Calling all fundies

[Kirkland1244]

Alberto Rivera was Jack T. Chick’s “expert” on Catholicism. Thankfully, he’s been dead for some time. None of his claims add up with what faithful Catholics have experienced and know about their church, but people like H4E, who trade in lies and ignorance, and ignore fact, don’t seem to care about that…

From: “The Alberto Story,” Cornerstone, vol. 9, no. 53, 1981, pp. 29-31.

Is Alberto’s story true? No! Our intensive investigation reveals his police record, his investment schemes, his bad check-writing, his contradictory testimony, his fabricated educational record, and his reported family abuse . . . Alberto Rivera, also known as Alberto Romero, has a history of legal entanglements. He is currently involved in a court action in Southern California, accused of fraud.

In 1965, a warrant for his arrest was issued in Hoboken, New Jersey, for writing bad checks. He also left debts in excess of $3,000.

In 1969 two warrants were issued against him in DeLand and Ormond Beach, Florida. The first was for the theft of a Bank-Americard. The criminal investigation division of the Bank of America reports he charged over $2,000 on the credit card. The second warrant was for the ‘unauthorized use of an automobile.’ Alberto abandoned the vehicle in Seattle, Washington. From there he moved to Southern California.

Alberto’s account of his conversion is contradictory. In 1964 while working for the Christian Reformed Church, he said he was converted from Catholicism in July of 1952. Now he maintains it was in 1967 . . . 3:00 in the morning on March 20, 1967. He says he immediately defected from the Catholic church. However, five months later, in August of 1967, he was still promoting Catholicism and the ecumenical movement in a newspaper interview in his hometown of Las Palmas in the Canary Islands.

Alberto commands great respect from many with his alleged numerous degrees including an N.D., a D.D., a Th.D., a Ph.D., and a master’s in psychology. However, he is ambiguous when asked where he received these degrees. Alberto attended a seminary in Costa Rica (the Seminario Biblio Latinamericano) with a friend from Las Palmas, but he did not graduate. That friend, Rev. Plutarco Bonilla (a respected Christian leader in Central America), said that Alberto never finished high school in Las Palmas and that he was in the seminary program for non-high school graduates. The school in a letter said they were forced to expel Alberto for his ‘continual lying and defiance of seminary authority.’ The known chronology of his life does not allow time for him to have achieved the academic status he claims. When Rev. Wishart [former associate of Alberto, and once a pastor of the First Baptist Church of San Fernando] pressed Alberto concerning his degrees, Alberto admitted receiving them from a diploma mill in Colorado. This ended their relationship. Pastor Rasmussen (Faith Baptist Church in Canoga Park, California) also asked Alberto to substantiate some of his claims by submitting to a lie detector test. Alberto said he would: three times apoointments were made for him, three times he failed to appear.

He met his first ‘wife’ in Costa Rica while working with the Methodist church. Rev. Bonilla says that Alberto was living there with a woman in the late 1950s but they weren’t legally married: Alberto said God ordained their marriage. Alberto later claimed in an employment form that he and Carmen Lydia Torres were married on November 25, 1963. Their son Juan was born in Hoboken, New Jersey, in September, 1964 . . . A supervisor at the time, Rev. Edson Lewis, said that Alberto physically abused both Carmen Lydia and Juan. Less than a year after his birth, in July, 1965, Juan died in El Paso, Texas, where his parents had fled, after they wrote bad checks in New Jersey.

[a new son, Alberto, was born in 1967 or 1968] It is difficult to determine the whereabouts of the child Alberto today, but Rev. Abrego [former associate and roommate] claims he was placed in a welfare home in Tennessee . . . Alberto and Carmen Lydia had still another son, Luis Marx, early in 1969. While they were still in Florida, their hosts said Luis Marx was mistreated. What happened to Luis Marx is unknown, but when Alberto left Florida for Seattle with the car and credit card, they no longer had the child with them. What happened to Carmen Lydia after Seattle is also unknown, but Alberto remarried in 1977 to Nury Frias, a woman from the Dominican Republic. Whether he was ever legally married to and/or divorced from the other woman is unknown. At any rate, it is extremely damaging to Rivera’s credibility to discover that he had two children (Juan and Alberto) in America during the time he was supposed to be a celibate priest in Europe!

