Atheist Scam Alert

Please be aware of fraudulent activity on Twitter claiming to donate money to Oxfam.  Oxfam collects no such donations from Twitter accounts and/or blogs.  I have notified them of this activity and they are currently investigating and will take legal action against atheists or anyone using their organization's name to commit fraud.

Please report tweets attempting to represent Oxfam by soliciting donations to: Oxfam, Twitter support and your local law officials.

Did you know, if you buy stuff from Amazon through my blog, all commission will go to #Oxfam and it costs you nothing extra. #BeHumankind
— RosaRubicondior (@RosaReerected) October 29, 2013

Here is the email I received:

Oct 25 (4 days ago)


Dear Michael

Thank you for your email and for letting us know about your concerns regarding this Twitter user.

I have forwarded your email to a team to investigate this further and decide if and what action needs to be taken.

Thank you again for letting us know, please do let me know if you have any other questions and I will be happy to help.

With best wishes

(Name removed for privacy)
 Supporter Relations
 Oxfam GB
 Direct tel: +44 (0)300 200 1300
 Switchboard tel: +44 (0)300 200 1292
 E-mail: enquiries@oxfam.org.uk
 Website: http://www.oxfam.org.uk

 P.S. We would love to hear what you think. Whether it is good, bad or indifferent, knowing what our supporters think is vital to us if we are going to continue to improve how we communicate to the people who make our work possible. The survey will take less than 2 minutes to complete and any information that you provide will be anonymous and confidential. http://qnr.surveyshack.com/s/18jfGgAPhbD.Xe3

Screen shots.   I had to black out the person's name at her request as well as other private information (gmail contacts etc)

First response

My response

After a few emails, their conclusion

Second to last email

My last email

Reply to Jeff Catholicgadfly's inquiry
https://twitter.com/CatholicGadfly/status/530235399399288832

UPDATE 11/7/14

After much pressure, "Rosa Rubicondior" finally donated the monies to Oxfam today.  Oxfam sent Catholicgadfly this tweet.

@CatholicGadfly @Ellif_DWulfe @beebearninja @FreeAtheism Hi, We have confirmed that all donations made from the Rosa blog have been received
— Oxfam (@oxfamgb) November 7, 2014

Based on the wording (verb tense), it is understood that "Rosa Rubicondior" just made the donations.  The words "have been received" is present prefect tense meaning it is an action that occurred in the present-past.  For example, Let's say I just wrote a blog.  The "just wrote" means that I wrote it, it happened, but it happened recently, so it tells us of an action that happened already (past) but was recent (in the present).  So by Oxfam stating, "have been received" they are saying that the donations were sent already, but now in the present, not a year ago or long ago in the past.


See this video and links for more information:



http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/tenses.html
http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/presentperfect.html
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/tenses/present_perfect.htm
https://learnenglish.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/verbs/present-tense/present-perfect
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/601/01/



What is hilarious is that one of "Rosa's" sock puppets "ellif_dwulf" sent the englishpage.com to Catholicgadfly.  It was tweeted as proof that the donations were made long ago contradicting Catholicgadfly's tweet that "have been" is present-past.  Well the link ellif sent actually proves Catholicgadfly corrrect! haha

See this funny exchange:

@CatholicGadfly http://t.co/TtFXXvXz4Q "unspecfied time" @FreeAtheism @DarthNihilus1
— Ellif D'Wulf (@Ellif_DWulfe) November 7, 2014

Lol! That link agrees with me, did you even read it? @Ellif_DWulfe @FreeAtheism @DarthNihilus1 pic.twitter.com/1ZdLPM5uH1
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

YOU CANNOT use the Present Perfect with ... yesterday, ONE YEAR AGO, LAST WEEK. @Ellif_DWulfe @FreeAtheism @DarthNihilus1
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

"Rosa" supposedly donated last year correct? Well Oxfam by using "have been" disputes this. @Ellif_DWulfe @FreeAtheism @DarthNihilus1
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

Funny I have to give a British kid lessons on the language his people created.. @Ellif_DWulfe @beebearninja @testisfidelis @FreeAtheism
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

Ironically, the tweet from OxfamGB was sent just hours after Catholicgadfly filed a report to the American branch of Oxfam reporting "Paul" for misinformation.  See here:

Correct? I have to report their misinformation. @Ellif_DWulfe @beebearninja @FreeAtheism pic.twitter.com/oXBo2SDbc4
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 6, 2014

Note: The emails posted above are valid and accurate to the date they were received.  We were told that "Rosa Rubicondior" and her blog DID NOT donate at the time the emails were sent.  Well now she has donated today and I applaud her for finally handing in the money to Oxfam which she so proudly claimed she had done a year ago.  It took a year, but we forced her to donate it.  

The report Catholicgadfly filed obviously pushed "Rosa Rubicondior" to act quickly and donate the money before the dirt hit the fan, so to speak.  It also forced Oxfamgb to actually tweet this confirmation showing the donations were made in the present-perfect tense.  

My report forced Oxfam to tweet us! Ever wonder how they got my account?? @Ellif_DWulfe @beebearninja @testisfidelis @FreeAtheism
— Jeff T. Follon MA. (@CatholicGadfly) November 7, 2014

This was my intention all along. I wanted all to see that we cannot trust people claiming to be a middle man in order to collect money and donate to any organization. The pressure from the tweets, this blog post and the atheists who were manipulated into pursuing this case forced "Rosa Rubicondior" to do the right thing and donate.  

I will keep this post up as a testament to the fraud "Rosa Rubicondior" is capable of committed just in case she tries to collect money from others in order to "donate." 

Let's not forget the AdSense scam now: see: http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/11/atheist-scam-ii-ad-sense.html

Refutation of: The Remnant Newspaper -"What About Those Six Protestants and the New Mass"

This article is a detailed academic response refuting the claims made in the article from The Remnant Newspaper titled "What About Those Six Protestants and the New Mass" found here: The Remnant Newspaper - What About those Six Protestants and the New Mass?. 

The response addresses the article’s assertions, particularly the claim that Protestant observers had a significant influence on the creation of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, often misnamed the "Novus Ordo." It clarifies the role of Protestant observers, the continuity of the Mass as a single, unbroken tradition rooted in the Last Supper, and the evolution of the Roman Rite while maintaining its essential identity. 

