20 Truths about Mormons

[Allweather]

I wrote that on the board. I have watched that episode on EWTN many times and I still like it.

I thought it was you. At the moment I read that, I had such an infilling of what could only be the Holy Ghost, through me. I don’t often have this type of “feeling” so it was memorable. I get a warming just remembering it.

I truly believe that this was the Holy Spirit speaking directly to my heart, telling me that EWTN is helping to bring people to Christ, and inspiring me to contribute to the work of this worthy cause. In my spirit I saw people, like you, being drawn to the True Religion by means of the Rosary.

Maybe it was an hallucination, but I DON’T THINK SO (LOL).

 

[why_me]

I thought it was you. At the moment I read that, I had such an infilling of what could only be the Holy Ghost, through me. I don’t often have this type of “feeling” so it was memorable. I get a warming just remembering it.

I truly believe that this was the Holy Spirit speaking directly to my heart, telling me that EWTN is helping to bring people to Christ, and inspiring me to contribute to the work of this worthy cause. In my spirit I saw people, like you, being drawn to the True Religion by means of the Rosary.

Maybe it was an hallucination, but I DON’T THINK SO (LOL).

Well, I will be going on a Retreat soon. Yes, it is a good station. I like watching it.

 

[Allweather]

Well, I will be going on a Retreat soon. Yes, it is a good station. I like watching it.

Our prayers will be with you on your retreat.

What are the dates?

 

[isaac.madsen]

I get a sense of hostility against me going on here. Accusations based on the phrase “warm fuzzies.” I honestly meant no offense by it, not was I indending to use it in a derogatory fashion. The fact that anti-Mormon websites have used that phrase before has no hold on me as I have never read the seen that argument before. I was merely trying to explain that just “feeling good” even if it is VERY good, is not a witness of spirit in and of itself. One can get high on narcotics and feel good for just the same length of time that someone might feel good having just read something very spiritual. This is not the spirit testifying to the value of narcotic drugs (same goes for other drugs). The difference is that deep in the mind in where the spirit must also testify, and powerfully, that something is true. It is a two-fold process. It must make sense in the mind and also in the heart. This does not mean it will be easy to back up such a witness. It merely means that to the one who received such a witness, there can be no denying what the knew in that instant.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Brother, none of us has a lock on absolute truth, though some of us are closer to it than others.

Certainly, but that’s an argument that LDS apologists might disect and say essentially, “Well, if you don’t feel you have absolute truth, come to our church because we feel that we do.” That’s one of the big problems I’m dealing with. The church says it is the “restored fullness of the gospel” yet states that other things are to later be revealed. Isn’t that an oxymoron?

Think how much more could be accomplished if all that study energy you Mormons spend trying to “prove” your religion to be “true” were spent instead on building the Body of Christ though the Church that Jesus founded…

Perhaps. However, that is a Catholic view and many would disagree, saying that the church Christ founded no longer exists, that the Catholic church lost it’s authority (though nobody seems to want to p(name removed by moderator)oint when that happened because it’s not a solid claim). The only evidence can be the atrocities of the religion, but cannot the same be ascribed to Mormonism? …and it has.

I say the same for everyone in every cult or sect. The separated brethren are wasting valuable resources. Time, energy. And also scandalizing Christianity before a world that badly needs a solid witness of Jesus. You guys are mainly interested in stealing people from other religions. What a waste of time!

I would agree. There is nothing needed more today that a solid witness. Won’t it be nice when he returns and tells us what is what? Honestly, my heart tells me he’ll embrace all of humanity, whether in this life or the next we get to meet him. I don’t think he will embrace one religion per se as his church is universal. It embraces all of humanity that are willing to accept Christ as their savior. I could go try to join every church in the world “just to be safe” but I don’t know what good it would do me if I should believe in none of them.

For that reason I have elected to affiliate myself with no religion other than Christianity in general. I wish to claim no church until the time that it is evidenced to me, through a solid witness, which one I should join. I will investigate the Catholic church more on this matter, for I have come to realize that it’s tenets are not so unacceptable to me anymore in the way I have come to understand many of the terms used (especially refering to the godhead or trinity or whatever you like to call God that is in harmony with his nature).

If Joseph Smith, Jun. indeed only claimed to see an angel from God at first, and not two separate “personages” whom he later claimed to be God the father and his son, Jesus Christ - if such a history is the case, I am convinced that even if that angelic testimony to him were true, and even if he did prophecy man important things, he was little more than a traitor to Christianity and became the cause to only further confusion.

 

[why_me]

I get a sense of hostility against me going on here. Accusations based on the phrase “warm fuzzies.”

Maybe at first, but no more. You just happened to use a phrase that has been repeated rather constantly on critic or antimormon sites. Perhaps it was a poor choice of words.

Even if you didn’t use the word, I would now be using it because that is the common word to describe the holy ghost by the countermormons. And so, take no offence now. You were just unlucky to use such a phrase.

