[DelphiUser]

Well, you appear to be the only apologist that wishes to enter into discussion of what I understand to be published Mormon doctrine, instead of huffily pronouncing that the non Mormon Gentiles don’t understand anything about the faith and leaving the discussion.

Thank you.

I feel the same way about being called an "Apologist" as others do about being called anti Mormon, I have nothing to apologize for, my faith is a good thing. However, i accept it because it is the term that is in use, as Anti-Mormons should accept the accurate, but unflattering label that is in use for their position /rant

For some fun, click on my name and check out my page here at FR, I have done some research on the Trinity and the First Council at Nice from the Mormon perspective. it might be illustrative, then again, it might just be boring to you. (YMMV)

[MarkBsnr]

Apologist in this context means a spokesman, defender, or promoter. It is used frequently in terms of Christianity. Thus, I label myself as a Catholic / Christian apologist.

Thank you for the links - I went to several - as well as your easy-to-read summaries. And they do confirm that the LDS view of Jesus Christ is significantly different from mainstream Christianity, reviving some of the ancient Christian heresies. The Catholic Church, while recognizing most Protestant baptisms, does not recognize LDS baptisms precisely because of that different understanding of Jesus.

So for me, it simply means that we disagree on our theology, much as I’d disagree with the Animists, Bahais or Hindus. I do have a problem with the redefining of many Christian terms and entities to the LDS definitions, but as long as I understand where you are coming from and what you mean when you say what you say, then we can certainly have civil discourse.

Thank you very much for being so free and open. I was beginning to think that Mormons were pretty secretive and had something to hide. :)