The response also explains why the term "New Mass" is misleading and theologically problematic, highlights the unity of the Mass in its Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms, and demonstrates how the Ordinary Form aligns closely with the practices of the early Church. Citations from authoritative sources, including Pope Paul VI and historical liturgical documents, are provided to support the arguments.  

 Refuting Claims of Protestant Influence and the Misnomer of the "New Mass" in the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite

The article published by The Remnant Newspaper titled "What About Those Six Protestants and the New Mass" presents a series of claims that misrepresent the development, nature, and theological continuity of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite, often erroneously referred to as the "Novus Ordo." The article suggests that Protestant observers played a significant role in shaping the post-Vatican II liturgy and labels the Ordinary Form as a "New Mass," implying a rupture with the Church’s liturgical tradition. This paper systematically refutes these claims, demonstrating that Protestant observers had no authoritative role in the liturgical reforms, that the term "New Mass" is both inaccurate and theologically problematic, and that the Ordinary Form, together with the Extraordinary Form, constitutes a single, continuous expression of the Mass rooted in the Last Supper. Furthermore, it illustrates the historical evolution of the Roman Rite, its continuity with the early Church, and the inherent traditional nature of the Mass as affirmed by Pope Paul VI and other authoritative sources.

 The Role of Protestant Observers in the Liturgical Reform

The article’s central claim is that six Protestant observers exerted significant influence over the development of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite following the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). This assertion is historically inaccurate and unsupported by primary sources. The liturgical reforms that resulted in the 1969 Missale Romanum, promulgated by Pope Paul VI, were overseen by the Consilium ad Exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia (Consilium), a body established to implement the liturgical directives of Vatican II’s Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium). The Consilium was composed entirely of Catholic bishops, priests, and liturgical scholars, with no Protestant members holding decision-making authority.

The presence of Protestant observers at Vatican II and during subsequent liturgical discussions is well-documented but often misunderstood. These observers, invited as ecumenical guests, were present to foster dialogue and mutual understanding, as had occurred during the Council of Trent (1545–1563). At Trent, Protestant theologians such as Matthias Flacius and representatives from Lutheran territories were invited to observe and present their views, particularly during the third period (1562–1563), but they had no vote or influence over the council’s decrees. Similarly, at Vatican II, Protestant observers, including representatives from Anglican, Lutheran, and other denominations, were invited to attend sessions and offer perspectives as part of the Church’s ecumenical outreach, as mandated by the council’s Decree on Ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio). Their role was strictly non-authoritative, limited to observation and occasional consultation, with no power to shape the liturgical texts or structure of the Mass.

Archival evidence from the Consilium’s proceedings confirms that the liturgical reforms were driven by Catholic theologians and liturgists, such as Annibale Bugnini, Josef Jungmann, and Cipriano Vagaggini, who sought to restore elements of the early Church’s liturgy while preserving the Roman Rite’s integrity. The Protestant observers, including figures like Canon Jasper and Brother Max Thurian, attended some meetings but did not participate in drafting or approving the liturgical texts. Their presence was a gesture of transparency and ecumenical goodwill, not a concession of authority. The claim that they "had a say" in the Ordinary Form is a distortion that ignores the exclusively Catholic governance of the reform process.

 The Misnomer of the "New Mass" and Its Theological Implications

The article’s use of the term "New Mass" to describe the Ordinary Form is both misleading and theologically problematic. The Mass, as instituted by Christ at the Last Supper, is a singular, uninterrupted re-presentation of His sacrifice on the Cross, as affirmed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 1366–1367). The Mass is not a human invention that can be replaced or reinvented; it is a divine institution that transcends historical and cultural contexts. To call the Ordinary Form a "New Mass" suggests a rupture with this sacred continuity, implying that it is a novel creation distinct from the Mass of previous centuries. Such a characterization is not only factually incorrect but also borders on heretical, as it undermines the Church’s teaching that Christ’s sacrifice is offered "once for all" (Hebrews 10:10) and perpetuated in the Eucharist across all times.

Pope Paul VI, in his 1969 Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum, explicitly affirmed the continuity of the Mass: "The substance of the Roman Missal, which we are promulgating, is in no way altered as regards the essentials of the Eucharistic Sacrifice." He emphasized that the revisions to the Roman Rite were intended to enhance its clarity and accessibility while preserving its theological and spiritual essence. The changes introduced in the Ordinary Form—such as the expanded use of the vernacular, simplified rubrics, and a broader selection of scriptural readings—were not innovations but restorations of ancient practices, guided by the principles of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The council called for a reform that would make the liturgy "more clearly express the holy things which they signify" (SC 21), ensuring that the Mass remained the same in its sacrificial and sacramental reality.

The term "Novus Ordo," often used pejoratively, is itself a misnomer. It derives from a shorthand phrase, Novus Ordo Missae ("new order of the Mass"), used in early post-conciliar documents to describe the revised liturgical books. However, this term was never intended to imply a new Mass but rather a revised arrangement (ordo) of the Roman Rite’s prayers and rituals. The Church has consistently taught that the Mass is one, with its essence unchanged across historical developments. The article’s insistence on the term "New Mass" perpetuates a narrative of discontinuity that contradicts the magisterial teaching of the Church and fosters confusion among the faithful.

 The Unity of the Mass: Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms

The Mass in the Roman Rite exists in two legitimate expressions: the Ordinary Form, as promulgated in 1969, and the Extraordinary Form, often referred to as the Tridentine Mass, codified by Pope Pius V in 1570. These are not two distinct Masses but two forms of the same rite, as clarified by Pope Benedict XVI in his 2007 motu proprio Summorum Pontificum. Benedict wrote, "The Roman Missal promulgated by Paul VI is the ordinary expression of the lex orandi (law of prayer) of the Catholic Church of the Latin rite. The Roman Missal promulgated by Pius V… must be given due honor for its venerable and ancient usage." The unity of the Mass lies in its essence as the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, regardless of the ritual form it takes.

The article’s portrayal of the Ordinary Form as a Protestant-influenced departure from tradition ignores this unity and the Church’s authority to regulate its liturgy. The Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms share the same theological core: the consecration of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, the offering of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and the communion of the faithful. Differences in language, structure, and ceremonial elements reflect legitimate diversity within the Roman Rite, not a break in continuity. The Church has always permitted such variations, as seen in the existence of other liturgical rites (e.g., Ambrosian, Mozarabic) alongside the Roman Rite.

