the faithful, and leading people to Jesus. The Church clarifies as needed when controversy arises, but clarification is not coming up with something new. Think of it like the secular law against murder, and as various new events or circumstances arise, the law may be clarified, but murder remains strictly illegal.

The dogmas of the Catholic and Orthodox are the teachings of the Apostles. They cannot be changed, added to or modified. The doctrines are teachings about the dogmas, and cannot be contrary to the dogmas. Doctrines may be clarified over time, as new events occurs, new circumstances arise, cultures and societies change, etc, but dogmas cannot change.

An example of this in conversations with LDS is the Council at Nicaea, where it is continually asserted that something new came into existence. What we see is a controversy was addressed by clarifying existing doctrine.

And of course, we view the Councils as being guided by the Holy Spirit.

Excellent, short overview of Roman Catholic belief.  I wish that Mormons fully understood it as well as you do.

[rodheadlee]

 

So you reject your sealing to your wife for all eternity?

 

We were never sealed.  I think she wants to keep her options open.  Besides, if she wants to find me in Mormon Heaven, all she would need to do is ask for "the black guy, no not Darius Gray, the OTHER black guy."

 

You reject the Holy Priesthood of Melchizedek?

 

I don't reject it.  It just doesn't hold any authority in a baptist church.

 

You reject the Doctrines and Covenants? The Pearl of Great Price? Do you also reject the Book of Mormon?

 

No more (or less) than I have accepted/rejected them in the past.  I'm not leaving over issues of historicity or Church history.  If that were the case, I would have never joined in the first place.

 

or you're just going under cover and you'll be bringing some of your black brothers with you when you come back?

 

I have no delusions there.  Remember, I'm going because THEY are the ones who will be fighting for the safety of my boys, while this wonderful church will be sitting this one out.  What possible argument would I be able to give them to forsake the institution that has made full-fledged citizenship more of a reality for their prosperity ... so they could join us in mumbling through our hymns each Sunday?  Seriously, the Church is going to have to make the first move towards bringing in black members and since it is uninterested in doing so at the present time, even my (considerable) charisma and charm isn't going to bridge the gap.

 

I strongly suggest you read D&C 84. Be careful out there. My 2 cents are that when you reject the Church you are rejecting the works of Jesus Christ.

 

I don't see that I am "rejecting" the Church.  I am simply pouring my time and treasure into another institution that will work to save my sons' lives.  And quite frankly, I refuse to believe that this Church's inaction on issues of social justice is all "the works of Jesus Christ" that can be mustered.

 

 

Hey thanks for answering. Good luck to you, I hope you find what you're looking for and be careful. I'll leave you with this song from way back.

 

[Spammer]

Excellent, short overview of Roman Catholic belief. I wish that Mormons fully understood it as well as you do.

I agree. Saemo's post fully captures the fact that, despite some theological disagreements that underpin our current sad situation of noot being in communion with each other, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy are the same church and we view ourselves as carefully preserving the fullness of the teaching of the Lord and the Apostles whole and entire. Tying this back into the OP, when I was growing up in the church out west (California, Arizona, and Utah), I never heard the beliefs of Catholicism and Orthodoxy described in this way. At home and in church, I was taught all about abominable creeds, evil popes, clerical corruption, inquisitions,female popes, popes excommunicating each other, that there are only two churches - the Church of the Lamb of God and the Church of the Devil and the Catholic Church and her offspring is the latter. I think that's why I went atheist after I left the LDS church. In addition to never having had my sincere prayers about the Book of Mormon answered, I had been trained to believe that ancient Christianity was completely fallen and corrupt. All I knew of Catholicism was this fanciful narrative that I'd been taught and all I knew of the rest of Christianity was dominated by images of hilariously-coiffed evangelical preachers who spent their followers' money on air conditioned dog houses and saying 'Praise the Lord!' a lot. I knew nothing of Orthodoxy or the other Eastern churches. Christianity was Roman Catholicism and Protestants. To my current chagrin, I wasn't intellectually curious growing up and spent my time reading novels, not history and philosophy, so all I knew at the time is what I was told by parents and trusted church leaders. Given that, I suppose it's hardly surprising that 1) once I got to the university with its resources for research, 2) got increasingly curious about why I wasn't ever having any spiritual experiences and delved into LDS church history, and 3) had my epiphany some years later that it wasn't true, that I would also reject the rest of Christianity. In my mind, the rest of Christianity was a corrupt mess. Growing up in the church, if I had been taught what Catholics and Orthodox Christians really believe, what Saemo describes in her post, I probably would have avoided my long journey through atheism and hedonism.

Edited December 21, 2014 by Spammer

[thesometimesaint]

The Catholic Church is not nor ever has been the church of the devil.