 

[christianley]

For that reason I have elected to affiliate myself with no religion other than Christianity in general. I wish to claim no church until the time that it is evidenced to me, through a solid witness, which one I should join. I will investigate the Catholic church more on this matter, for I have come to realize that it’s tenets are not so unacceptable to me anymore in the way I have come to understand many of the terms used (especially refering to the godhead or trinity or whatever you like to call God that is in harmony with his nature).

While I have a definite hope that all will eventually be saved, and that’s what I pray for, I’m not yet sure who will and won’t be saved. I wonder what kind of a witness you would need to know the Catholic Church is true? My witness did not come from a feeling, but with the knowledge I received by reading the Bible, reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and watching the witness of the modern Popes, especially John Paul II. Some things became fairly obvious after that – the prophetic witness in our day was coming from the Catholic Church and no place else. The Catholic Church is really the lone voice crying in the spiritual wilderness in support of the culture of life versus the culture of death. I guess if I were concerned about how many earrings I might wear, the Mormon Church would be the place to go, but if I really wanted to get the Christian answer on things like embryonic stem cell research, the Mormon Church left us without any guidance at all.

 

[why_me]

**I was merely trying to explain that just “feeling good” even if it is VERY good, is not a witness of spirit in and of itself. One can get high on narcotics and feel good for just the same length of time that someone might feel good having just read something very spiritual. This is not the spirit testifying to the value of narcotic drugs (same goes for other drugs). **The difference is that deep in the mind in where the spirit must also testify, and powerfully, that something is true. It is a two-fold process. It must make sense in the mind and also in the heart. This does not mean it will be easy to back up such a witness. It merely means that to the one who received such a witness, there can be no denying what the knew in that instant.

Yes, this is one of the rationalizations behind the word ‘warm fuzzie’.

*But at times, the heart and the mind cannot be united. I believe that Paul warns us about this when he cautions us against being too learned for our britches. It is somewhere in the new testament. *

 

[why_me]

I guess if I were concerned about how many earrings I might wear, the Mormon Church would be the place to go, but if I really wanted to get the Christian answer on things like embryonic stem cell research, the Mormon Church left us without any guidance at all.

In the new testament Paul advises women on modest dressing. He even tells women how not to keep their hair. For mormons, the body is a temple and should be treated as such. And so, the lds church cautions against tattoos, body piercings and excessive piercings. I think that it makes sense, if the body is a temple for the holy spirit to dwell as Paul claimed.

And by the way, I remember that on The Rock program or perhaps it was another EWTN program, modest dressing was also the discussion. Should a 15 year old girl look like shakira in dressing? I think not.

 

[why_me]

While I have a definite hope that all will eventually be saved, and that’s what I pray for, I’m not yet sure who will and won’t be saved. I wonder what kind of a witness you would need to know the Catholic Church is true? My witness did not come from a feeling, but with the knowledge I received by reading the Bible, reading the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and watching the witness of the modern Popes, especially John Paul II. Some things became fairly obvious after that – the prophetic witness in our day was coming from the Catholic Church and no place else. The Catholic Church is really the lone voice crying in the spiritual wilderness in support of the culture of life versus the culture of death. I guess if I were concerned about how many earrings I might wear, the Mormon Church would be the place to go, but if I really wanted to get the Christian answer on things like embryonic stem cell research, the Mormon Church left us without any guidance at all.

You know I find it amazing that on this site, I am defending Mormon history, culture, belief against attack. And yet, I have not attacked the catholic church once. Have you noticed? Isn’t it strange that I can have a discussion, read constant attacks against the lds church and yet, level not one attack against the catholic church?

And if I wanted to, I could. But I have no interest in going through anticatholic sites and attacking. First, I was born catholic. Second, I respect the faith of others. Third, what would be the point. Fourth, I am attending Mass and my own church.

But still, I have not attacked the catholic faith.

I think that that says a lot don’t you?

 

[isaac.madsen]

Yes, this is one of the rationalizations behind the word ‘warm fuzzie’.

Sure, but it doesn’t change the fact that it’s true. I won’t use the phrase “warm fuzzie” though because I’m sure getting high on narcotics is vastly different from feeling warm fuzzies. Some people equate narcotic stimuli with feeling religious. I believe they are terribly mistaken.

*But at times, the heart and the mind cannot be united. I believe that Paul warns us about this when he cautions us against being too learned for our britches. It is somewhere in the new testament. *

That is why the heart and mind must be unified in order for it to be true. If we seek only testimony from reason, I believe then we are going against Paul’s counsel. If we seek it only from feelings of the heart, we can be duped by anything that makes us feel good. I believe we must have united testimony from both mind and heart. This is what I call truth. Testimony of the mind is only knowledge and testimony of heart is only faith. While everything must begin with faith or knowledge neither is the ending point in gaining absolute truth.

 

[isaac.madsen]

I won’t use the phrase “warm fuzzie” though because I’m sure getting high on narcotics is vastly different from feeling warm fuzzies.

…and this is how the anti sites are terribly mistaken in forming their accusation.

 

[why_me]

That is why the heart and mind must be unified in order for it to be true. If we seek only testimony from reason, I believe then we are going against Paul’s counsel. If we seek it only from feelings of the heart, we can be duped by anything that makes us feel good. I believe we must have united testimony from both mind and heart. This is what I call truth. Testimony of the mind is only knowledge and testimony of heart is only faith. While everything must begin with faith or knowledge neither is the ending point in gaining absolute truth.

