Power Cords and Apostolic Succession

Look at the picture below, and tell me which of the cords is the one powering the lamp:

Obviously, it's the middle one.  You can know this because the lamp is on (you can see its light), and because you can see where the other two cords begin.  You know this even though you can see neither the outlet nor the lamp.  Sheer process of elimination is enough here.

Understanding the Church works somewhat similarly.  The true Church must go back to the Person of Christ Himself, He's the power outlet, so to speak, of grace.  He promised to establish His own Church, rather than simply leaving the task up to His followers, and He promised that the gates of Hell would not overcome that Church (Matthew 16:18). We'll ignore for now that Christ promised to establish this Church upon Peter, the first pope. The simple matter that we should be looking for Christ's own Church is sufficient.

The early Church Fathers understood this quite well. For example, in Against Heresies, written in 180 A.D., St. Irenaeus wrote:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

For now, let's also ignore the fact that Irenaeus just brought up the centrality of the Bishop of Rome, the pope, and the fact that he called it “a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.” Here's a more fundamental question: why is Irenaeus producing this list in the first place?

The answer is that he's showing that the true Church can trace its lineage all the way back to St. Peter, and thus, back to Christ Personally.  This is why the Nicene Creed declares our belief in “One, Holy, and Apostolic Church.”

Any group of Christians can claim to be the true descendants of Christ, in the sense that they (rather than anyone else) really get what He was talking about, and that they're carrying on His message.  We've heard competing visions of Christ from a God of Wrath to Jesus Christ, Superstar.

The only way to know who's right is by following that cord, Apostolic succession, back to the Apostles, and thus, back to Christ.  This is the system the Apostles set up.  St. Paul says to his student, St. Timothy,  “And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others” (2 Timothy 2:2).  So we can see the line forming already: from Paul to Timothy, from Timothy to those reliable people who Timothy entrusts the Gospel, and so on.

This is something different from simply proclaiming the Gospel, which Paul and Timothy did to everyone, reliable or not. This is a matter of passing on the faith through discreet individuals, who will then take up the mantle as teachers, rather than simply believers.  Remember that it was also St. Paul who asked, “And how can anyone preach unless they are sent?” (Romans 10:15).

You can't just become a preacher because you love the Gospel -- you also have to be sent by the Church.  Plenty of people love the Gospel, but misunderstand core teachings -- requiring the Church's permission is an important step in “quality control.”

When this practice wasn't followed, the Apostles denounced the men who went out on their own (Acts 15:24), and sent Paul and Barnabas in their place (Acts 15:25).  So this notion of each generation of Church leadership selecting the next generation and commissioning them is a solidly Biblical one.

Apostolic Succession, then, in the power cord.  It should show a clear and visible lineage from Jesus Christ to the person standing before you preaching.  And to point out the obvious, if it doesn't go all the way back to the power source, it's worthless. In the picture above, the top cord goes back much further than the bottom one, but since neither connects with the power source, it doesn't matter.

Likewise, Reformed Christians often look down upon our Evangelical brethren, because Evangelical traditions date back to the 19th and 20th century, while Reformed traditions date back to the 16th and 17th century.  But since neither of them can trace Apostolic Succession back to the first century, back to the Apostles, back to Christ during His earthly ministry, who cares?

St. Jerome, who many Protestants feign allegiance to on the question of the canon of Scripture, was quite clear on how to distinguish the true Church from false ones:

We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church.

We don't have to wonder, then, what Jerome would have thought of men calling themselves Lutherans or Calvinists: he already told us.  Nor is there any question what he'd say to those claiming to follow sola Scriptura, and freely concocting new dogmas that they derive from their own reading of Scripture.  But most importantly, look at how clearly Jerome condemns those who start new denominations.

If anything, Jerome is too rough on the heretics of his day, by denouncing their churches as synagogues of the Antichrist (a reference to Rev. 2:9 and Rev. 3:9).  But there should be no question that the early Christians found the legitimate Church by tracing Apostolic succession.  And there's no question that they rejected any churches founded after the time of the Apostles, even if that church claimed to have new insights from Scripture.

All of this stacks up to a compelling case for the Catholic Church.  We can say quite definitively when each Protestant denomination started, including Anglicanism (which began in 1534, when King Henry VIII declared himself the head of the Church of England).  But with the Catholic Church, seemingly no two Protestant apologists can agree on who the first pope was, if not St. Peter.

This brings me to my last point: that Apostolic Succession is not the only criterion we're looking for.  The Orthodox can also plausibly claim to have Apostolic Succession, as can the Anglicans (albeit less plausibly).  As Catholics, we acknowledge the Orthodox as part of the Church for this very reason.  But how do we know, then, whether Catholicism or Orthodoxy is the correct route to follow?

