How to Evangelize Mormons (when they evangelize you)

Joe Heschmeyer ‪@shamelesspopery‬ addresses the question of how to effectively evangelize Mormons. He emphasizes building common ground by focusing on shared beliefs in Jesus's founding of a visible structured church and then delving into the key difference: whether or not the church experienced an apostasy.
Full episode: kzbin.info...
More Catholic Answers: catholic.com
Donate: givecatholic.com

[@jacobsimpson699]

Please give whoever made this thumbnail a raise lol

[@therealong]

*@jacobsimpson699* Are you referring to the book-and-the-card thumbnail? If yes, except for its intuitive meaning as an either/or, I have never seen such card, so I can't say whether or not it refers to any known game.

[@melesioalbavera8689]

@@therealong It is a card from the popular card game UNO.

[@therealong]

@@melesioalbavera8689 Thank you, Melesio, certainly an important detail in order to justify a raise, lol!

[@catholiccom]

I do my best❤️

[@BigStack-vg6ku]

@@catholiccom Yay Catholic.com

[@HowdyHowdens]

As a former Mormon missionary this is so good. One thing I would say is to realize (for the most part) you can’t convince them with logic or “proving” theological points. I say that only because their mind is set on converting you. So I like what Joe said. If you can sow just a little seed of doubt, maybe their next encounter they will be more open. As a former Mormon, I think the switch to Catholicism is so much easier in some aspects that Protestant to Catholic. God bless everyone.

[@therealong]

*@HowdyHowdens* May I ask you how long since you were a Mormon missionary? Did you experience meeting some Catholic friend in person, or did you just follow podcasts or books and articles about the various faith differences?

[@HowdyHowdens]

@@therealong I was actually a Mormon missionary in El Cajon right where CA headquarters is.. which is just funny side note. But I was a missionary 2012-14, and left the Mormon church in 2018, and like most ex-Mormons became sort of agnostic, then after not feeling fulfilled in an evangelical church had a friend share the rosary, catechism in a year, and Bible in a year and that’s what got me on my journey. My wife and I are actually documenting our journey on KZbin now lol

[@therealong]

@@HowdyHowdens Thanks for your answer. I have always wondered about Mormons, but I've never exchanged any thoughts with some. I've seen a nice movie, seen temples, heard music and choirs and I also happened to follow a YT testimony early in July of a particular guy who had been a "high priest" and was now speaking out. Perhaps you might have seen that episode on Delafé. But, besides that, I have always had a question in mind that I still haven't got an answer anywhere, or have bothered with investigating further. Perhaps you could enlighten me if you are familiar with it. How could Joseph Smith, Jr. in AD 1830 get away with such preposterous claim as to have found and translated _The Book of Mormon_ that tells the story of a group of Hebrews who migrated to America ca. 600 BC? (?!) Do you have any answer to that?

[@HowdyHowdens]

@@therealong so I’m no theologian or apologist. But I would say what comes to mind. If you think about the recent marvel movies and the multiverse and the avengers. A lot of people have actually started believing in some sort of notion that maybe that’s how the universe works. Why? Because it’s a great story. I think similarly, Joseph Smith, was a great story teller and a great preacher, and he was able to take some stories from a bunch of different sources, and with the help of some other people. Write a compelling tale “in the form of Scripture” As to how could he get away with it?? Well back in the north East in that time, it was common for people to have Native American spirits show them buried treasure in the hills. Just as it’s common for people today to say they went to a tarot card reader or an “astrologist”, in their time it was common for people to pay treasure hunter to look for buried treasure. Does that answer your question?

[@luisrios3446]

@@HowdyHowdens Interesting! I’m subscribing to hear your journey and testimony.

[@weaveitup]

My hardest part with talking to Mormons is when I present evidence that the Church has a continuity of doctrine and never fell into apostasy they ignore it and double down on their feelings that the Book of Mormon is true and insist those feelings are from God.