Having the mind and heart coming together can be a tough one but not impossible. This is also true for the lds faith. Regardless of the heart, the mind also must come to terms with what is learned. But it does seem to me that Jesus influenced hearts more than minds. In fact, the Jewish elite had a difficult time with adjusting their minds around Jesus’ words. And those that accepted him seemed to be guided by the heart.

 

[DB_AND_ALI]

I was going to make this same point. I have seen mormons give up rather easily. They come across a difficult concept on the internet and suddenly they begin to doubt more and more and soon they leave the lds church. Perhaps it happens to catholics also which is one reason one can not post an anti-catholic website on this forum. The deception of a critic can be very powerful.

Religion is never simple. It takes prayer and contemplation to reach understandings.

That’s rather strange…no anti-catholic websites allowed on this forum !!! Why not expose these ugly sites instead !!! I have been to a number of these sites and they have actually strengthend my faith…some i must admit can be convincing , but be warned others are downright mean and ugly. They have very little credibility and really should be avoided by all and sundry…no christian love there !

 

[isaac.madsen]

But it does seem to me that Jesus influenced hearts more than minds. In fact, the Jewish elite had a difficult time with adjusting their minds around Jesus’ words. And those that accepted him seemed to be guided by the heart.

This is certainly true. This is because Jesus knew that those who were willing to listen would first feel it in their hearts and then study it out in their minds. Perhaps some never did find knowledge and many definitely based their following of his teaching nearly entirely on faith. I’m certainly not condemning such an idea as Christ definitely encouraged it. The problem I have is that even though my heart has testified of many things in Mormonism, it has always testified against my experience in the temple. Notice that I said experience and not the temple in and of itself. Temples are very sacred places for worship, but I do not believe that the rites practiced there, nor the “money-changing” I have witnessed can possibly be in harmony with Christ’s teachings. For these reasons, I am constrained to seek faith elsewhere.

 

[Jerusha]

Catholicism, at its best, balances intellectuality, emotionality, spirituality, and the physical realm, as well as social issues.

Mormonism, with its bizarre claims about pre-Columbian American history, its emphasis on emotionally-based claims to truth, and the repressive social controls, and a watered-down sense of sacramentaality, has no such balance.

I think you need to be kinder, however, to “why me”. He is clearly a liberal Mormon, who is willing to adapt their religion to something more rational. Of course, if he were to return to Catholicism (I didn’t know that ) that would be very good.

He is right, in some sense, about anti-Mormon web-sites.

 

[isaac.madsen]

Catholicism, at its best, balances intellectuality, emotionality, spirituality, and the physical realm, as well as social issues.

Mormonism, with its bizarre claims about pre-Columbian American history, its emphasis on emotionally-based claims to truth, and the repressive social controls, and a watered-down sense of sacramentaality, has no such balance.

I think you need to be kinder, however, to “why me”. He is clearly a liberal Mormon, who is willing to adapt their religion to something more rational. Of course, if he were to return to Catholicism (I didn’t know that ) that would be very good.

He is right, in some sense, about anti-Mormon web-sites.

Oh, certainly I wasn’t too kind to him earlier, but that was merely out of my own offense at certain statements I didn’t understand. When I realized what he was trying to get at I apologized immediately. If I’ve said anything offensive since that point I again apologize, but I’ve tried to make my points without attacking him personally as I consider him a new friend (as far as friendship on an online forum anyhow).

I’ve made a lot of food friends (and perhaps a few enemies too) on this forum as I have always been willing to discuss an issue until I understand the perspective on the individual. I make every attempt to be honest and sincere in my discussion and I try to be respectful to the opinions of others even (and perhaps especially) in giving a counter-opinion.

Even in points where I have sometimes been closed-minded, usually I can be talked to in a fair and logical manner and eventually I’ll open up on the subject. I have very little to hide because I have done little intentional wrong in my life and when I realize that I have wronged someone I make every effort to make it right.

If I am accused of doing wrong and I disagree with the accusation, I follow the same procedure as I would with any other topic. I talk it through until there is an understanding (if not an agreement) on the side of both parties involved.

Also (and I forget to tell people this sometimes) - Thank you for your insight.

 

[Jerusha]

sometimes when both parties get together to talk without any patronizing or superior attitudes, the result can be radically different than what either started with.

 

[isaac.madsen]

When I realized what he was trying to get at I apologized immediately. If I’ve said anything offensive since that point I again apologize, but I’ve tried to make my points without attacking him personally as I consider him a new friend (as far as friendship on an online forum anyhow).

I should say that I do not intentionally attack anyone personally. If it appears that such is the case, no one should fear talking it over with me - in private if you wish, but I have little to hide about myself, especially in a religious forum. When on a religious forum, you can expect certain things to come out that someone will be offended by. Such is life.

 

[isaac.madsen]

sometimes when both parties get together to talk without any patronizing or superior attitudes, the result can be radically different than what either started with.

That’s what I like to call progress.