Another question to Former Mormons (and others).

[Nan_S]

We have people who join or leave a church for intellectual reasons. They decided that the body of dogmas and doctrines made sense so they stayed, or that those dogmas and doctrines lacked substance so they left. For them, being “right with God” is their first priority.

We have people who join or leave a church for personal reasons. They had a blessed personal encounter with a church member who inspired them, or had a negative personal encounter with a church member who harmed them. For them, being “safe with God” is their first priority.

We have people who join or leave a church for cultural reasons. A woman’s mother, relatives, and friends all belong to this church so she will too because family is more important than any intellectual argument. A man’s fiancée belongs to a different church so he will profess faith in the new church because his love for her is stronger than his ties to his old church. For them, being “in community with God” is their first priority.

We have people who join or leave a church because of reasons of authority. They prefer to have an established set of standards they don’t have to constantly research to help with key decisions so they join/stay. Or they view certain rules they don’t understand as arbitrary and nonsensical, so they reject them and decide for themselves which rules are important. For them, having “a God I understand and trust” is their first priority.

Intellectual, personal, cultural, authoritarian.

I’m sure there are other reasons, and many nuances of these four as well. But this is a good overview of what leads some people to stay and others to seek elsewhere. You’ve exposed all of them to the same set of facts, true, but only a portion of believers stay or go because of the facts. Personal feelings, family ties, and attitude towards authority also have a big impact on what attracts or divides believers.

 

[Porknpie]

[5. LDS and Protestants who reject Mary’s perpetual virginity are more Biblical than Catholics who embrace it.Charity, TOm

Tom,

Interesting it is that all of the major reformers: Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, held firmly to Mary’s perpetual virginity. They did so based on scripture and Tradition.

So many protestants today protest and reject the original protestors on this subject, believing a man-made idea, not found in scripture (scriptural misunderstood) of recent times.

PnP
[/quote]

 

[TexanKnight]

Tom,

Interesting it is that all of the major reformers: Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, held firmly to Mary’s perpetual virginity. They did so based on scripture and Tradition.

So many protestants today protest and reject the original protestors on this subject, believing a man-made idea, not found in scripture (scriptural misunderstood) of recent times.

PnP

I have always found it interesting that people do NOT accept the perpetual virginity.

I have asked other women that, if they had held, in their womb, Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, if they would ever allow themselves to be pregnant again. They have all said no. After having Christ in your womb, how could you allow any other child in that womb?

The closest I could ever come to that feeling is this: if I owned a hotel, and Jesus came to stay in one of my rooms, after he left, that room would be closed forever. No one else would ever stay in that room. That room is forever sanctified…how could I ever let anyone stay in it?

 

[superwimp]

Another question to Former Mormons (and others).

There are numerous folks here who identify themselves explicitly as former Mormons or ex-LDS. The bulk of the narratives offered by these folks is that they left the CoJCoLDS because they learned it was not God’s church as they became exposed to information they didn’t know before they left.

All the “problems” I see discussed on this board (and in other places I read and/or participate in) are problems I became aware of before I read of them here and usually years ago. I have interacted with numerous folks who like me have sought out the biggest issues and integrated them into their believing framework. In contrast to this group of folks, numerous folks here and elsewhere didn’t integrate these problems into their believing framework, but instead left the CoJCoLDS.
Why the different responses?

For this discussion, I would like to ask that everyone be as respectful as possible, but I do not want to leave things out. I will not get offended and storm off with what you offer (though I may suggest that what you offer is not correct).

If you must (though I think it will be pointless) you can produce a laundry list of problems, but I am really only interested in exploring why you think this list of problems created disbelief for you and does not create disbelief for me. What is different about us leading to different results?

Charity, TOm

Hello Tom,
I was a convert so I didn’t have the family ties keeping me in the church. Sitting in meetings for several hours in a suit and tie got a little old after a while. I saw differences in how we interpreted the book of Mormon so I joined the Church of Christ(temple lot).

 

[RebeccaJ]

Hello Patrick,
I do not think I will be able to participate in this question at this time, beyond this quick response.
I have personal views about the Biblical witness for the CoJCoLDS and much of those can be discovered through reading LDS apologetic arguments.
Two of the below (at least) will not be there, but you can explore the rest there.
I think on the whole the CoJCoLDS is more congruent with the Bible than is either Catholicism or Protestantism, but I will also acknowledge that the CoJCoLDS (like Catholicism) is not based on the Bible. The CoJCoLDS is based on the same thing the Bible is based on God’s teaching/gospel.
COLOR=black]1. LDS Social Trinity (one God three persons, but not metaphysically one God) is more Biblical than the Metaphysical Trinity of non-LDS Christianity.