 Historical Evolution of the Roman Rite

The Roman Rite has never been static; it has evolved organically over two millennia while remaining the same Mass. In the early Church, the liturgy was relatively simple, characterized by scriptural readings, a homily, prayers of the faithful, and the Eucharistic celebration, as described by St. Justin Martyr in his First Apology (c. 155 AD). Over time, additional elements—such as chants, processions, and specific prayers—were incorporated to enhance the liturgy’s solemnity and express its theological depth. By the time of the Council of Trent, the Roman Rite had developed into a highly structured form, standardized by Pius V to ensure uniformity in response to the Protestant Reformation.

The reforms of Vatican II were not a radical departure but a continuation of this organic development. Sacrosanctum Concilium called for a "general restoration" of the liturgy, removing accretions that obscured its clarity and restoring elements that had been lost over time (SC 50). For example, the restoration of the Prayer of the Faithful and the expanded Lectionary in the Ordinary Form reflect practices attested in the early Church. The use of the vernacular, permitted by SC 36, aligns with the early Church’s use of Greek and Latin, languages understood by the faithful at the time. These changes were not innovations but a return to the simplicity and accessibility of the apostolic liturgy, adapted to modern pastoral needs.

 The Ordinary Form and the Early Church

The Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite is, in many respects, closer to the liturgical practices of the early Church than the Extraordinary Form. The early Christian liturgy, as documented by sources like Justin Martyr and the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus (c. 215 AD), was characterized by its communal and participatory nature. The congregation actively participated through responses, prayers, and the reception of Communion, often in both kinds. The Ordinary Form restores these elements, encouraging active participation (actuosa participatio) as called for by Sacrosanctum Concilium (SC 14). The use of the vernacular allows the faithful to understand and engage with the prayers, mirroring the early Church’s use of accessible languages.

The structure of the Ordinary Form also reflects early Christian practice. The expanded Lectionary, with its three-year cycle of readings, provides a richer exposure to Scripture, akin to the early Church’s emphasis on proclaiming the Word. The simplified Eucharistic Prayers, particularly Eucharistic Prayer II, draw heavily from the Apostolic Tradition, one of the earliest known Eucharistic texts. While the Extraordinary Form retains a medieval emphasis on ceremonial richness, the Ordinary Form prioritizes clarity and accessibility, aligning with the pastoral and missionary spirit of the early Church.

 The Inherent Tradition of the Mass

The Mass, by its very nature, is traditional, as it is rooted in Christ’s institution at the Last Supper and perpetuated through the Church’s unbroken apostolic tradition. The article’s suggestion that the Ordinary Form lacks tradition ignores the Church’s authority to regulate and adapt its liturgy while preserving its essence. As Pope Paul VI stated in his 1969 General Audience address, "The Mass remains the same in its essence… The changes are not a betrayal of tradition but a means of making it more alive and accessible." The Ordinary Form is traditional because it is an authentic expression of the Church’s lex orandi, approved by the magisterium and celebrated by the universal Church.

The Church’s liturgical tradition is not a museum piece but a living reality, capable of adaptation to meet the needs of the faithful while remaining faithful to its divine origin. The Ordinary Form, far from being a Protestant innovation, is a legitimate development of the Roman Rite, grounded in the Church’s tradition and enriched by its return to early Christian practices. The article’s claims to the contrary reflect a misunderstanding of liturgical history and theology, perpetuating a narrative of division that undermines the unity of the Church’s worship.

 Conclusion

The article from The Remnant Newspaper misrepresents the development of the Ordinary Form by exaggerating the role of Protestant observers, mislabeling it as a "New Mass," and implying a rupture with Catholic tradition. Historical evidence demonstrates that Protestant observers had no authoritative role in the liturgical reforms, which were guided by Catholic theologians under the authority of the Holy See. The term "New Mass" is theologically problematic, as it denies the continuity of the Mass as the re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, a reality affirmed by Pope Paul VI and the Catechism. The Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms are two expressions of the same Roman Rite, united in their sacrificial essence. The Ordinary Form, far from being a departure from tradition, restores elements of the early Church’s liturgy, making it a vibrant and authentic expression of the Church’s worship. The Mass, in all its forms, remains traditional by default, as it is rooted in the Last Supper and perpetuated through the Church’s apostolic authority.

Sources:

1. Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997.

2. Catholic Church. Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy: Sacrosanctum Concilium. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1963.

3. Catholic Church. Decree on Ecumenism: Unitatis Redintegratio. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1964.

4. Justin Martyr. First Apology. Translated by Marcus Dods and George Reith. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1885.

5. Paul VI. Apostolic Constitution: Missale Romanum. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1969.

6. Paul VI. General Audience Address, November 26, 1969. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1969.

7. Benedict XVI. Motu Proprio: Summorum Pontificum. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2007.

8. Bugnini, Annibale. The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975). Translated by Matthew J. O’Connell. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990.

9. Hippolytus. Apostolic Tradition. Translated by Burton Scott Easton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1934.

10. Jedin, Hubert. A History of the Council of Trent. Translated by Dom Ernest Graf. 2 vols. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957–1961.

Puerto Ricans - The Forgotten Citizens

Some of you may wonder when reading the title of this post why I am calling Puerto Ricans "The Forgotten Citizens."  Well, there are many reasons why and I will try to go through them briefly in this writing.

Puerto Ricans are people who are either born on the island of Puerto Rico or come from parents who were born on the island.  They are mostly a mix of European, Taino Indian, African and sometimes even Asian races.  Puerto Ricans are hard to classify racially speaking.  They come in all colors.  One can meet a Puerto Rican as white as Casper the friendly ghost with blue, hazel or green eyes; or even a Puerto Rican as black as coal with features found among Africans born in Africa.  Furthermore, there are Puerto Ricans that look Indian, Arab or Asian with their particular eyes, skin tones and bone structures.  Because of this, there can be great confusion on the part of non-Puerto Ricans who mistake them for other races.  This also creates a problem on census forms where Puerto Ricans have trouble identifying with a particular race.