Well, look to the parts I glossed over above.  What else does Jesus tell us in Matthew 16:18?  That He'll build His Church upon Peter.  And what else does Irenaeus tell us?  That Peter, along with Paul, founded the Church of Rome.

And suddenly, a lot of things start to jump out.  For example, the fact that Irenaeus (the bishop of Lyons) traces the pope's lineage, rather than his own -- that suggests that the pope has a pretty special place in the Church.  And then we notice a whole lot of other people doing the same thing: e.g., St. Optatus of Milevis gives a similar list elsewhere, as does the Liberian catalogue of 354 A.D., as does the early Church historian Eusebius.

Each one traces the lineage of Peter in Rome, even though Irenaeus is clear that they could trace anyone's. So we should be looking for two related features: Apostolic Succession and communion with the Bishop of Rome.  These two things are tied together, and found only in one Church on Earth, the Catholic Church.

Was Judas a Real Person?

Places like the History Channel and certain liberal theology programs float wild ideas about the Bible and early Christianity. Many good Christians hear these ideas and quietly struggle with them. To ask them aloud seems heretical, but precisely because we're afraid to talk about that, the questions never get answered. So we end up with Christians who are well-educated in all areas but one: on the topic of religion, they only hear the liberal case on a whole litany of issues. What's particularly sad about this situation is that these questions often have simple answers.

It's because of that that I was glad to see Bethanie Ryan's blog. In her most recent post, she asks whether Judas Iscariot could be considered a mere literary device. Some scholars claim that his name means nothing more than  “The Jew from the place,” and that he likely existed as a stock character to represent anti-Judaic sentiment in early Christianity. As evidence, Bethanie offers the following:

This idea is not a new one. Scripture scholars as of late have played with the idea for various reasons. They see that some of the earliest Biblical materials don't mention him (i.e. Paul and the disputed Q). They see some very good reasons to make a character like that up. The one reason that I find to be the most provocative is that Judas draws even more blame away from the Romans. The early Christian church was in a difficult position. They didn't want to emphasize that the Romans killed Jesus because they wanted to be in the Romans' good graces. Rome was already persecuting them, they didn't need to make more barriers between themselves and Rome. They were also very angry at the Jews who had recently kicked them out of the synagogues. So, what better way to deflect blame from the Romans than to blame the Jews for Jesus' death.

Like I said, I'm glad that she's asking the question aloud.  If Judas isn't real, it seems to me that we couldn't trust even basic things about Apostolic Christianity, since at least one of the Twelve Apostles themselves was fake. Fortunately, I think that this theory is answered easily enough:

I. What's the Deal with Judas Iscariot's Name?

Who is this man?

First, on the subject of Judas' name: It's true that the name Judas literally means “Hebrew” or “Jewish,” but it's also an actual name, just like Christian Slater's first name actually means “Christian.”  In fact, while we're on the subject, the last name “Slater” literally means one who splits rocks into pieces.  By this same logic, perhaps we should conclude that the actor isn't an actual person, but an anti-Protestant literary device, since Protestants are the Christians who broke off from the Rock, and have split into countless denominations.

There are two other Judases in the Bible, both of them beloved.  First, there's Judas Maccabeus, the hero of 1 and 2 Maccabees, who was held in high esteem long before Judas the Iscariot soiled the name.  And the Apostle we call St. Jude was actually named “Judas.” This is really clear in John 14:22, when John has to explain that he's talking about the good Judas.  

Nowadays, we call him “Jude” because people felt funny about praying to “St. Judas” (which is also why he's the patron saint of lost causes... by the time you're asking St. Judas for things, things are probably not looking good for you), but the Greek word is Judas.  As for “Iscariot”, Strong's Concordance lists the name's meaning as “inhabitant of Kerioth.” 

This raises a related point: if Judas was a literary device, why in the world would the authors of the Gospels give another character that name?  Are there any examples in literature in which the villain has the same name as one of the heroes?  If there are, I can't think of any, because it's bad writing.  So that's a strong clue that this is real life (Lutheran Satire notes that this is also the case with the countless women named Mary).

II. Did Saint Paul Talk About Judas?

While St. Paul doesn't mention Judas by name, he refers to him pretty clearly in First Corinthians.  Look at 1 Corinthians 11:23, in which he says, “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread...”  The “betrayal” seems like an obvious reference to Judas.  After all, Jesus being persecuted by the Romans or even the Sanhedrin isn't “betrayal,” since they were openly hostile to Him. But Jesus being sold out by one of His own Disciples... that's betrayal.  So as early as the writings of St. Paul, we see reference to the fact that Jesus wasn't just killed, but betrayed.