[@dylanwilliams2202]

The Catholic Church very much doesn't teach what the Early Church taught and anyone who knows history can easily see that. Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen and more all taught about 3 degrees of glory, you all don't. Many of these same people talked about baptism for the dead or the dead being redeemed by baptism, you all don't. The false doctrine of original sin which you all believe in wasn't taught until Augustine in the year 400 AD and didn't become official doctrine until 529 AD. Ireneaus, who lived between 130 - 202 AD, refutes this idea and shows what was being taught by Christians before Augustine "It was for this reason, too, that immediately after Adam had transgressed, as the Scripture relates, He pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground, in reference to his works, as a certain person among the ancients has observed: *God did indeed transfer the curse to the earth, that it might not remain in man"* - Against Heresies 3, Chapter 23 Purgatory is a corrupted version of the doctrine of the Harrowing of Hades not taught by the Early Church Fathers. And of course, your false pagan trinitarian view of God. I could go on and on about more false doctrine that you all teach like your blatant idol worship which completely refutes your false claim that the Catholic Church never fell into apostasy.

[@dongrainer6405]

The last time the Mormon missionaries came to my door I told them my church, I'm Catholic, had so much more to offer me than their church did and I explained to them about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. The one who had stood of to the side said what so many other non-Catholics would say, "That's cannibalism." His companion smiled and I left it at that. I was offered the Book of Mormon but refused it. I had one before and attempted to read it, but it was nonsense. The second book was an almost copy of Isiah.

[@rhamsesmartinez5007]

I agree. As a former DEVOUT (can't emphasize that enough) Latter-Day Saint who joined the Catholic church in 2023, addressing the Great Apostasy should be the focus. However the conversation starts, find a way to redirect it to the Great Apostasy because that is the premise of their entire theology. If you can humbly and respectfully show them the cracks in their foundation, you will save yourself a lot of time discussing other topics. This, however, is only the starting point because as soon as they see the cracks in their foundation, their defense mechanism turns on, and they default to their feelings or their testimony. You then have to help them see the dangers of personal "feelings" and the need to test new doctrines to what has already been revealed just as Jesus and the apostles did by backing everything with the Old Testament.

[@dylanwilliams2202]

LOL Are you kidding? The Great Apostacy is literally the easiest thing to prove. The Early Church taught about 3 Kingdoms of Glory, Exaltation, Baptism for the Dead and an order to seeing God. You can even see evidence of the Endowment all over the Bible and in paints and the like. The Trinitarian View of God, Creatio ex Nihilo (Creation out of Nothing), Original Sin (which influenced infant baptism), not having Prophets and/or Apostles anymore, worshiping idols like the cross and pictures/statues of Jesus Christ and the Saints, Celibacy (not for the reason you think... kinda lol), Purgatory, indulgences and the Pope (or leadership of The Bishop of Rome) were all added later. Honestly, the Catholic Church's doctrine are based more on Augustine's beliefs than the Early Church. I can go into more detail on any of these points (except for the specific point of an Order to Seeing God, only found that Irenaeus teaches it so far) but I would like to start with the "authority" of Rome because for the Catholic Church to be true then there claim of being the Leader of the Church has to been proven true. There is very little evidence of Peter starting the Church in Rome and no evidence of Peter being the bishop and ruling the Church from Rome. In fact, while Iranaeus does say Peter and Paul started the Church, he also says “The blessed apostles, then, *having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.”