Puerto Ricans are a culturally proud people who love to display their music, food, and flag publicly without shame.  They are festive and it is rare to find an anti-social Puerto Rican. Unfortunately, the history between the United States of America and Puerto Ricans has not been so tidy.  Puerto Ricans were often mistreated by non-Puerto Ricans in the mainland American.  Some in the Catholic Church even gave Puerto Ricans a hard time by making them pay a quarter to sit at Mass, or were forced to attend Mass in a basement or lower church.  Because of this, many Puerto Ricans left and are part of Evangelical or Pentecostal sects.

They were originally under Spanish rule until the United States took the island over and Spain eventually gave it away completely in order to alleviate its debts.  It wasn't until 1917 when Puerto Ricans became official citizens in the United States of America.  In 1948, Congress broaden the citizenship to include all Puerto Ricans born in the States or the Island of Puerto Rico.  Over 75% of Puerto Ricans speak English fluently.  This allows them great flexibility in American life.  However, they are a forgotten people in America.

Democrats and others who identify themselves as "liberals" often push for "immigrant rights" and so on.  They feel that immigrants who came here illegally should be allowed to stay.  A form of amnesty is often proposed in Congress allowing them to stay with full rights and protection under US law.  Naturally, many Americans oppose this because it is not fair for people to come illegally to the nation and then get a free pass to become a citizen.  These critics are often the descendants of immigrants themselves who came from Europe but argue that their ancestors earned their citizenship and did not enter the nation illegally.

Those in favor of illegal immigrants try hard to pass laws to allow them to have licenses, better job opportunities, welfare assistance, earn college degrees and so forth.  However, not much is said of Hispanics who are already citizens, namely Puerto Ricans.  Only about 14% of Puerto Ricans earn a bachelor's degree.  This is not good.  Leaders in the Puerto Rican community often forget their own people and do not encourage education nor advocate for their fellow Puerto Ricans.  Puerto Ricans have suffered discrimination, poverty and other social issues for no reason.  They are American citizens and deserve to be treated as such and not forgotten.

In many instances, illegal immigrants are given priority over a Puerto Rican!  This is absurd and a

complete betrayal to the Puerto Rican people and their status as citizens of the United States of America.  Archbishop of San Juan, Roberto Gonzalez is under fire from Vatican officials for speaking a little more on Puerto Rican rights than he should; however, I don't blame him. Gonzalez was  born in the States and probably knows well the hardships that his people have endured and still endure.  To be a citizen, yet not be; is not something that lifts the morale of any people.  For a Puerto Rican to be wrapped up in red tape when trying to get assistance or an opportunity to live the American dream while an illegal immigrant can easily get help is unfair.

Puerto Ricans have much to contribute to American society as a whole.  Supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor is an example of what a Puerto Rican can become if he/she is given equal treatment and not treated like a second class citizen while others who are not citizens are put ahead. The Puerto Rican people need a Dr. King figure who will bring about change and respect.  It is disturbing to see Al Sharpton show his face when a controversial issue involves Puerto Ricans and no other Puerto Rican leader is present.

African Americans are not the only group who are harassed and profiled.  Many times, when a Hispanic commits a crime, he is automatically labeled a Puerto Rican despite being Mexican, Dominican, Cuban or what not.  Take Salsa singer Marc Anthony for example who was harassed for singing the anthem at the All Star game.  In some instances, members of other groups purposely pretend to be Puerto Rican in order to fit in society or get opportunities.  They have even stolen the identities of Puerto Ricans which forced Puerto Rico to reissue birth certificates.  Only those who can distinguish between dialects, accents and body language can truly tell who is Puerto Rican and who is not.  Shouting 'wepa' or dancing Salsa does not make one Puerto Rican.  

Moreover, many Puerto Rican elected officials sell out their own people by adopting the "white man's" rhetoric.  This rhetoric includes the Americanization of Puerto Ricans by forcing them to erase their cultural ties and become part of the American collective, so to speak.  It also includes adopting liberal ideologies such as abortion, contraception, gay rights and other agendas that were never part of the Puerto Rican people's philosophy who value life, family and tradition.  Being American doesn't mean one must forget where one came from, nor replace one's values and morals.

I hope the Puerto Rican people are treated better and that they wake up and demand respect. Their needs have to be met and put before that of others who clearly broke laws by entering our nation.

To my knowledge, the breaking of a law means one is a law-breaker or criminal.  Why give preference to law-breakers when you have citizens here who are in need of many things and want to achieve the American dream without being discriminated against or assimilated into another ethnicity?

      

Father Pablo Straub - Rest In Peace

EWTN favorite and personality Father Pablo Straub of the Redemptorists order has passed on to the Lord after 44 years of priestly ministry.  He died in Cancun, Mexico

Father Straub was born in May 1932 in East Rockaway, Long Island.  He would enter the Redemptorist order at a young age and would be ordained in 1958. His first work as a priest was missionary ministry.  He worked in Puerto Rico for 20 years, the Philippines, Peru and Mexico for another 20 years.

As part of this mission work, he also gave missions in the United States and produced many programs for EWTN.  He is known for wearing his habit and carrying a large crucifix often cradling it as if it were an infant. He was a prolific speaker and knew how to get the attention of the people with his tone and body language.

Father Straub lit up the flame of faith in lapsed Catholics as well as active Catholics.  He has also
brought in new converts thanks to the grace of God who used him to preach the good news of Christ Jesus.

Father will truly be missed.  May he rest in God's peace.  




Source:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/redemptorist-father-pablo-straub-1932-2013/

The Blimp full of Hot Air

Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey is known for his "in-your-face" attitude and refusal to budge on any of the issues he holds a solid opinion on.  Well on one particular one, he broke his integrity as a leader.

After vetoing many bills promoting the legalization of so-called "gay marriage," Christie dropped his state appeal against a ruling given by Judge Mary Jacobson allowing gay couples to marry in New Jersey making it the 14th state to allow this atrocity.  Christie's decision may be a surprise to some but not to those who are politically savvy.

Christie is up for reelection in the state and has a strong vocal opponent in Barbara Buono.  She has called Christie on his views against so-called "same sex marriage" in an attempt to make herself the viable modern candidate that New Jersey needs.  Christie is trying to get votes from everyone, even gays and liberals in a largely democratic state.  By doing so, he has shown himself to be hypocritical, dishonest and lacking of integrity for changing his position along the way, so to speak.
Christie is a 2016 presidential contender and has disappointed many republicans as well as those who want marriage defended and protected.  He has demonstrated himself to be the typical politician who lies to get elected and does not hold onto his values.  
 