The passage appears to be part of a formulaic Eucharistic prayer, suggesting that it's older even than First Corinthians itself.  St. Paul also describes it as something he's already taught to the Corinthians, and something which he didn't create “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you.”).

Israeli flag, with the Star of David

A few Chapters later, St. Paul also mentions “the Twelve” in 1 Corinthians 15:5.  If Judas didn't exist, then he obviously wasn't one of the Twelve, and we're one Disciple short.

Both of these references come from 1 Corinthians, which was indisputably written by St. Paul, probably in the 50s A.D. At this point, the Christians hadn't been ejected from the synagogues, so the whole idea that Judas Iscariot was payback for an event which hadn't happened yet falls apart.

But let's go back well before St. Paul.  In Psalm 41:9, we see a prophesy of Judas' betrayal, which Jesus references in John 13:18.  Here's where the anti-Semitic literary device thing completely explodes.  It would be strange for the human author of Psalm 41 to be simply venting his anti-Semitism, because the human author of Psalm 41 is King David.  You may recognize his star on the Israeli flag over there.  He's widely considered the greatest king the Israelites ever had.  You might as well claim that Moses was anti-Semitic. Watch out, Father Abraham, you're next.

III. An Obvious Solution

The reason we hear more about Judas in the Gospels than in the Pauline epistles is that the Gospels are biographies of Jesus' time on Earth (where Judas played a pivotal role), while the Pauline Epistles deal with specific problems facing the early Church (at which point, Judas was already dead - Acts 1:18).

 Likewise, if you were to compare a modern book about World War II, with a book written twenty years ago about the early 90s, you'd probably see certain figures (like FDR or Churchhill) only in the World War II book.  That doesn't mean people didn't know who FDR was twenty years ago (or that FDR is a made up character).  In fact, you might even seem fleeting references to things like the New Deal in the book about the 90s. It's the same situation here. The Gospels, while likely written later, are written about an earlier period of time.

Conclusion

Judas Iscariot's first name actually points to his authenticity, since it'd be awfully strange to give him the same name as the good Judas.  And his last name is pretty boring.  He's also referenced in some of the earliest writings of Christianity.  The major motive to create a Judas Iscariot stock figure -- to get back at Jewish people for ejecting Jewish Christians from the synagogues -- doesn't work, since Judas' betrayal is talked about (and apparently, referenced in the Liturgy), before this ejection even occurs.

So there seems to be no particular reason to think that Judas was made up, and plenty of reason to think that he actually existed.  He's numbered amongst the Twelve, his betrayal is prophesied in the Old Testament, and he's spoken of throughout the Gospels as an actual person, not a character. Jesus says things to him.  Based on the weight of the evidence, I think one has to conclude that Judas existed, and that liberal scholars are grasping at straws on this point.

Mormons at Your Door: Evangelizing the Missionaries

Yesterday, I talked about some of the basics for what to expect when Mormon missionaries come to the door.  Today, I'm going to take some examples from a real life encounter with Mormon missionaries to show how you can use it as an opportunity to Evangelize them.

On Wednesday, my friends Cary and Meg had invited me to join them at dinner with a couple of Mormon (LDS) missionaries.  During dinner, we talked about their lives and about their mission. Afterwards, we move over to the couch, and got down to the nitty-gritty of the things which unite and divide us.  It really was a blessing to have two missionaries as open to listening as these two men were. I'm not sure if we helped at all, but I think the Holy Spirit was able to use us a bit . In any case, here are the basic arguments we raised; I'd love to hear feedback about how strong or weak you feel each one is.

I . The "Great Apostasy" and Apostolic Succession

Cary went right for this one, because he'd been reading about it, and was genuinely confused by the Mormon position. In a nutshell, here's the LDS position:

Mormonism teaches that not long after Jesus Christ's lifetime, internal rebellions within the early Christian community caused the primitive Christian Church, led by the Twelve Apostles to disappear and be replaced by many factions, each of which had pieces of the truth, but not a fullness. More importantly, this falling away (see 2 Thessalonians 2:3) resulted in a loss of authority, which Mormons call Priesthood. Without proper authority from God, man cannot perform the ordinances of the Church. [...] 

Many of the Apostles and righteous members of Christ’s Church were killed by the wicked, and the priesthood along with Christ’s Church were taken from the earth. Persecution of those who were called Christians began in about the first century by the Roman Empire. Revelation could no longer be received on behalf of the Church, because there was no one authorized by God to receive it, although individuals could and continued to receive inspiration in their personal lives. [...] 