* (Against Heresies 3 chapter 3) Or after the apostles set up the Church area, the first Bishop was Linus, not Peter. So where do you get that Peter was the Bishop of Rome? Where does it say that Linus or even the Bishop of Rome was supposed to secede Peter as leader? Linus was bishop of Rome from 67 AD until his death in 76 AD and John the Apostle, *the last of Christ’s top 3 Apostles who he took everywhere,* is said to have died between 89 - 120 AD, why would the leadership not have fallen to one of Jesus’s original apostles? Are you really going to claim that John wouldn’t have been the next in line to being the leader of the Church? That people would have listened to Linus (or the other 3 bishops who were alive before John's death) over John? Andrew and Thomas are said to have been alive as well during that time. You also have to contend with the fact that most scholars believe Peter died in 68 AD, which if true means that Linus would have been Bishop of Rome while Peter was alive. The Bible says that Peter started the Church in Jerusalem and Peter is also supposed to have founded the Church at Antioch (Church History book 3 Chapter 36 by Eusebius) and Corinth (Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his Epistle to the Roman Church), so why does the Bishop of Rome get to be the leader when 3 other Churches has the same claim of authority? And if we really wanted to push it, Alexandria was started by Mark who was a follower of Peter so you have 4 others besides Rome that have a link back to Peter (that we know of). Jerusalem was the first church founded and the Church at Antioch was founded in 34 AD while Rome was founded in 42 AD so it doesn’t even have a seniority position which makes the claim of Rome even weaker. Added on to the fact, Gregory of Nanzianzus, a “Doctor of the Church” and part of the Three Holy Hierarchs who lived between 321-390 AD said this about Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria: “He [Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria] was invested with this important ministry, and made one of those who draw near to the God Who draws near to us, and deemed worthy of the holy office and rank, and, after passing through the entire series of orders, *he was (to make my story short) entrusted with the chief rule over the people, in other words, the charge of the whole world:* nor can I say whether he received the priesthood as the reward of virtue, or to be the fountain and life of the Church (Oration 21, Paragragh 7). Here, Gregory says that Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, was “chief” among Bishops. If this claim was made about the Bishop of Rome, Catholic apologists would be pulling it out as “evidence” that the Papacy was an ancient institution that exercised jurisdiction over the Christian world since the beginning. Instead, it proves that the Catholic Church’s claims are false because he says that a Bishop of Alexandria was the leader of the Church, not Rome. If the Bishop of Rome was seen to be the leader then why is this said about the Bishop of Alexandria? Which speaking of, the Bishop of Alexandria uses this same logic in the Coptic Orthodox Church today and has a pope who uses the same logic you all do and claims to be the Leader of the Church. Again, any other point I mentioned I am more than happy to expand upon. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is God's and Jesus Christ one and only true church here on earth, the Catholic Church is just the first apostate church.