What does Jack Chick think about this? . . . When he was finally reached by phone at his home, he said that he had never met a more godly man than Alberto, and that he knows Alberto’s story is true because he ‘prayed about it.’ Jack says he expects his own life to be taken by Jesuit assassins [he is still kicking 17 years later]. When we reached Alberto by phone, he also refused to meet with us . . . He claims that any wrongdoings prior to his conversion in 1967 were done under the orders of the Catholic church, and any wrongdoings since his conversion are fabrications by the conspirators.

As we have seen, Alberto’s story is fraudulent, as was the story of John Todd, another Jack Chick protégé, who said the witches are taking over the world (see Issue #48 of Cornerstone). Alberto has skillfully created a closed, paranoid defense system which makes it difficult to corner him on specific issues. He can always dismiss any accusation as part of the Jesuit plot.

Alberto Rivera’s fraudulent claims underscore a sad fact: many Protestants have as distorted a view of Catholics as whites earlier in the century had of blacks. The black man was caricatured as having ‘lotsa rhythm and little-a brains,’ while the Catholic is portrayed as an automaton who is in unquestioning bondage to church authorities.

Rivera’s claim to be a former priest, bishop, and intelligence agent for the Roman Catholic hierarchy has been discussed in previous issues . . . we found this claim to be a complete falsehood . . . I am amazed that Jack Chick can have such a paranoiac view of history; the word ‘Catholicaphobia’ immediately forms itself in my mind. It was because of such propaganda that two previous Chick comic books were banned by the Canadian government last October. They refer to it as being in the category of ‘obscene literature.’

Actually, if I did believe there was a secret Jesuit conspiracy, I would say that Alberto Rivera is still a part of it. His ludicrous accusations have damaged the cause of legitimate Protestant/Catholic relations.

These are the people H4E goes to for her information. Lovely lady, isn’t she?

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

originally posted by WV_Woman:
**Mormons are known for ahhh … concealing the facts about what they REALLY believe in order to get new converts.

**
Cite?

I went and looked at your http://www.exmormon.org/tract2.htm site, and guess what–I didn’t see anything in this list of “things they won’t tell you” that sounded terribly heinous, let alone heretical, or “cult-ish”. So they’ve changed their ideology a bit in the last 200 years, so what? So has just about every other denomination. The Free Methodists used to be very strongly against pew rental, but they hardly mention it any more.

So the Mormons have tinkered with their theology, so what? The Early Christian Church went through about 300 years of theology-tinkering before they settled on the form we pretty much have today. There were sizeable controversies over things like “Was Jesus really God?”, things that you think of as pretty basic for Christianity, but it took a long time for all that to shake down.

So they’re going to put a lot of pressure on you to “join things”, so what? So does every other church I’ve ever been in contact with. Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, there’s always somebody calling you up and asking you to help in the nursery, or sing in the choir.

So none of Joseph Smith’s prophecies have come true yet, so what? The Catholic Church is full of saintly folks who have had “visions”, none of which have come true either.

All of the things on this exmormon list of “things they won’t tell you!” seem like incredibly nitpicky, unimportant stuff. It paints a picture of the Mormon church as populated by people who change their minds, try to cover up the nasty things that happen, and just generally behave like normal human beings. So what?

The website claims that one of the things they won’t tell you is that Joseph Smith died in a gun battle–well, jumping Jehosaphat, SO F***ING WHAT!!!

I mean, really. :rolleyes: The Scientology website won’t tell you that L. Ron Hubbard died of a stroke.

http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/part13/Chp38/pg0703-a.html

On 24 January 1986, having accomplished all he set out to do, Ron departs his body.

And that’s after paging through, by actual count, 45 pages of his biography.

[Homebrew]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
And that’s after paging through, by actual count, 45 pages of his biography.

Now that’s dedication to Truth.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Yup.

BTW, my point was not to compare Mormonism with Scientology–my point is that it doesn’t matter how a church’s founder died.

Depending on who you listen to, Ulrich Zwingli, who died at the battle of Kappel in 1531, either “died with his sword in his hand”, or “rallied the troops”, or “died while serving as Chaplain”, or was merely “among the dead.”

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
my point is that it doesn’t matter how a church’s founder died.

I’m thinking of Jesus Christ who founded the church, and it seems to me that it most certainly mattered how He died…and rose again.

[happyheathen]

threads like this make me glad i’m a heathen - we don’t have to prove nuthin’.