The Restoration, a necessary event after an apostasy, came about through Joseph Smith. In the spring of 1829, while translating the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were visited by heavenly messengers who restored to them the Priesthood, the authority to act in God's name. In 1830, the Church of Christ, as the Mormon Church was originally called, was organized officially. The authority to act in God’s name was restored, as was true doctrine. Latter-day Saints believe there are again Apostles on the earth, and a Prophet who guides the Church of Christ through revelation and the power of the priesthood. 

So in about 95-105 A.D., the Church which Jesus promised wouldn't be overcome by the gates of Hades, death (Matthew 16:17-19), was overcome by the death of the last Apostle, St. John.  But then the Church was restored through Joseph Smith, and it hasn't been wiped out again.

The missionaries explained that the early Church died out because of the wickedness of the people. If Mormons thought Catholics were wicked God-hating apostates, this view would make sense. But that's not the view they take these days.  They tend to think that the early Catholics were God-fearing, but just didn't have the full truth.  In fact, they think that these early Christians (1) more or less recognized which Books were the word of God (the Old and New Testaments), and (2) preserved these Books carefully. The Mormon Joseph Smith Edition of the Bible is based off of the King James Version, which is based off of the early Christian manuscripts. The JSE makes a few minor tweaks, but it's very close to the KJV.

So we're left to believe that there were early Christians trying to follow God, and doing a pretty good job of it (preserving the Bible, going to the death for the faith, and all that), yet who God considered too wicked for the Church to remain with.  If they're too wicked to be trusted with the Church, how can we trust them with the Bible?   We raised a few major points in response to these Apostasy/Restoration claims:

1. Why was Joseph Smith able to carry on the Church and Jesus wasn't?  Jesus personally founded the New Testament Church in Matthew 16:17-19, and calls it His Church.  Within the Mormon view, God's own Church died out faster than 8-track tapes.  Cary asked why this view didn't elevate Joseph Smith over Jesus.
   
2. Doesn't this view leave Mormonism's status in serious question?  If the early Church unwittingly fell into a total Apostasy, who's to say that it hasn't happened again?
   
3. The third pope was already in Rome by the death of St. John. Cary mentioned this, but I thought his point was great.  By the time the Apostle John dies, we know from Church history that Peter (who'd died about thirty years before) was succeeded by Popes Linus and Clements. If the papacy was a false Church, and if the rest of the bishops throughout Christendom were phonies, why didn't the Apostle John say anything to condemn them?
   
4. Jesus praises the early Church. Not only do we see, from the Book of Acts, a Church which is on fire for Christ and rapidly growing, but even by the end of John's life, the Church is still pleasing God. Just read the praises bestowed in the Book of Revelation, perhaps the last-written Book of the Bible.  In Revelation 1, Jesus tells St. John to deliver specific messages to each of the seven area churches.  And He's got mostly good things to say to the churches in Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, and Philadelphia. Sure, the Church, both locally and globally, had / has / will have problems, but Jesus is encouraging these Christians, not denouncing their wickedness.

This last point is important, I think, because it basically disproves the Mormon case for the Great Apostasy.  If, towards the close of the Apostle John's life, there are still worthy men following Christ, men who Jesus Christ Himself announces that He's pleased with, there are surely men to draw the next generation of Church leaders from.  The Mormon claim that these Christians were simply too wicked runs headlong into the praises bestowed by Jesus.

II. Abortion

One area where most Mormons are excellent is morality. The two missionaries we spoke to had no problem denouncing abortion as murder, and saying that even in the tough cases (rape, incest, etc.), there are better options. In fact, they pointed to the numerous social services which the LDS Church provided.   I said, "I thought your church permitted abortion in some circumstances?" and they denied it.  At this point, I read from the official LDS website:

Church leaders have said that some exceptional circumstances may justify an abortion, such as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But even these circumstances do not automatically justify an abortion. Those who face such circumstances should consider abortion only after consulting with their local Church leaders and receiving a confirmation through earnest prayer.

So in fact, while most Mormons are very pro-life, the LDS Church is much less so.  Cary then asked, "Wait, so is murder sometimes okay?"  The two missionaries were clearly unaware that their church taught this, and seemed troubled by it.  One of them speculated that the local church leaders wouldn't permit an abortion, despite what it said, but I don't think he even convinced himself.

III. Disarming Their Best Weapons

Mormon missionaries are apparently trained to fall on a few stock answers: to "pray on it," or "I can feel in my heart it's true" or some similarly non-falsifiable claim. If they're not trained to do this, it's at least the common refrain I've heard from countless Mormons I've talked theology with.  So if you're going to move ahead with a discussion, it's important to take it out of the realm of the subjective and the non-falsifiable. Otherwise, as long as Mormonism "feels right," the person you're talking to will never move towards a fuller Christianity.