1. Baptism for the Dead is more Biblical than “Baptism of Desire,” “Baptism of Blood,” or the theological novem of “hope for the unbaptized infant.”
2. LDS and liberal Protestantism’s God being passible rather than impassible is more Biblical than the impassibility of God present in Catholic scholastic tradition AND integral to the Trinity development in the early church.
3. Catholics reading of John 6 is more Biblical to the readings offered by rejecters of the real presence (though I think the term Transubstantiation is a problem).
4. LDS and Protestants who reject Mary’s perpetual virginity are more Biblical than Catholics who embrace it.
5. Catholics and Protestants who (contra Marie) reject sacramental marriage being part of the heavenly order are more Biblical than LDS.
6. Catholics and LDS who see authority passed from Apostles to “coworkers” and bishops are more Biblical than some protestants who reject authority (though the idea that bishops are equal to apostles in the MUTED way Catholics suggest is not Biblical).

Off the top of my head I think I could double the numbers of entries in this list.
You can post here (though I rather you wouldn’t) reasons why I am wrong about all but #4 and #7. If you can refrain from posting here and want to start a new thread about them that is fine too. I may not be able to participate in that discussion.
Charity, TOm

One of the things that drew me to the Catholic church is, that it isn’t Bible alone, but contains within it the fullness of the faith handed on. All your Mormon points above, being innovations that came later.

Mormon arguments want it both ways. 1) Critical that the faith is not protected enough and therefore became corrupt, and 2) critical that the faith cannot change (ie, must be open to the changing of doctrines, to match reinterpretation and innocations, from men claiming to be prophets). Why not accept that Jesus gave to His Church the Holy Spirit, to guide us until His return? What is so hard about that?

 

[zaffiroborant]

I have always found it interesting that people do NOT accept the perpetual virginity.

I have asked other women that, if they had held, in their womb, Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, if they would ever allow themselves to be pregnant again. They have all said no. After having Christ in your womb, how could you allow any other child in that womb?

On the flip side would men be willing to jiggle their stick where Christ entered the world?

 

[Porknpie]

I have always found it interesting that people do NOT accept the perpetual virginity.

I have asked other women that, if they had held, in their womb, Jesus the Christ, the Son of God, if they would ever allow themselves to be pregnant again. They have all said no. After having Christ in your womb, how could you allow any other child in that womb?

The closest I could ever come to that feeling is this: if I owned a hotel, and Jesus came to stay in one of my rooms, after he left, that room would be closed forever. No one else would ever stay in that room. That room is forever sanctified…how could I ever let anyone stay in it?

I’ll have to ask that question of my non-Catholic friends.

Regarding the reformers, Luther said that Jesus words on the cross are proof alone that Mary was a perpetual virgin. Jesus put Mary in St. John’s care. To not have put Mary in the care of a sibling would have been unthinkable. Jesus would have been a horrible Jew. He did not put Mary in the care of a sibling because Jesus did not have any brothers or sisters.

PnP

 

[iepuras]

On the flip side would men be willing to jiggle their stick where Christ entered the world?

Good question. St. Joseph was a righteous, just man. It is highly disrespectful to him to assume that he would do such a thing.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Mormonism wants to claim at the same time that:

-the primitive Church changed from something to another (whether evolutions in doctrines or performance of ordinances/sacraments), and this is a sign of apostasy

and

-the LDS church can evolve in understanding of its doctrines, priesthood offices, new doctrines can be revealed, continuing revelation, etc, and this is not a sign of apostasy.

The Catholic view makes much more sense: the Church has always been guided by the Holy Spirit, and has the authority from Jesus Christ to do what it needs to do to expand and meet all nations, without changing the deposit of Faith. Through the Spirit, we come to more full understandings of the doctrines revealed anciently (for example, the Church has always held that there is only one God, eternally existing as three distinct Persons, however our understanding of what that means has expanded, without changing the core, revealed Truth).

I have found that many of the things that LDS claim are found through the Restoration were never lost. Prime among them is revelation from God. It is a common caricature among LDS to believe that traditional Christians believe that God doesn’t speak any more, that the Heavens are closed, etc. Catholicism readily accepts and teaches the truth that Heaven is open, God speaks to us individually, and guides His Church through the Spirit. Another is temples. All Catholic churches, cathedrals, basilicas, etc are firmly in the Jewish temple lineage (indeed, in Eastern Catholicism and Orthodoxy, church buildings are many times referred to as temples explicitly). There is a sacrificial priesthood, psalms are sung, the church buildings are divided into three spaces, God’s presence is there in a special way, there is a lamp that burns perpetually symbolizing the presence of God, a literal Bread of the Presence, feast days are celebrated there, water purification occurs there prior to entrance into the sacred space proper, and on and on. Deification was never lost. Etc.