Canada bans comic strips/books because they are “obscene”?

the blue-nosed US got out of that business (pretty much) in the 60’s? does Canada have a personality disorder? pro gay marriage, but bans comic strips?

or is Canadian law/custom Catholic by tradition, so Chick just hits a nerve?

and gee, golly, gosh - another religion thread which ends up debating whether or not Catholics and/or Mormons are really Christian. who’d have thunk?

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

*Originally posted by happyheathen *
**threads like this make me glad i’m a heathen - we don’t have to prove nuthin’.
**

Well I think you do happyheathen . you seem to have an opinion in almost every religious thread that I check out including the ones where you are specifically not invited to like this one calling for fundies.

You’ve defined what you’re all about with your moniker just like His4ever, and correct me if I’m wrong, but you probably consider Catholics and Latter Day Saints are further off the mark than His4ever.

As the topic of Christ and Christianity interests you as much as the rest of us Christians, perhaps I could bestow upon you the title of honorary Christian.

[Kirkland1244]

Actually, Jack T. Chick’s tracts are banned because they fall under the category of hate literature, I believe, which is not protected speech in Canada. They wouldn’t let David Duke publish and distribute his nonsense regarding Jews, either.

Kirk

[happyheathen]

actually, grien, this thread was discussing “are Catholics/Mormons really Christian” (with responses from non-Fundamentalists) long before I joined in.

I am considered an “honorary” member of many groups, and am Christian in the eyes of many Christians (once a Christian, always a Christian, and, as a baptised EUB (Methodist), I started as a Christian).

I would be honored to be considered an “honorary Christian”, assuming that we can agree on just what is meant by the term “Christian” - see Poly’s thread

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=133120

as noted repeatedly on these boards, that term is used by a whole lot of people, many of whom have slaughtered each other because of doctrinal disagreements - if we can move really, really far from that history (don’t look likely), I may just begin to identify as a Christian.

'til then, may your God show you (collective) wisdom to overcome that legacy.

[SPOOFE]

Just to directly address some Ignorance mentioned earlier in this thread:

Jesus was a polygamist

This is not an official tenant of Mormonism. It may be a belief espoused by an offshoot of Mormonism that still practices polygamy, but that group is not recognized and is denounced and excommunicated by the Mormon presidency.

Men and women can become gods and goddesses

This is a belief of the Mormon church. They believe in different levels of reward depending on how worthy someone is. According to Mormon belief, they divide heaven into different “levels”… telestial, terestrial, and celestial kingdoms (the names, I imagine, are just a means of keeping track). The celestial kingdom is the most gloried reward one can get, and those who follow God will be allowed to be made a God themselves, and have their own universe to create.

Further in Mormon belief, most people will be in the telestial or terestial kingdom, and only a small number of people will be cast into “outer darkness” (a nicey-nice word for hell). Apparently, one has to accept God’s word and be let into the highest confidences of the church, and then renounce it, in order to deserve this punishment.

One question I have for H4E: Where in the Bible does it say that this description of the afterlife is inaccurate? Why does it make Mormons “non-Christian”?

God the Father was the first man, Adam, and the husband of Mary

Err… no. That is not an official tenant of Mormonism… they believe that God and Adam were two separate entities. As for the “husband of Mary”… well… the alternative was that God had premarital sex with Mary, isn’t it? Or at least some sort of divine artificial insemination. But they don’t believe that God and Mary were actually wed. It’s probably just another nicey-nice way of saying “God impregnated Mary”.

The Holy Spirit is a man.

Erm… no. They believe that God was once a man, that Christ is both man and spirit (the resurrection united his spirit and his body into a single entity), but that the Holy Spirit (they call it the Holy Ghost… they must like single syllable words) is just that… a spirit, that is everywhere at once.

Jesus and Lucifer were blood brothers.

Nope, not possible, since Lucifer never had a body, they couldn’t be blood brothers, can they?

Mormonism does believe that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers. Actually, they believe that all of us were brothers. The story goes that, in the pre-existence, God wanted to create the universe, and two of his most regarded angels, Jesus and Lucifer, offered their opinions on how God’s plan (you’ll hear Mormons refer to this a lot) should go. Lucifer wanted to force everyone to worship God, while Jesus wanted to give them their own free agency. This resulted in Lucifer turning his back on God, and as a result, he and a third of the spirits (who also turned their back on God) were banished. Hence, we have the divine struggle between Heaven and Hell.

God is an exalted man with a physical body, parts, and passions.

Just about. They believe that God was once a man, and just as he ascended to divinity, so may we also ascend, as long as we are righteous and obey God’s word.

