Another question to Former Mormons (and others).

[PaulDupre1]

BTW LW7, have you considered a calling to the diaconate? I would be jazzed if you were a deacon in my parish.

Paul

 

[LivingWaters7]

BTW LW7, have you considered a calling to the diaconate? I would be jazzed if you were a deacon in my parish.

Paul

Thanks Paul . I have definitely considered a calling to the permanent diaconate. It may or may not surprise some of you to know that I’m still in my [late] 20s (I think I’ve mentioned that I was EQP in a YSA ward during my time as a Mormon). I’m pretty sure that later in life (in my diocese you have to be 35, and I definitely plan on getting married ) I’ll be following the calling to the priesthood as a deacon (I’ve already looked into the process a number of times).

Thanks again for the compliment!

 

[PaulDupre1]

Thanks Paul . I have definitely considered a calling to the permanent diaconate. It may or may not surprise some of you to know that I’m still in my [late] 20s (I think I’ve mentioned that I was EQP in a YSA ward during my time as a Mormon). I’m pretty sure that later in life (in my diocese you have to be 35, and I definitely plan on getting married ) I’ll be following the calling to the priesthood as a deacon (I’ve already looked into the process a number of times).

Thanks again for the compliment!

I’m very glad to know that!

I sure wish that I had had your wisdom when I was your age. I did not really get my wits about me until I was in my 40s. And that’s when God called me back to the Catholic faith.

God bless you,
Paul

 

[iepuras]

I’m very glad to know that!

I sure wish that I had had your wisdom when I was your age. I did not really get my wits about me until I was in my 40s. And that’s when God called me back to the Catholic faith.

God bless you,
Paul

LW,

I absolutely agree with Paul, you would make a fantastic deacon. You are truly charitable and wise beyond your years.

 

[Stephen168]

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?

Mormonism is not based on reason; it is faith alone. See below.

After a good long decade of trying to figure that one out, I finally just chalked up to, “Mormons believe”. Period. No other explanation exists but that. There is no reasoning, lots of going by emotion, and plenty of rationalizations. But no reasoning.

So the root “problem” with Mormonism is, it is irrational. What is taught, what is believed, what is practiced. All, irrational.

"Richard Lyman Bushman:

Mormons are in the anomalous position of saying that a spiritual testimony, not empirical proof, undergirds their faith, …

Mormons who try to reason create there own person Mormonism. see below

And as I have said before to many of the LDS posters here, the LDS church that you describe does not exist and has never, so far as I can tell, existed.

Your reported experiences as an LDS and your views of LDS doctrines and common beliefs are so far outside the experiences that I had in the 5 different wards and branches in 4 different stakes in 3 different states over 11 years (not counting my mission), that I often think you are talking about some other religion. Or maybe you are doing your best to hide what the LDS really believe and teach so as to create a rosy picture of Mormonism to make it seem more attractive to potential converts lurking here. Mormons are well known for doing that.

There have been very few LDS posters here who were up-front with their beliefs. Zerinus comes to mind. His is the LDS church I experienced and remember.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

To summarize; When presented with the facts against Mormonism being true- 1)There are Mormons who just believe or Mormons who create their own personal Mormonism.

1. There are Mormons who cannot do that and leave.

 

[Stephen168]

You are right TOm. I think all of this is pointless and I think you are just trying to draw us Catholics into a #%$&@ng match. I personally think it is a big waste of time because Mormonism is the religion of Joseph Smith, not the religion of our Lord and Redeemer, Jesus Christ.

Yes, every few months Tom returns to resurrect discussions on apostolic succession, limbo, deification, and/or trinity in the name of defending Mormonism until he is completely refuted and then he disappears.

 

[Stephen168]

Joseph Smith, as a prophecy and recorded in Mormon scripture, said the Book of Mormon was a historical book about ALL the American Indians. Science has proven that to be false. Along with ALL the other unique Mormon beliefs and practices, (exaltation, polygamy, Melchizedek Priesthood, excommunicating Apostles, prophets leading the church, blood atonement, and water baptism on behalf of the dead) Joseph Smith made up. Mormonism is not a restoration of a Former-Day-Saint Church. It is a 19th century American invention.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes, every few months Tom returns to resurrect discussions on apostolic succession, limbo, deification, and/or trinity in the name of defending Mormonism until he is completely refuted and then he disappears.

Planting doubt is a Mormon proseltyzing tactic. That’s all he is here to do. Refuting the endless false points is not a waste of time.

 

[TexanKnight]

Planting doubt is a Mormon proseltyzing tactic. That’s all he is here to do. Refuting the endless false points is not a waste of time.

Tom knows he cannot support Mormonism. He knows he has no answers. He knows it is false.

 

[Telstar]

Tom knows he cannot support Mormonism. He knows he has no answers. He knows it is false.