Mormonism, when really investigated, becomes unnecessary when we see the continuity of the Catholic Church through the Holy Spirit.

 

[TexanKnight]

On the flip side would men be willing to jiggle their stick where Christ entered the world?

Back when Anne Rice was Catholic and wrote the first two books about Jesus (I hope she someday finishes the trilogy), this was addressed. When Joseph was asked why he did not have relations with Mary, he asked how could he, knowing what Mary’s body had been used for…

Very well put…

 

[TOmNossor]

Marie, Thank you for your comments (I think continued comments).

Some are ok with letting others do the thinking for them ; others would rather use their intellect, reason and critical thinking skills.

…

Some just aren’t interested at looking deeper into its history and background (and considering how a greater portion of our electorate votes based on sound bites, that is hardly surprising.

This is not in response to the question I asked (which is fine and I do not mean this negatively at all).
I personally very much respect those who choose not to look deeper into history/background. One of the very small lures to atheism for me is that were I to join their ranks my brilliance would be celebrated. And there would be no God who was smarter than I am. But, this is my pride speaking. In my sober moments, I do not want to be part of a church only the brilliant can join. I actually consider the lack of emphasis upon spiritual conversion (especially in the Non-Catholic Forum) to be a defect for Catholicism. If there was a religion only the top 1 percent intellects could join, some of us might qualify, but the religion would not be God’s.

Some like how Mormon theology makes them feel. Others see where where it just doesn’t make sense.

I have seen many critics offer aspects of Mormon theology that they claim do not make sense. I have very seldom thought what they offered was what I should believe as a LDS. I do in fact have significant issues with Catholic theology not making sense, but I can acknowledge that there are many who are smarter than I am who have no problems. So far their grasp of the issues has never been sufficient for them to explain it to me in terms I understood.

Some start from the premise "I know it’s true " and then make any info fit that already accepted conclusion.

Others start also with the same "I know it’s true " but the cog dis bothers them enough that they are open to being challenged and proved wrong (that takes a humble courage for many)
The possession of “humble courage” is the difference. Something I cannot assess well in myself, but again something I see in other members of the church.

If I recall right someone posted a comment from a recent general conference made by a GA. Something along the lines of “doubt your doubts”

Bad bad advice. Doubt has a valid place in the human experience. It can be a legitamate form of intuitive protection. I cant believe it was said but I know the TBM mindset enough that since a GA said it (and in General Conference no less!) many will take it as gospel (little g)
Had he said, “10000 doubts do not a problem make,” I have little doubt that would be condemned. Of course that is what he meant. He didn’t mean NEVER DOUBT. Instead he meant that when encountering things previously unknown, hasty decisions and departure is not his recommended course of action.

One thing I have always known is that my intellect is a gift. And God has never asked me not to use it. Never. Nor is God afraid of what I may discover. I don’t need others to tell me what to think or to doubt my doubts. God can and does handle my doubts. He is not scared off by my doubts and He doesn’t ask me to ignore them. He asks me to bring them to Him and He will help me to discover the spiritual realities.

He also has never ever asked me to ignore history. Ever
I have always thanked God for my intellect and I have never felt there was some question I should not explore with this gift. Of course I have made an idle of my intellect before and I suspect I still struggle with this.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

The infinite regression of LDS Gods makes the difference between LDS teaching and Catholic teaching as divergent as I can possibly imagine. My God created everything, including time. There is only one God. The LDS Gods are being created at a furious pace - an infinite number of LDS Gods are created in each instant - and these instants have been passing for an infinitely long period of time. The LDS God of “this earth”, is pretty insignificant against that backdrop.
I have responded to this here before…

in_servitude:

Around here, the LDS folks explain that they are really making a purchase. The notion of giving with no expectation of a return benefit is absent from the LDS thoughts I’ve seen around here.

Unlike the “infinite regress of Gods” this is not ONLY wrong from my vantage point, but IMO should not be part of the thinking of a LDS. Please link me to where you have seen this “from the LDS … around here.” I have little doubt it is present within the thoughts of the former-LDS around here, but that is not what you claimed. Did you misspeak? Did you mean that in pluming historical writings of LDS leaders this is what you learned? Or?
It could be here on CA, but I would hope not.
Charity, TOm

 

[Denise1957]

Tom,

Interesting it is that all of the major reformers: Zwingli, Calvin, Luther, held firmly to Mary’s perpetual virginity. They did so based on scripture and Tradition.