I don’t see how this makes them “non-Christian”, though.

Men may become gods. (Sounds a lot like Lucifer to me, he wanted to be God)

Yup, that’s what they believe. Although you’re going to have to provide a Biblical cite that says that Lucifer wanted to be God before I can believe that.

Jesus is merely on of God’s billions of sexually begotten-in-heaven sons and the only one sexually begotten by Him on earth.

Yup. I don’t see how that collides with any tenant of Christianity, though.

Satan is a full spirit brother of Jesus. He could have been the Saviour if his plan of salvation had surpassed that of Jesus.

Yup. I explained all this, though. How does this make Mormons non-Christians?

Adam’s “sin” was a blessing and not a curse.

So you consider “knowledge” to be a sin? No wonder you behave the way you do! And, yes, Mormons do consider it a “blessing”, of sorts, considering that God’s first commandment to Adam was “Go forth and multiply”… Adam couldn’t very well have done this withou violating the second comman, “Don’t eat the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil”.

Furthermore, none of us would exist without Adam’s “sin”. I was told that Mormonism believes that man was created to teach them, so we can learn and grow… if Adam hadn’t eaten the fruit, that never would’ve happened.

So, explain now how that violates a tenant of Christianity?

It was just as necessary for Adam to sin as it was for Christ to be crucified.

Yes ma’am. There would have been nobody to die for if Adam hadn’t bit into that apple (yes, I KNOW we don’t know if it was an apple or not).

I just can’t accept these teachings, to me they’re blasphemous.

Why? In heaven’s name, why? I find them to be just as strange as all other religious teachings… why is it weird to believe that, say, Adam’s “sin” was necessary, but it’s NOT weird to ritualistically eat the body of your savior every week? Why is it weird to believe that Jesus and Lucifer are related, but it’s NOT weird to believe that God would punish one of his most righteous followers (Lot)?

Your differentiations between “blasphemous” and “doctrine” don’t seem to make much sense. How did you arrive at the conclusions you reached?

[SPOOFE]

I wrote…

Actually, they believe that all of us were brothers.

::ahem:: And sisters.

[Monty]

Spoofe:

She didn’t arrive at any of those conclusions. They’re not hers. She’s merely parroting some other bigots stupidities.

[Fenris]

*Originally posted by His4ever *
**

The name of the book is Mormonism, Mama, & Me by Thelma “Granny” Greer. Why in the world would an old lady lie about a religion she was raised in. Is it that because it doesn’t agree with your beliefs, it must be wrong right? Just because the book disagrees with you, the author is a fraud, right? This is getting ridiculous imo.:smack: **

Let us paraphrase what H4E just said and see how it parses for a different audience:

(NOTAQUOTE):
The name of the pamphlet is “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” and Henry Ford reprinted it in America and was largely responsible for why it’s so widespread. Why in the world would a famous entrepenurer lie about a religon when it could only serve to hurt his economic interests? He got into a lot of trouble over it you know. Is it that because it doesn’t agree with your beliefs, it must be wrong right? Just because the book disagrees with you, the author is a fraud, right? This is getting ridiculous imo.:smack:
(/NOTAQUOTE)

SOMEthing’s getting ridiculous…

Fenris

[emarkp]

SPOOFE, I have to correct a few errors in your post. But thanks for the effort to fight ignorance (that is the tagline, right?)

Originally posted by SPOOFE
This is not an official tenant of Mormonism.

Strictly speaking, since Mormonism isn’t a residence, it has no tenants (sorry, couldn’t resist ).

Jesus is merely on of God’s billions of sexually begotten-in-heaven sons and the only one sexually begotten by Him on earth.

Yup. I don’t see how that collides with any tenant of Christianity, though.

False. There are no statements in LDS teachings at all about the precise method by which spirit offspring come to be. Nada. Zilch. None. My wife commented that she’s amazed at how frequently people are fixated on this. There’s no information about it. Any commentary on it is entirely speculation.

Furthermore, what’s the deal with “…merely one of…”? I claim to be a brother, and hope to be a joint-heir with Christ, but just because I claim Him as brother, I don’t refer to Him as “merely my brother.” He’s a lot more than that.

Just because he was born in a stable, was he “merely” a baby? When He walked teaching His disciples, was He “merely” a rabbi? I don’t think so.

Satan is a full spirit brother of Jesus. He could have been the Saviour if his plan of salvation had surpassed that of Jesus.