It is a sad time for New Jersey now and will be for America if this guy becomes president.
    


Source:
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/chris-christie-gay-marriage-decision-98607.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/chris-christie-gay-marriage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/chris-christie-gay-marriage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tag/chris-christie-gay-rights

http://news.yahoo.com/chris-christie-gay-marriage-move-stirs-gop-072124880--election.html

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/23/opinion/zelizer-chris-christie-gay-rights/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/chris-christie-abandons-gay-marriage-appeal-article-1.1491545

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/oct/21/news/la-pn-chris-christie-gay-marriage-decision-2016-20131021

Atheism is STUPID IV

In this my fourth installment of my "Atheism is STUPID" series of posts, I will focus on the "Prime Mover," "Unmoved Mover," or "Primum Movens."
The "Prime Mover" is an idea that originates from Aristotle.  In this idea, Aristotle posits that there is a force or 'something/one' that moves everything in the universe, yet has no need to be started or moved.

In books 8 and 12 of his Physics and Metaphysics works, Aristotle has this to say: "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world."  This 'Prime Mover' is responsible for everything.  Aristotle even adds the concept "Active Intellect" to this 'Prime Mover.' (De Anima) St. Thomas Aquinas would later build upon these concepts in his work presenting proof of God's existence.

Atheists who have hijacked Science in order to push the Atheism agenda counter these arguments by claiming that a God is not needed to 'move' the universe.  'There is no intelligence behind creation,' they often claim.  Natural processes discovered using the scientific method are enough to disprove the notion of a 'mover' including the idea that this 'mover' is intelligent.

Is this really so?  Has science killed God and Aristotle's views?

Atheists will say yes.  They will argue till blue in the face claiming that science has wiped out the necessity for a God or 'prime mover.'  Things in nature can be explain via the processes that allow them to exist and function in the universe.  While the latter is true; we do know that nature is full of processes and for the most part, we can understand many of these processes to the detail; however, this does not mean there is no God, 'mover' or 'active intellect' behind it all.  The device I am using to type this did not come together on its own despite being able to run processes without my constant input. It may run on its own, but this 'running' had a primal cause that moved it and continues it to move into functioning.

Energy is eternal.  It cannot be created or destroyed in the current state that it exists in our universe, yet it came from somewhere.  How is this possible?  Well, physicists are still working on that.  There are two major types of energy: potential energy and kinetic energy.  Potential energy is stored energy that will have the 'potential' to move and become active.  Kinetic energy is energy that is already active, or on the move.  This energy allows for the many processes found in nature which allow for life.  It allows for evolution to take place, for space to expand, and galaxies to form and so on.

Just because these processes exist and we can explain them does not mean that they did not originate from an active intellect that is the prime mover.  Since energy exists in its current form in our universe, yet had an origin, this energy cannot be the prime mover.  Since energy is not conscious, it cannot be the active intellect.  The latter is the attribute of a being possessing personhood, not a thing or a place. This mover would be a conscious agent active and intelligent.  

Some atheists may say, "nothing created the universe, it was just there and took hold; it has no need for a cause, mover or intellect behind its existence;"  what do we say to this argument?  Well if we are to believe that the universe just happened to create itself randomly using energy and other compounds that were already there, well the former would be called an unconscious agent.  If the universe came about from a mover that possesses intellect, then this mover would be a conscious agent.  So in reality, atheism merely makes the creator unconscious.  This is one of the stupidities of atheism.  The creating agent is the primal mover: Atheists believe it to be unconscious while Theists believe it to be conscious.

Atheism merely becomes a nonsensical contrarian position, rather than a rational one.            
          






Sources:

http://www.iep.utm.edu/aris-met/

http://web.archive.org/web/20080907161558/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/AriSoul.html

#StJohnPaul2 Twitterstorm

Join the Twitter Storm

St. John Paul II

October 22, 2013 @ 6:00 PM  

 as we take over Twitter in honor of our beloved Pope John Paul II 

the Great who will be canonized next year.

Tweet to #StJohnPaul2

Eric Holder - Priests Useless

I don't know if I am in America or Nazi Germany or Communist Russia...

According to news reports, Eric Holder does not think that priests contribute to the morale and well being of those in armed service.  One of the consequences of the government shut down has been the furlough of chaplains of all faiths.  Catholic priests make up about 8% of the chaplaincy and their services have been offered to the military since the military existed.  Priests have been told not to offer religious rites to soldiers, nor enter their offices.  If they do, they will be arrested. Ironically, mental health workers have been allowed to offer their services.

This is disturbing indeed.  Many priests and ministers of other faiths have filed suit against the Obama administration for violation the first amendment.  The fact that our government is harassing clergy is scary.  The persecution is taking public hold in America.  I hope priests keep strong and offer the Church's Sacraments even with the threat of arrest.  This will send a strong message to Americans that the government is going too far in shredding the Constitution.      




Source:

http://www.libertynews.com/2013/10/eric-holder-decides-roman-catholic-priests-do-not-contribute-to-the-morale-and-well-being-of-military-members-50-dod-contract-priests-find-their-communion-sets-locked-up/

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terry-jeffrey/dod-bars-50-priests-administering-sacraments-locks-eucharist-priest-sues

Avonte Oquendo Missing

On October 4, 2013 just shortly after noon, a parent's nightmare became reality.  A child has gone missing. 

Young Avonte Oquendo, just fourteen years old left his Riverdale school in Queens without the staff even knowing.  Oquendo has non-verbal autism which makes it difficult for him to communicate with others and for others to infer his introspection.

A week has passed so far and there has been no trace of young Oquendo.  The family is worried and things seem to be grim.  New York weather around this time is unpredictable.  There are times it can be a summer like day and other times when it can be cold as winter.  The fact that a young autistic kid that cannot talk is lost in this big city without shelter, food, or water is troubling and heartbreaking.  I cannot imagine what his parents and family are going through.