So many protestants today protest and reject the original protestors on this subject, believing a man-made idea, not found in scripture (scriptural misunderstood) of recent times.

PnP

Well said, PnP. To which I might add that those non-Catholics who don’t believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity sometimes will point to that part of Scripture (I forget where, exactly) which refers to Jesus’ “brothers and sisters.” However, what is not understood is that “brothers and sisters” was sometimes used to describe close friends, rather than siblings.

Tom, I hope that you stay on CAF and keep posting, so that at least you can learn about what the Catholic Church is really about. I don’t blame you for wanting to defend your religion, but I think it’s important to clear up misconceptions about Catholicism. Btw, my family attended the LDS for a couple of years as when I was in grade school, and my mom was baptized. However, when she was informed of certain things after she was baptized to which she found disturbing, she stopped attending. She wishes that she was told those things before she was baptized. But I liked the LDS church, and was disappointed that we stopped attending, so I was allowed to still attend the youth group occasionally.

For me, Catholicism makes rational and logical sense, for the most part. There are things that I still don’t understand, but there’s much that I do understand. Please keep in mind, Tom, that the Catholic Church promulgated the Bible, and as such has been given the authority to interpret it. Also, as far as I can remember, no LDS person who has posted here has been able to show that there was an Apostasy by the Catholic Church. If I could recommend that you study one thing, this would be it.

God bless!

 

[TOmNossor]

We have people who join or leave a church for intellectual reasons. They decided that the body of dogmas and doctrines made sense so they stayed, or that those dogmas and doctrines lacked substance so they left. For them, being “right with God” is their first priority.

We have people who join or leave a church for personal reasons. They had a blessed personal encounter with a church member who inspired them, or had a negative personal encounter with a church member who harmed them. For them, being “safe with God” is their first priority.

We have people who join or leave a church for cultural reasons. A woman’s mother, relatives, and friends all belong to this church so she will too because family is more important than any intellectual argument. A man’s fiancée belongs to a different church so he will profess faith in the new church because his love for her is stronger than his ties to his old church. For them, being “in community with God” is their first priority.

We have people who join or leave a church because of reasons of authority. They prefer to have an established set of standards they don’t have to constantly research to help with key decisions so they join/stay. Or they view certain rules they don’t understand as arbitrary and nonsensical, so they reject them and decide for themselves which rules are important. For them, having “a God I understand and trust” is their first priority.

Intellectual, personal, cultural, authoritarian.

I’m sure there are other reasons, and many nuances of these four as well. But this is a good overview of what leads some people to stay and others to seek elsewhere. You’ve exposed all of them to the same set of facts, true, but only a portion of believers stay or go because of the facts. Personal feelings, family ties, and attitude towards authority also have a big impact on what attracts or divides believers.
I think that is an excellent summary of various ways of approaching issues, thanks!
I guess I am quite focused on the difference between folks like me who claim that intellectually the CoJCoLDS makes a stronger case for being God’s church than the case for it not being God’s church. And folks like basically all posters on this thread other than me who claim not only is the case weaker, but OBVIOUSLY so.

I think Cardinal Newman was quite clear that he unlike the previously most celebrated historian within Catholicism of Newman’s day stayed and did not have a “failure of faith” like this fellow. I truly believe between the two I would rather be like Newman, but most of the dialogue on this board suggests that the way out of Mormonism is to be like the other guy.

I do not believe being like the other guy is the way out of Mormonism anyway, but being like the other guy absolutely was the way out Catholicism (right or wrong).

Assuming I am wrong (about the intellectual strength of the pro-Mormon position) and devoid of personal or cultural or authoritarian (or I might add spiritual) reasons; the intellectual case favors my departure from Mormonism, would God have me depart?

And unlike Newman, it seems to me the common mantra here at Catholic Answers is that the purely intellectual path will lead to Catholicism (when it does, the more thoughtful Catholics will absolutely acknowledge that there must be more to Catholicism than this of course). Are there things about their intellectual environment that allows us to point to why they stay when others leave? And why I stay a LDS and others leave? Or is it all that (other than Newman who does acknowledge), we have non-intellectual reasons for staying that we do not acknowledge?