[@therealong]

@rhamsesmartinez5007 Hi there! "The ways of the Lord are infinite" or "The Lord works in mysterious ways" could be another way to put it. Also, "connecting the dots" renders the idea that some linking (the connections) could rationally turn out to be faulty. Another metaphor I like to use, is the "jigsaw puzzle", insofar as "missing pieces", or even similar but unrelated, will never succeed in solving the Big Picture. If you haven't seen it, how would you recommend the following testimony I stumbled upon in July? *"Former Mormon High Priest Speaks Out!"* Looking forward to hearing your opinion.

[@rhamsesmartinez5007]

@dylanwilliams2202 •You said: “The Early Church taught about 3 Kingdoms of Glory, Exaltation, Baptism for the Dead and an order to seeing God. You can even see evidence of the Endowment all over the Bible and in paints and the like.” The Catholic church to this day teaches degrees of glory and Theosis/Deification. These are not new doctrines to Catholics. The LDS understanding of these, however, is a corruption of said doctrines- although, you may prefer the word “restoration.” Furthermore, we can also find ancient paintings depicting baptism by affusion, so why don’t you agree with the practice? •As for baptism for the dead, please tell me which church Father taught or endorsed proxy baptism? Not even the Didache hints at the practice. And no, the Shephard of Hermas does not teach vicarious baptism. Yes, some heretical sects practiced it but that doesn’t mean the church taught or endorsed it. Now, before you argue that this practice was indeed once part of orthodoxy but was later departed from, let me ask you one thing: Why doesn’t the LDS church still hold to the doctrine of Blood Atonement? This doctrine was taught on many occasions by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Jebediah Grant, Joseph Fielding Smith, and even Bruce R. McConkie. Here are a couple of quotes: “There is not a man or a woman, who violates the covenants made with their God, that will not be required to pay the debt. The blood of Christ will never wipe that out, your own blood must atone for it.” (Journal of discourses, Vol. 1; pp. 108-109). “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins… yet men can commit SINS (plural) which it [the blood of Christ] can never remit.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4; pp. 54). The same can be asked of the detestable things Mormon church leaders taught as doctrine regarding people of color. At what point did the LDS church depart from orthodoxy regarding these doctrines, or will you argue that these were never official doctrines in the first place, even though they were taught many times by “apostles” of the church? What’s funny is that you appeal to relatively obscure writings of the church fathers in support of your Mormon doctrine, yet you reject the one doctrine that is probably the most attested doctrine among the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers- the literal presence of Jesus in the bread and wine- of which even James Talmage and BH Roberts admit: “… the Testimony of the fathers is abundant. There can be no doubt as to the antiquity of the idea of the real presence of the body and blood of Jesus in the eucharist.” (The Great Apostasy; James Talmage). Despite all the explicit statements by the fathers on this teaching, you still reject the doctrine. •You listed several doctrines that you claim were later additions to Christianity. Not only do I disagree but I can just as easily say the same about the endowment, eucharistic communion (sacrament) as a symbolic ordinance, the physical nature of God, the Godhead, marriages in the next life, the permissibility of contraception, and pretty much anything that is distinctively Mormon doctrine. •You are misreading Irenaeus. Peter and Paul didn’t just “set up” the church of Rome and immediately entrusted it to Linus. Irenaeus clearly indicates that Peter and Paul not only founded the church, but they built it up. Building something takes time. For all we know, it could have taken years to build up. No one really knows. But not only did they build the church up in Rome, they both died in Rome. •You asked, “Where does it say that Linus or even the Bishop of Rome was to succeed Peter as Leader?” Does everything need to be written down before it happens? We know Linus succeeded Peter because that’s simply what happened. Where does it say that Matthias was supposed succeed Judas. Nowhere. It's simply what happened. Do you see how silly your question is? Do you actually expect a detailed explanation of everything that happened in the early church? •You asked, “Why would the leadership not have fallen to one of Jesus’s original apostles?” You tell me. You’re the one claiming that it should have. But yet we learn from 1 Clement that despite having access to the apostle John in either Patmos or Ephesus, the church at Corinth instead requested the intervention of Rome to end the sedition that was taking place in Corinth. That says a lot about what the early Church thought of Rome's authority. And after giving the Corinthians instructions, Rome warns: “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him (Christ) through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger...” Clement also writes: “Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit.” (1 Clement; 96 AD) •Ignatius also addresses the church in Rome in a manner not done with the other churches saying, “To the Church… which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans… which presides over love” and “You have never envied any one; you have taught others.” •You asked why Rome got to be the leader when three other churches were also founded by Peter. Simple, because that is where Peter left his successor. Scripture makes it clear that Peter had primacy over the 12- even Latter-Day Saints acknowledge this. The Catholic church simply believes this primacy is successive. •As for what Gregory says of Athanasius, I will just invite you to go back and read his words again because it’s clear that you missed the point and the context. Lastly, a major reason why I cannot accept a Great Apostasy is because scripture refutes the idea. The LDS church claims that the prophets, Jesus, and the apostles all foretold a Great Apostasy. Yet, all the scriptures I cited on my mission and in Sunday school, I learned were taken out of context and/or are gravely misinterpreted. So, unlike you, I believe the starting point needs to be the scriptures. A claim of such consequential import regarding the Church of the Messiah, the Son of God, needs to have scriptural support, and I simply do not see it. In fact, I see the opposite.

[@dylanwilliams2202]