Unfortunately, things like this happen far too often.  The public school system has a poor employee training system that concerns more about job requirements than actual people.  Teachers, school aids and others cannot intervene if a child is hurting him/herself.  They must stand back and allow the child to injure him/herself.  A normal response from a caring sane person would be to stop a child from hurting him/herself; however, this is not the case when one holds one of these positions.  It is scary indeed.  No attempt to stop a kid from slashing his/herself will done.  This is of course based on union rules in order to protect employees from termination for using aggressive physical force or from being accused of inappropriate touching.  Legalism puts aside common sense and caring.  Industrial psychologists must find ways to balance laws, career requirements and human dignity.   

Moreover, since the education system and unions concern themselves more with the issues surrounding employment and bureaucracy, not much concern is given to the safety of children.  In light of this, kids like Avonte are not supervised and are left to go missing.  No one is held accountable, and officials reply " no comment" to questions.  Those charged with supervision are defended as "doing their job." 

Some have criticized Oquendo's parents for filing a lawsuit, but I think this is a good way to bring out the message that our kids are first.  We shouldn't put our jobs, laws, careers over the safety of children.

Thank God many volunteers have stepped forward to help in the search for young Avonte.  Unfortunately, some "psychics" are calling in giving false information and hope to officials conducting the search.  This should stop.  No one has "psychic" powers.  Temporal events are not determined linearly.  There is a $70,000 reward for anyone with information leading to finding Avonte.

Let us pray for Avonte that he may be found safe and sound.    



Source:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/11/avonte-oquendo-missing-autistic-mute_n_4084409.html

  

Jesus Was Invented by Romans

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 2 John 1:7

News reports are circulating around that a new document claims that Jesus is an invention of the Roman empire in order to pacify its subjects.  As expected, atheists are shouting "ah ha!"  

Is this really so?

The idea comes from Joseph Atwill who is a self-professed American Biblical scholar.  He says he will release the details of his discovery in his work "Covert Messiah" soon.  Atwill says he wants people to know the "truth."   He claims that 'alert citizens need to know the truth about our past so we can understand how and why governments create false histories and false gods.'  While this is not new, the story appeared last year; Richard Dawkins immediately forwarded it on twitter.  Ignorant atheists who claim to value the ability to question, ironically do not question this news and blindly accept its contents.   

Many Biblical scholars quickly came forward to describe Atwills' theory has nonsense and unfounded.  Some of these scholars are even those who believe Jesus existed but that He was not Divine.  Atwills claims a document from a Roman aristocrat says that the Romans invented Jesus in order to control rebels in Rome.  You can read more of this in his site: http://www.covertmessiah.com/ 

Is Atwill right? 

Absolutely not!  His work can be considered the equivalent of September 11 conspiracy theories.  Atwill is simply recycling the same rubbish that Jesus and other deities/figures have some similarities.  He then concludes that this must mean that Jesus is made up.
Moreover, he adds a text written by a Roman aristocrat to somehow "prove" his theory.  He completely ignores that there are extra-biblical texts supporting the fact that a man named Jesus Christ lived, performed miracles and died over 2000 years ago.  Furthermore, these sources clearly depict that this man was worshiped as a God.  See my debate with an atheist here:

 Is Christ a myth?

If we critically analyze Atwill's work we can see many discrepancies.

1. He ignores the other sources proving Jesus existed which no scholar rejects.  Even an atheist scholar named Michael Grant said that to claim Jesus is a myth is unfounded.    
2. Atwill claims Jesus was invented in order to control rebels.  Even if this were true, history shows that this did not work and did not happen. The Roman empire was eventually taken over by the Catholic Church.  Moreover, how can inventing a male figure control rebels? This makes absolutely no sense.  
3. Atwill also ignores the witness of early Christians who had nothing to do with Rome.  They obviously encountered a person so powerful that they transformed their lives; many even died for the faith this man spread around.  
4. He ignores that Simon Peter, the first Pope ordained Ignatias of Antioch and that an apostolic succession did occur at a point in time which continues even till today.  The Church did not just appear out of nowhere for the heck of it.  The Catholic Church is not a random anomaly in space and time.  Obviously, something happened to trigger the formation of this huge religion.  Ideas last when they provide fruit.  It is clear that Christianity has such a strong substance in the past that it developed into the powerful force it is today.  Only trees with deep strong roots have a strong foundation and grow strong without interruption.   
5. Moreover, let's not forget the billions who encounter Christ even today.  

Here are some quotes from scholars, many who are atheists or agnostics.  They all testify to the truth that Jesus is real.

Bart Ehrman,
"I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus …. We have more evidence for Jesus than we have for almost anybody from his time period. ….. We have one author who actually knew Jesus' relatives and knew his disciples - Paul."

Michael Grant:
"[That Jesus was a myth] has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars .... no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus."

Marcus Borg, Professor of Religion and Culture at Oregon State University:
"some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed, and he really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. ….. We can in fact know as much about Jesus as we can about any figure in the ancient world."

James H. Charlesworth, Professor of New Testament Language and Literature. Princeton University:
"Jesus did exist; and we know more about him than about almost any Palestinian Jew before 70 C.E." (Jesus Within Judaism)
"No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings" (Jesus and Archaeology, 2005)

Jeffery Jay Lowder:
"I think that the New Testament does provide prima facie evidence for the historicity of Jesus. It is clear, then, that if we are going to apply to the New Testament the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we should not require independent confirmation of the New Testament's claim that Jesus existed."

Craig Evans:
"Research in the historical Jesus has taken several positive steps in recent years. Archaeology, remarkable literary discoveries, such as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and progress in reassessing the social, economic, and political setting of first-century Palestine have been major factors. .... the persistent trend in recent years is to see the Gospels as essentially reliable, especially when properly understood, and to view the historical Jesus in terms much closer to Christianity’s traditional understanding"

Tom Wright:
"The historical evidence for Jesus himself is extraordinarily good. .... the evidence dovetails together with remarkable consistency, as I and many others have shown in works of very detailed historical scholarship. From time to time people try to suggest that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, but virtually all historians of whatever background now agree that he did, and most agree that he did and said a significant amount at least of what the four gospels say he did and said."

Professor Robert van Voorst ("Jesus Outside the New Testament", p14, 16)
"The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question. …. Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."

The verdict is in by over 99% of scholars: JESUS DID EXIST!

Christians have no need to be concerned with this guy's work.  He is just trying to sell a book.  I can write a book saying Thomas Pain did not exist and claim that because we don't have his body, I am correct in making this claim. This would be poor research and logic.  Atwill is doing the same.  He is repeating old refuted arguments and adding a text to them in order to infer that Jesus was an invention only because a Roman around that time period said so.   This is called the False Cause fallacy.