Yup. I explained all this, though. How does this make Mormons non-Christians?

This is actually not true. The closest statement to this is in the book of Abraham

And the Lord said: Whom shall I send? And one answered like unto the Son of Man: Here am I, send me. And another answered and said: Here am I, send me. And the Lord said: I will send the first.

And the second was angry, and kept not his first estate; and, at that day, many followed after him.

Satan was never part of the plan. He just wanted to be. It was the Father’s plan, and the Son played the principle role.

Also, question for His4ever–why the qualification “full brother”? Would a half-brother be any better or worse?

*From *His4ever
Adam’s “sin” was a blessing and not a curse.

Not even the Bible says that Adam’s actions were a blessing or a curse. In fact, Genesis 3:17 records that God said “cursed is the ground for thy sake”–and what does it mean to do something for someone’s sake? It means for their good. Yes, we believe that the Fall of Adam, and his transgression (we don’t refer to it as a sin, because they were innocent at the time–only after partaking of the fruit did they know good and evil) were in fact necessary in the plan. It’s all out in the open in our scriptures. It’s not like we’re hiding it.

[Siege]

Getting back to the OP, since it was thrown open to all Christians:

1. How did you get saved?
   I accepted Christ as my saviour at 6 years old in bible study, but I think that may have been too young for it to count in some circles. More seriously, I can’t remember a time when Christ wasn’t in my life.

2. What denomination church do you attend?
   Like Polycarp, you’ll find me at at Episcopal church most Sundays, usually serving as lector, chalicist, choir member, or some combination thereof.

3. WHo are your favorite authors?
   Christian? C.S. Lewis, Madeline L’Engle, Karen Armstrong, and Isaac Asimov’s Asimov’s Guide to the Bible. I also like take on Christianity in a couple of historical mystery writers, Ellis Peters and Peter Tremayne.

4. Are you a Republican?
   Not on your life! I consider myself independent and shooting at both sides, although, thanks to a rather rankorous primary, I’m a registered Democrat at the moment. (Note to self: Must get soul out of hock to a political party).

5. Do you consdier other sects not-christian?
   There have, I’m afraid, been a few things about LDS which have bothered me. I’m about to read the recent thread on the subject and see if they’ve been answered, and, if not, I’ll ask them there, rather than continue this hijack. My bottom line is it’s not for me to decide who is and who is not Christian.

Sorry to look in on this thread. I took its title literally until I came across a reference to it in another thread.

CJ

[fluiddruid]

*Originally posted by JerseyDiamond *
fluiddruid, I don’t know if I can be as enlightened as you, oh no, did I laugh out loud?! but here goes:

Not sure what the personal jab is for, but hey. You probably just forgot this one:

Galatians 5:14:
The entire law is summed up in a single command: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

Well, maybe you meant to be loving by mocking me. But then, let’s look at the Bible again:

Job 11:3:
Will your idle talk reduce men to silence? Will no one rebuke you when you mock?

and here as well:

Proverbs 3:33-35:
33 The Lord 's curse is on the house of the wicked,
but he blesses the home of the righteous.
34 He mocks proud mockers
but gives grace to the humble.

And, let’s not forget this one:

Proverbs 9:12:
If you are wise, your wisdom will reward you; if you are a mocker, you alone will suffer.

So, I hope you’ll forgive me (that’s in the Bible too, right?) if I smile when I read:

If I made changes to the bible and added stuff in to suite my beliefs, then yes, I would expect people to say I am not a Christian.

Here’s a relevant passage:

Matthew 7:4-5:
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Making interpretations of the Bible and adding to the Bible (with holidays, traditions, superstitions, etc.) do not make a person non-Christian. They simply make them a different kind of Christian. Love your neighbor as yourself, and remember, you would not want other people to mock your devotion to your religion. Yours is not a loving attitude. You may, of course, disagree with them, but please do so respectfully. Consider “I do not agree with your interpretation of the Bible” as a loving alternative to “You are not a Christian”.

[emarkp]

Getting back to the OP

cjhoworth, you missed out already. See, we’ve already gone through the stage of: [ul][]someone mentions Mormons[]Someone else makes false claims about Mormons[]we Mormons (and, increasingly, enlightened non-Mormons) respond to those false claims.[]lather, rinse, repeat.[/ul]It’s not your fault.

[Siege]

Oh, I didn’t miss it out, believe me, but I wanted to be honest. My questions were posed and answered, quite nicely, by genie in the appropriate thread.

CJ