@@rhamsesmartinez5007 I am posting this in 2 parts. If there are not 2 parts then KZbin wouldn't post it. _"The Catholic church to this day teaches degrees of glory and Theosis/Deification. These are not new doctrines to Catholics."_ LOL Buddy, either you are straight up lying or you have no idea what Catholic doctrine is. The Catholic Church of today (or for the past last hundred years) does not teach degrees of glory in any form. You claim to teach Theosis but yet when we say we can become God's you all freak out despite Early Church Fathers saying the same thing. _"we can also find ancient paintings depicting baptism by affusion, so why don’t you agree with the practice?"_ Because you are supposed to be buried with Christ in Baptism and pouring water over your head isn't being buried. Even the Didache said it was a last resort. Read Romans 6 _" And no, the Shephard of Hermas does not teach vicarious baptism"_ LOL Yes it does. “‘Those, also, who were deceased so received the seal of the Son of God [Revelation 7:3] and entered the Kingdom of God. For, a man is dead before he receives the Name of the Son of God, but, when he receives the seal, he puts off death and receives life. The seal, therefore, is water. The dead go down into the water and come out of it living. Therefore, this seal was proclaimed to them and they put it to use to enter the Kingdom of God.’ ‘Then, why, sir,’ I said, ‘did the [Apostles and the teachers who proclaimed the Son of God] come out of the abyss with them, if they already had the seal?’ ‘Because,’ he said, ‘the Apostles and teachers who preach the Name of the Son of God, after having been laid to rest in power and faith in the Son of God, preach also to those who have been laid to rest before them. To the latter they themselves passed on the seal they proclaimed. So, they went down with them into the water and came up again. But, the Apostles and teachers, though they were alive, went down and returned alive. But those who had been laid to rest before them went down dead and came up alive.’” (Hermas, The Shepherd 3, Similitude 9:16:3-6) _"Yes, some heretical sects practiced it but that doesn’t mean the church taught or endorsed it."_ Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origin, Tertullian and many more quote this exact phrase, so yes the Main Church 100% did teach this. Again, either you are straight up lying or you have no idea what you are talking about. _"Now, before you argue that this practice was indeed once part of orthodoxy but was later departed from, let me ask you one thing: Why doesn’t the LDS church still hold to the doctrine of Blood Atonement?"_ This is a Red Herring Fallacy. Stick with the argument, your attempts to disprove us doesn't suddenly make the Catholic Church anymore true. But to answer your question, technically it does. You are just severely misquoting all of them. The only blood atonement we believe in is the one made by Jesus Christ. A lot of what you are going to quote by Brigham Young (or anyone else) is in reference to Capital Punishment and to say that if you were really a member of the Church and committed a crime that deserved capital punishment then you should submit to it as part of your repentance and to not commit something like that again. Not that shedding of your own blood is the only way to receive forgiveness but that you should, as a witness to God and Jesus Christ, submit to capital punishment to show that you are serious about wanting repentance for said crime. Yes, Brigham used some pretty fiery and harsh language to describe things and this specifically but that doesn't change the context of what he said. You also have to keep in mind (if you are intellectually honest) that Brigham was the political leader of the Utah Territory at the time and he was trying to keep Law and Order and using his position as the leader of the Church to help with that. In an interview on April 30, 1877 to the Deseret News Brigham Young said "The Saviour died for all the sins of the world by shedding his blood, and then I believe that he who sheds the blood of man willingly, by man shall his blood be shed. In other words, capital punishment for offenses deserving death, according to the laws of the land." Yes, Brigham Young did say “It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.” To which I say Matthew 12:31-32. “31 And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, *but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.* 32 Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, *but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven,* either in this age or in the age to come.” There are multiple ways to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit. _"The same can be asked of the detestable things Mormon church leaders taught as doctrine regarding people of color."_ Again, another Red Herring Fallacy. Stick with the original argument bud. That said, you mean the same things that the Catholic Church was teaching at the time? Not only to Africans but Natives? Should I go through the history of the treatment of both groups by Catholics? _" or will you argue that these were never official doctrines in the first place"_ Because they weren't. Not everything that comes out of our leaders mouth is doctrine, that is something Catholics will even say about the Pope. _"What’s funny is that you are appealing to the relatively obscure writings of the church fathers in support of your Mormon doctrine"_ Shepherd of Hermas is not an obscure written, it was believed to be scripture and quoted by many Early Church Fathers and if it wasn't for Athanasius would have been in the Bible. Almost was even despite Athanasius effort. This is why I am and have been saying you either are lying or don't know what you are talking about. _"yet the one doctrine that is probably the most attested doctrine among the Anti-Nicene Church Fathers- the literal presence of Jesus in the bread and wine- of which even James Talmage and BH Roberts admit:"_ Having studied this out, The doctrine of Transubstantiation is very specific and it doesn't get spelled out until after 300 AD. Meaning that you don't see anyone saying that in the Eucharist there occurs a "change", "transelementation", "transformation", "transposing", "alteration", etc of the bread into the body of Christ until after that time. The Spirit of God being present in the Bread and wine is something we would attest to and doesn't mean that it magically is the body of Christ. But let's just say we do teach this one thing wrong, that doesn't suddenly mean the other false doctrine you teach is correct. Nor that you have the authority like you claim too. _"You listed several doctrines that you claim were later additions to Christianity"_ Because they were and that is a historical fact.