It is a sad day in academia when any text can be used to formulate all kinds of theories.  Imagine 2000 years from now, some scholar reads your best friend's journal where he/she speaks ill of you and that scholar then declares you a jerk only because of that best friend's journal entry.

Atwill is not taken seriously by any scholar in academia.  Even atheists are skeptical of his supposed claims.

Jesus Christ existed as living human being who performed miracles proving Him to be Divine; He still exists today and lives among us in the Blessed Sacrament.  He also lives in the Word we read at Mass and at home in the Bible.  He also lives in our hearts and knocks on the heart of even atheists.  He is also in every person we encounter.

May Jesus Christ be praised forever!        






Sources:

http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/09/biblical-scholar-claims-jesus-was-invented-by-romans/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/did-jesus-exist_b_1349544.html

http://www.villagevoice.com/2012-09-26/film/caesar-s-messiah-rome-invented-jesus-new-doc-claims/

http://www.covertmessiah.com/

http://www.sott.net/article/267291-Ancient-confession-found-We-invented-Jesus-Christ

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451087/American-Bible-scholar-claims-ancient-confessions-prove-story-Jesus-Christ-entirely-fabricated-Roman-aristocrats.html

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/rev_atwill.htm

http://www.dailypaul.com/247330/the-roman-empire-and-the-catholic-church-are-about-to-fall-the-roman-conspiracy-to-create-jesus-christ-unveiled

http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/no-joe-atwill-rome-did-not-invent-jesus/

Holy Sh..!!

A study done in Austria has demonstrated that over 80% of 21 "holy water springs" and "18 fonts" had high levels of microbes as well as fecal matter.  The study was conducted by Vienna university.

Immediately, comedians like Bill Maher tweeted silly tweets mocking the study while giving his usual jab at religion.  Other atheists began to use this study to attack Catholicism and religion in general claiming the study to show that "religion is full of sh..."  These kinds of comments only show the ignorance behind atheism and how it fails to realize that holy water is not immune to natural processes or phenomenon.

Any water source, blessed or not will contract bacteria, algae and other substances when touched by hands or an external source.  This is a no-brainer.  The attempt to make this study into a "holy water doesn't work or is a source or infection" thing is silly.  Anyone who critically analyzes the study will come to the conclusion that there is a big problem of personal hygiene in Austria.  The water is NOT the problem.  The problem comes from the people who are contaminating the water.  Atheists who are using this study to attack the sacramental called 'holy water' are merely demonstrating a lack of critical thinking skills.

More needs to be done to teach people about hygiene; not only in Austria, but all over the world.  Other studies have found fecal matter and deadly microbes on public phones, ATM machines, door knobs, cell phones, book, rails on staircases, etc. (http://www.medpagetoday.com/PublicHealthPolicy/EnvironmentalHealth/33001, http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/17/study-1-in-6-cell-phones-contaminated-with-fecal-matter/)    Are we to conclude that public phones, door knobs etc generate disease and fecal matter?  No, of course not!  The problem is again the people who touch these things and do not practice hygiene, not the things themselves.

We all must wash our hands constantly and use purell or other antibacterial gels when out in public.  This should be common sense.  People should not drink holy water.  The Church has no teaching stating that we should drink holy water.  Holy Water is a sacramental, or holy reminders that are blessed and used to remind us of Christ and bring about pious actions.  It is not spring water to drink, nor medicine.  Sacristans in parishes should make sure to wash fonts regularly and replace the holy water often.       



Source:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/18/us-austria-water-idUSBRE98H0AG20130918

http://healthyliving.msn.com/blogs/daily-apple-blog-post?post=0a972686-a8a6-4081-b020-c5c12c72cc34

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/15/most-holy-water-contaminated-fecal-matter-study/

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/09/23/study-holy-water-often-contaminated-with-fecal-matter-bacteria/    

Mormons

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints: A Journey Through History, Beliefs, and Controversies

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), often referred to as the Mormon Church, is a religious movement that has grown from a small group in upstate New York to a global faith with over 17 million members. Its history is marked by resilience, unique theological perspectives, and significant controversies that continue to shape its identity. This post explores the origins, core beliefs, and contentious issues surrounding the LDS Church, offering a balanced look at a faith that has both inspired devotion and sparked debate.

A Brief History: From Vision to Global Movement

The LDS Church traces its origins to the 1820s in western New York, during a period of religious fervor known as the Second Great Awakening. Joseph Smith Jr., a young farmboy, claimed to have received a vision at age 14, in which God and Jesus instructed him not to join any existing Christian denomination. Three years later, Smith said an angel named Moroni directed him to a set of golden plates buried near Palmyra, New York. These plates, inscribed with "reformed Egyptian" writing, were translated by Smith into the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. The book describes ancient Israelites who migrated to the Americas, where they became the Nephites and Lamanites, and were visited by Jesus Christ after His resurrection.

Smith founded the Church of Christ in 1830, later renamed the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The early years were turbulent—Smith and his followers faced hostility for their unconventional beliefs, moving from New York to Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois. In Missouri, tensions with locals led to violent clashes, including the 1838 expulsion of Mormons from the state. In Illinois, Smith established the city of Nauvoo, but his practice of polygamy and political ambitions fueled further conflict. In 1844, Smith was killed by a mob while in jail, leaving the movement at a crossroads.

Brigham Young emerged as the leader of the majority of Smith’s followers, leading them on a grueling migration to the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, then part of Mexican territory. This exodus, undertaken by tens of thousands of Mormon pioneers, solidified Utah as the heart of the faith. Young’s leadership shaped the region’s religious and political landscape, though tensions with the U.S. government persisted, particularly over polygamy. The church formally renounced the practice in 1890, paving the way for Utah’s statehood in 1896. Today, the LDS Church is headquartered in Salt Lake City and has a global presence, with significant membership in Latin America, Africa, the Philippines, and Oceania.