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello Tom,

I was a convert so I didn’t have the family ties keeping me in the church. Sitting in meetings for several hours in a suit and tie got a little old after a while. I saw differences in how we interpreted the book of Mormon so I joined the Church of Christ(temple lot).
I probably have differences in how I interpret the BOM too. I am quite an authority guy, but Quinn shows us the issues are not nearly so simple as most CoJCoLDS folks think.
Charity, TOm

 

[TexanKnight]

Marie, Thank you for your comments (I think continued comments).

This is not in response to the question I asked (which is fine and I do not mean this negatively at all).
I personally very much respect those who choose not to look deeper into history/background. One of the very small lures to atheism for me is that were I to join their ranks my brilliance would be celebrated. And there would be no God who was smarter than I am. But, this is my pride speaking. In my sober moments, I do not want to be part of a church only the brilliant can join. I actually consider the lack of emphasis upon spiritual conversion (especially in the Non-Catholic Forum) to be a defect for Catholicism. If there was a religion only the top 1 percent intellects could join, some of us might qualify, but the religion would not be God’s.

That is not being very honest. No one has EVER said that Catholicism was not based on Spirituality. In fact, I find more Spirituality in Mass than I ever found in the LDS sterile Sacrament/Board Meetings, or the temple ceremonies when you vow to kill each other… What we HAVE said, is that one cannot SOLELY base it on a good feeling. God gave us intellect and reason. We should use it. When one actually uses reason, Mormonism fails mightily.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Or is it all that (other than Newman who does acknowledge), we have non-intellectual reasons for staying that we do not acknowledge?

Since people are more than just their intellect I can’t imagine that non-intellectual reasons don’t come into play, whether one is even aware of it or not. Even personality can come into play and lend it’s own color to the judgement of a belief or practice.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I actually consider the lack of emphasis upon spiritual conversion (especially in the Non-Catholic Forum) to be a defect for Catholicism. If there was a religion only the top 1 percent intellects could join, some of us might qualify, but the religion would not be God’s.

It is really uncalled for to judge the level of “spiritual conversion” in Catholicism by this or any other debate/discussion board. The nature of the board is going to attract those who enjoy the intellectual side of religion and want to discuss and debate it. It is also less likely to attract those who want to share personal spiritual experiences with others.

 

[Denise1957]

And unlike Newman, it seems to me the common mantra here at Catholic Answers is that the purely intellectual path will lead to Catholicism (when it does, the more thoughtful Catholics will absolutely acknowledge that there must be more to Catholicism than this of course). Are there things about their intellectual environment that allows us to point to why they stay when others leave? And why I stay a LDS and others leave? Or is it all that (other than Newman who does acknowledge), we have non-intellectual reasons for staying that we do not acknowledge?

Charity, TOm

Perhaps I’m wrong, but I detect that maybe you’re looking for something in religion to which you can feel spiritually or emotionally attached, rather than intellectually. Perhaps this is something that’s missing in your experience with the LDS, and you’re worried that Catholicism won’t be any different, or that you won’t be able to feel that spiritual pull that you may be seeking in avenues other than LDS? Please correct me if I’m wrong, since I may be misinterpreting what you’re feeling or thinking here.

 

[in_servitude]

I have responded to this here before…

Oh, so can you link to one of your posts where it talks about how the LDS God “of this earth” looks insignificant compared to the Catholic God? Or, at least addresses that? You’re trying to argue that your understanding of God is similar to the EO?? The infinite regression theology makes that simply wrong. But, maybe you’ve addressed that.

The God of Catholic theology owns everything and nothing else will compare against His infinite nature. The LDS God is a single member of an infinitely large class. The “distance” between a faithful LDS believer and his LDS God is about the same as the distance between him and his own biological father. That is not the same for Catholics.

The whole point of saying this is to answer your question. The member of the LDS Church would have to be quite convicted to give up on that diminished view of his LDS God. Doing so requires that he take an infinitely large step down in the chain of command.

Unlike the “infinite regress of Gods” this is not ONLY wrong from my vantage point, but IMO should not be part of the thinking of a LDS. Please link me to where you have seen this “from the LDS … around here.” I have little doubt it is present within the thoughts of the former-LDS around here, but that is not what you claimed. Did you misspeak? Did you mean that in pluming historical writings of LDS leaders this is what you learned? Or?
It could be here on CA, but I would hope not.

Around here - is where I live and work. It is rare for me to see straight up “charity” - just giving for nothing in return. Jesus took on a debt that must be repaid. When one gives, they are making a payment. The way I understand it, the LDS Jesus is a spiritual calculator adding up credits and debits.