[@dylanwilliams2202]

@@rhamsesmartinez5007 I am posting this in 2 parts. If there are not 2 parts then youtube didn't post it. _"Not only do I disagree but I can just as easily say the same about the endowment"_ As God was telling Joseph Smith about the temple he kept saying was going to endow the early Saints with power on high (D&C 38:32, 38:38, 95:8). If we look at Luke 24:49-53 it says “ And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised, *so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.* … 52 And they worshiped him and *returned to Jerusalem with great joy, 53 and they were continually in the temple blessing God.”* Why else were they supposed to stay in the City and Where else would they have received power on high from except for receiving the power from the Jerusalem Temple? Acts 2:46, Acts 5:41-42 and Acts 21:26-28 had the apostles worshiping in the temple. In Acts 22, Ananias says Paul will "see the Just One." (Acts 22:14) Paul then goes to Jerusalem (Acts 22:17) "When I [Paul] was come again to Jerusalem, *even while I prayed in the temple, I was in a trance"* (Acts 22:17) Then he sees Christ/The Just One (Acts 22:18). Also, read Isaiah 22:20-23 The problem is that you are expecting that the words and phrases that we use today to talk about or describe things are going to be exactly how they would have described things back during the Early Church. They aren’t. Or that they would have been so open and blatant with these things when even we aren’t and haven’t been in our own books outside the Temple. _"the permissibility of contraception"_ Uh... what? I don't understand this lol. You know that means Birth Control, right? That isn't an us only thing and the Catholic Church didn't ban it until 1930. _"You are misreading Irenaeus."_ No I am not and yes they did immediately entrust it to Linus, if Peter was even there to build it up to begin with. It really doesn't matter if they stayed to build it up for a bit, the point is that Peter didn't rule from Rome. _"Does everything need to be written down before it happens? ... Do you actually expect a detailed explanation of everything that happened in the early church?"_ LOL BRUH, with something as important as who is the Leader of the whole Church and who is the successor of Peter, *YES 100%.* That isn't a silly question but a perfectly valid one when you want to say that Rome was chosen as the successor of Peter and it has been since Peter. What is silly is that you think that it wasn't or wouldn't have been. This is a strawman argument because you are avoiding the main point. Where does anyone indicate that Rome was chosen to succeed Peter from before 400 AD? You later say "You asked why Rome got to be the leader when three other churches were also founded by Peter. Simple, because that is where Peter left his successor." Again, *Where does anyone indicate that Rome was chosen to succeed Peter from before 400 AD? Where does anyone say that Peter left his successor at Rome?* Stop avoiding this and answer it. I know you can't but still, come on man. Have some honesty. _"Where does it say that Matthias was supposed succeed Judas. Nowhere. It's simply what happened."_ No, God chose Matthias which is written in Acts. No where does it indicate Rome was chosen in any text. The argument isn't the specific person but that if someone was supposed to succeed them then it would have been indicated and talked about by people. For example, Brigham Young was chosen to succeed Joseph Smith by God and many people talked about seeing the mantle be passed on to Brigham when he was giving his speech in Nauvoo. A lot of people attested to this, no one ever said Rome was their leader. (Also, funny you bring this up but I won't get into it lol) _" You’re the one claiming that it should have"_ It's basic logic. Would you follow someone who literally walked with Christ for years before his death and was part of his "inner circle" or a Bishop? _"Corinth instead requested the intervention of Rome to end the sedition that was taking place in Corinth. That says a lot about the primacy of Rome"_ Corinth didn't request an "intervention", there is nothing indicating this. Clement makes no claims to Roman pimacy and even serious Catholic Scholars/Apologists don't use this as a way to prove your authority. You also taking the whole thing out of context, the "us" is referring to all Bishops not specifically Rome. The whole point of the letter was to tell them to reinstate their bishop and listen to him. _"Ignatius also addresses the church in Rome in a manner not done with the other churches"_ Ignatius was talking about the dominant Church within the City of Rome and/or around the City of Rome. Not saying that the Church of Rome has any special authority over the whole Church. I actually have a book with Ignatius's epistle to the Romans and this is what it has translated as: *... to the Church holding chief place in the territories of the district of Rome...* Either way, it still isn't saying Rome has any special authority. _"You asked why Rome got to be the leader when three other churches were also founded by Peter. Simple, because that is where Peter left his successor"_ I know I mentioned this earlier but you have provided no evidence for this. _"As for what Gregory says of Athanasius, I will just invite you to go back and read his words again because it’s clear that you missed the point and the context."_ Uh, no Gregory's point is pretty clear. Just saying I "missed the point and context" doesn't make it true. _" a major reason why cannot accept a Great Apostasy is because scripture refutes the idea"_ LOL No it doesn't. I already know what you are going to say but I will wait for you to say it. _"A claim of such consequential import regarding the Church of the Messiah, the Son of God, needs to have scriptural support, and I simply do not see it. In fact, I see the opposite."_ Then you don't know the scriptures. Nor history as I have made clear in my comments.