Core Beliefs: A Distinctive Christian Theology

The LDS Church identifies as a restorationist Christian movement, believing that the true church established by Jesus Christ was lost after the apostles’ deaths and restored through Joseph Smith. While Mormons consider themselves Christians, their theology diverges from mainstream Christianity in several key ways:

• Scripture: In addition to the Bible (typically the King James Version), Mormons revere the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants (a collection of Smith’s revelations), and the Pearl of Great Price as canonical texts. These works are seen as divine revelations complementing biblical teachings.
• Godhead: Unlike the Trinitarian view of most Christian denominations, Mormons believe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct beings united in purpose, not substance. They also hold that God the Father has a physical body and that humans are literal spirit children of God, with the potential to become gods in the afterlife—a doctrine summarized by Lorenzo Snow: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”
• Salvation and Ordinances: Salvation requires faith, repentance, and ordinances like baptism and temple rituals. A unique practice is baptism for the dead, where living members are baptized on behalf of deceased relatives, who can accept or reject the ordinance in the afterlife. This reflects the church’s emphasis on eternal families, sealed together through temple ceremonies.
• Continuing Revelation: Mormons believe in ongoing revelation through a living prophet, currently Russell M. Nelson, who is seen as God’s mouthpiece on earth. This belief in modern prophecy sets the church apart from other Christian traditions.
• Lifestyle: The church promotes a strict health code, the Word of Wisdom, prohibiting alcohol, tobacco, coffee, tea, and addictive substances. Members are encouraged to tithe, serve missions (often two years for young men), and prioritize family life.

The church’s emphasis on community, missionary work, and genealogy (to facilitate baptisms for the dead) has fostered a strong sense of identity among its members. However, these beliefs have also drawn scrutiny and debate.

Controversies: A History of Challenges

The LDS Church’s history is rife with controversies, some rooted in its early practices and others emerging from modern social dynamics. Here are some of the most significant issues:

• Polygamy: Perhaps the most infamous controversy, polygamy (or plural marriage) was practiced by church leaders from the 1840s until its official ban in 1890. Joseph Smith is believed to have had up to 40 wives, and Brigham Young had around 50. The practice led to legal battles with the U.S. government, culminating in the 1882 criminalization of polygamy. Even after the 1890 Manifesto, some members continued the practice, leading to a second declaration in 1904 and the excommunication of practitioners. Today, the church distances itself from polygamous splinter groups like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (FLDS), but the legacy of polygamy remains a point of contention.
• Racial Policies: Until 1978, the church barred Black men of African descent from holding the priesthood or participating in temple ordinances, a policy rooted in teachings that linked dark skin to a curse from God, often tied to the biblical figure Cain or the Book of Mormon’s Lamanites. The church also taught that Black individuals were “less valiant” in a pre-mortal existence. This policy, upheld by multiple prophets, was reversed in 1978 amid growing civil rights pressure, but the church did not formally disavow these teachings until 2013. The delay and the historical racism have drawn significant criticism, with scholars like Paul Mueller noting the difficulty of reconciling past prophetic teachings with the church’s claim of divine guidance.
• Book of Mormon Historicity: The Book of Mormon’s claim to chronicle ancient American civilizations (Nephites and Lamanites) lacks archaeological, genetic, or linguistic support. Mainstream historians and archaeologists find no evidence of large-scale battles, Semitic origins for Native Americans, or the existence of “reformed Egyptian.” Critics also point to anachronisms in the text, such as mentions of steel, horses, and elephants, which did not exist in pre-Columbian America. The Book of Abraham, another of Smith’s translations, has been debunked by Egyptologists, who found that the papyri Smith used do not mention Abraham and date to a much later period. These issues challenge the church’s foundational claims, though many members view the texts as spiritual rather than historical.
• Treatment of Minorities: The church’s historical treatment of Native Americans includes the Indian Placement Program (1950s-1990s), which encouraged members to foster Native children, often leading to cultural assimilation and, in some cases, abuse. Church teachings that Native Americans are Lamanite descendants with a cursed, dark skin that would lighten through righteousness have been criticized as racist. Similarly, the church’s policies on LGBTQ+ individuals have sparked controversy. In 2015, the church labeled same-sex couples as apostates and barred their children from baptism until age 18, a policy reversed in 2019 after significant backlash. Openly gay, bisexual, and transgender members face restrictions on ordination and temple participation, leading to internal dissent and external criticism.
• Historical Revisionism and Transparency: Historians like D. Michael Quinn have accused church leaders of suppressing controversial aspects of Mormon history, such as discrepancies in Smith’s First Vision accounts or the church’s role in the 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre, where a Mormon militia killed 120 emigrants in Utah. The church has been criticized for excommunicating scholars like Fawn Brodie and Brent Metcalfe, who published critical works, and for lack of transparency in its finances. In 2023, the Securities and Exchange Commission charged the church and its investment arm, Ensign Peak Advisors, with failing to disclose billions in assets, further fueling debates over financial secrecy.
• Violence and Persecution: Early Mormons faced violent opposition—Smith was tarred and feathered in 1832, and 1,200 Mormons were expelled from Missouri in 1838. However, the church has also been implicated in violence, most notably the Mountain Meadows Massacre, which some historians attribute to Brigham Young’s influence, though the church blames local leaders and Paiute Indians. The massacre remains a dark chapter, with ongoing debates over accountability.

A Faith at a Crossroads

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stands as a testament to the power of belief and community, having grown from a persecuted sect to a global religion. Its emphasis on family, service, and personal revelation resonates with millions, yet its history and doctrines continue to provoke scrutiny. The church has made efforts to address past wrongs—disavowing racist teachings, reversing anti-LGBTQ+ policies, and promoting a multicultural image through campaigns like “I’m a Mormon” (2011-2012). However, critics argue that these steps are insufficient, pointing to ongoing issues like the treatment of sexual minorities, financial opacity, and the lack of historical evidence for its foundational texts.

For many members, faith in the church’s divine mission transcends these controversies. They point to personal spiritual experiences—“a burning in the bosom”—as confirmation of its truth. Yet, for others, the discrepancies between the church’s claims and historical reality, coupled with its handling of dissent, have led to disaffection, particularly among younger generations. The church reports that about 40% of U.S. members and 30% worldwide regularly attend services, with disengagement often peaking among millennials.

The LDS Church’s journey reflects a broader tension in religious movements: balancing tradition with modernity, authority with openness. As it navigates these challenges, its ability to adapt while maintaining its core identity will shape its future. Whether viewed as a restoration of true Christianity or a product of 19th-century American imagination, the Mormon story remains a compelling chapter in the history of faith.