In other to move past these fall-backs, we talked about how the LDS think that non-Mormons still have some truth, and that the Holy Spirit still works through these other denominations or churches. They conceded that it wasn't as if all the Catholics and Protestants were acting in bad faith, or that Catholic and Protestants don't pray. So we talked about the phenomenon of a Catholic, a Baptist, and a Mormon each praying, and each walking away thinking that God's telling them different (contradictory) things. We were careful to note that yes, we should pray, and yes, God does communicate to us through prayer, but we explained that as Catholics, we saw prayer alone as fallible, since it's easy to mix up what God's telling us, and what we want God to be telling us.

IV. Polygamy and Contradictions

Most people's argument about Mormon's one-time fling with polygamy (what they refer to as "plural marriage") goes something like this: "You used to do polygamy. The Bible says polygamy is bad. You're wrong." That argument is weak.  After all, we see polygamy in the Old Testament, and much of it goes uncondemned by God (we talked about that in the comments here, by the way).  The Mormon answer is that just as the Jews are forbidden to eat pork, but not Christians, it's possible that plural marriage is right or wrong for specific people, given the particular culture and context.

So  here's the approach I took to the question, instead, with a Q&A with the senior of the two missionaries that went something like this:

• Q: Can God contradict Himself? [I genuinely didn't know the Mormon answer to this, so this wasn't just a set-up].
• A: No
• Q: So I can see how God could theoretically say that plural marriage is right for David and not for Solomon, or vice versa, but can God says that plural marriage is both right for Solomon and wrong for Solomon?
• A: No, that would be a contradiction.

I then read from the Book of Mormon, Jacob 2:24,

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

We all agreed that sounded quite clearly like the Book of Mormon was saying that God was condemning David and Solomon's plural marriages as an abomination. Then I read from Doctrines & Covenants 132:38-39

David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. 

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

Yup, this passage says that not only was David and Solomon's taking of plural wives not an abomination, it was not even a sin; and not only was it not a sin, these women were given to David by God. Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah, is the only exception.  At this point, the senior missionary protested that he wasn't a "Scriptorian," and realized it had gotten late and that they had to leave.

A Final Point: The Importance of Charity

While we had, as the above post shows, some obvious points of disagreement, the single most important thing to remember when dealing with Mormons (or anyone) is to do it lovingly.  Name-calling, just telling them they're a "cult," or "not Christian," or anything else, is unhelpful. It might make us feel superior, but if we're genuinely concerned for their spiritual well-being, do for them what you would want done for you.  Would you be convinced by someone simply blowing off your religion?   So be prepared to make a defense of orthodox Christianity, and of Catholicism particularly, but do so with "gentleness and reverence" (1 Peter 3:16).  I can just about guarantee you that the Mormons are so used to being treated poorly by the folks they're meeting door-to-door that a genuine Christian witness done in charity will be a drink of cold water. That doesn't mean you have to compromise the Truth -- quite the opposite. If you truly love someone, you'll want them to be on the right track towards God.

We were fortunate because while Cary and I were pointing out many of the areas on which we disagreed, Megan balanced us out by talking about some of the great things about Mormonism, as well as many of the things we have in common. Her presence meant that there wasn't any "ganging up," and I'm quite thankful she was there. It's important for someone to accentuate the positive for a couple reasons. One, if you come across as simply argumentative, they're going to leave. And two, your goal isn't to just disprove Mormonism. You don't want some poor missionary leaving an atheist.  Rather, it's to show how Catholicism is the fulfillment of those truths which Mormonism has.

That is, Mormons are great at recognizing the importance of Apostolic succession, of a central Church hierarchy, of a leadership guarded by the Holy Spirit, of speaking the Truth in love, and so on. Showing that Catholicism affirms all of these things, without suffering from the many flaws within Mormonism, makes the Church an obvious candidate to look to if a Mormon starts to wonder exactly how his Church can both condemn and condone the murder of unborn children, or claim that God both praises and detests David and Solomon's many wives.

You might find yourself in the position of trying to do both of these things at once: show how we're similar, and show how we're different (and right).  It's a hard balance to strike, and I can nearly guarantee you'll have a strong sense of l'esprit de l'escalier after you say good night.  Certainly, there are a number of things I wish had been said, or said differently.  God understands.  Finally, remember that "One sows and another reaps" (John 4:37).  It's easy to let pride lead you to think you can convert someone, from start to finish, in an hour.  You almost certainly can't. So just do your part, and let God do the rest.