[@ChunderAsunder]

that thumbnail is golden

[@andrewgunawan4502]

Oh nice that’s me on the phone

[@jonatikaWwe]

Never been on this situation but the thumbnail is so good I just had to watch lol 😂

[@therealong]

Funny how the English CC/subtitles rendered *Shema Spropri* at exactly --> 0:30 ! *EDIT:* 22 hours later it shows correctly! How is it possible Mr. Google??? 🤔

[@cinnamondan4984]

As a Latter-day Saint the abortion question is the one that disturbs me most. I tend to think that the Catholic line on ethics and morals is THE line.

[@user-ks3qr5fk6m]

The SDA’s official position is also pro-choice.

[@DanyTV79]

They're good young people but they're theology sounds me like something Jack Kirby or Stan Lee come by. Thanks for the advice, it's going to be very handy.

[@alvinandzin1982]

I throwed mormon book long years ago.

[@cinnamondan4984]

Might want to run through one last revision.

[@alvinandzin1982]

@@cinnamondan4984 don't care about Mormons think.

[@cinnamondan4984]

@@alvinandzin1982 Why do you hate Mormons?

[@alvinandzin1982]

@@cinnamondan4984 are you a Mormon?.

[@alvinandzin1982]

@@cinnamondan4984 are you threatening me?.

[@jworthington8186]

I’d like to encourage you all to begin to go to the Scriptures for yourself and ask the Lord to lead you into the truth. All your answers concerning the Lord Jesus salvation, forgiveness, eternal life can be found in the Scriptures. Start reading and don’t stop. John 8:31-32 (KJV) 31 Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, [then] are ye my disciples indeed; 32 And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 2 Timothy 3:15 (KJV) And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

[@guioaca7]

the thumbnail is a punchline 😂😂😂

[@eduardohoover2127]

Have them marry 7 Catholic women?

[@dylanwilliams2202]

Well... I mean if you insist. How can I refuse that? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )

[@Hypexotic]

Ive learned a lot from the church of jesus christ of latter day saints and one thing the church asks you before you receieve a temple recommend is if you've ever been a part of an abortion. The answer is quite clearly no but I doubt our church comes out upfront about supporting bad choices. Keep in mind, the missionaries are heavily trained by the heirarchy. They know their stuff back and forth. Quite a moot point you make there sir. Amos 8:11-12 "Behold, the days come...that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the lord: And people shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the lord, and shall not find it." This is part of where we understand that there has been a great apostasy on the land. Matthew contradicts itself a bunch when read incorrectly. In our opinion, Jesus was mad at peter and told him personally that the gates of hell shall not prevail. Peter was either a brat or someone disobedient to Jesus being the one true god. Once you read things in context on matthew it makes more sense to see how Jesus was god only. He even goes on to say get behind me Satan. Needless to mention, the prophecy in amos is way more interesting when put into context. Also, theres no reason why scripture should contradict itself that boldly. In context, this great apostasy in connection with Joseph Smith and Jesus speaking again to the world in the 19-21 century is astounding. I knew god would speak to me again one day. And with the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we find that. Peace and happiness. Everything we say is true so i'd be wary of that.