But, he still has to either defend it or leave. It’s apparently his choice to try to defend it. And, by showing up here to occasionally to throw out more bones, he’s hoping that someone that’s open to his suggestion might just take the bait. It’s a means of justifying himself for still following Mormonism, by leading others to do the same.

Mormonism is a religion that’s based much more on humanism and the physical world, than it is based on seeking God, through spirituality. At least, that’s the way it seems to me. Spiritual things like souls are called ‘spirit bodies’, that are made up of ‘spirit matter’. So, it’s basically much more physical in nature than what most Christians, particularly Catholics, understand of the spiritual nature of God, and of the spiritual world. I think that’s why they don’t seem to focus as much on God as they do on their own families. They prefer holding onto the tangible (physical) over reaching for the intangible (spiritual), because they don’t really understand spirituality.

I do admire Mormon’s focus on family. Families are a wonderful thing. But, this is most likely the main reason why most Mormons tend to remain Mormon, even when they don’t really believe in the ‘doctrines’. But, in my opinion, loving God and focusing our attention on Him, is much more important in religion than any earthly family could ever be. Even Jesus told us, “Matthew 12: [46] As he was yet speaking to the multitudes, behold his mother and his brethren stood without, seeking to speak to him. [47] And one said unto him: Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand without, seeking thee. [48] But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren? [49] And stretching forth his hand towards his disciples, he said: Behold my mother and my brethren. [50] For whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother.”
Jesus was not saying this to show any disrespect for His own family members, but to teach us that as His followers, we are all part of the one family of God. We are all to be together as part of one family (His Church), while we are here on earth, as well as when we get to Heaven. Mormons can’t believe any of this, because their main focus is in creating separate ‘groups’, that are only attached to each other through following their own family’s bloodlines. But, with all that focus on family, they have no remorse over shunning any family member that would dare to sever that ‘sacred’ family bond, and leave the church. Not only is that contrary to their supposed ‘loving’ attachment to their earthly family, but it also goes against everything Jesus taught us. It’s not in any way logical, either in human terms or in spiritual terms.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Tom knows he cannot support Mormonism. He knows he has no answers. He knows it is false.

Well, he doesn’t know that he knows then.

 

[TexanKnight]

Well, he doesn’t know that he knows then.

are you sure that he does not know that he knows? Maybe he knows he does not know but does not know how to know he does not know

 

[Stephen168]

Planting doubt is a Mormon proseltyzing tactic. That’s all he is here to do. Refuting the endless false points is not a waste of time.

Yes, the vague and convoluted writing style is used frequently for that purpose. The art of claiming something without claiming it specifically both in anti-catholic claims and pro Book of Mormon claims; for example:

1. I read (fill in anti-catholic claim) but I don’t believe it.

1. I’ve heard (fill in fact against the Book of Mormon) before but after further research i’m OK with it.

1. Research is finding facts to support the Book of Mormon which must be taken seriously.

Of course when asked for specific facts and references it all falls apart.

It seems this whole thread is a variation of #2.

 

[garyo49]

Jesus is the Christ did not come ORIGINALLY from the mouth or pen of Joseph Smith.

I think I have participated in the movement of this thread far afield of what it once was.

A little has been clarified for me here.

First, nobody is pure intellect. Regardless of how much I try to disconnect aspects of my personality, spirituality, environment, … from my intellectual weighing of the truth claims of Mormonism I cannot be certain that I have succeeded and made a purely intellectual judgment.

The converse is true of course as much as critics on this thread claim that merely thinking about the issues leads to “fails mightily” and “idiots” being true believers is not something that they can know is purely there intellectual assessment of the issues because they like me have personality, spirituality, an environment, …

Elsewhere I have found methodological aspects that might influence the result.
I also think Newman has some interesting insights.

Anyway, I will read responses. Charity, TOm

Tom, Mormons didn’t even get Jesus or the name of God correct. :

Mormon theology has erringly named God the Father as “Elohim.”

Mormon statement:

" . . . God the Eternal Father, whom we designate the by the exalted name-title “Elohim,” is the literal Parent of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ, and of the spirits of the human race."2

Mormon theology also declares that in the old Testament, Jesus is known as “Jehovah.”

Mormon statement:

"With this meaning, as the context shows in every case, Jehovah who is Jesus Christ the son of Elohim, is called “the Father,” and even “the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth.”

The belief that God the Father is called Elohim and Jesus is called Jehovah does not agree with what the Bible says. In actuality, in Hebrew the word for “God” is the word “elohim.” This is a generic word for a god. Likewise, the word for the name of God (elohim) is “Jehovah.” In the Bible, when the word “Jehovah” appears in the Hebrew text, it is rendered as LORD (all caps) in the English text. Also, the Hebrew word “elohim” is translated as “God.”

This is from Catholic Answers:

In Hebrew the name of God is spelled YHWH. Since ancient Hebrew had no written vowels, it is uncertain how the name was pronounced originally, but there are records of the name in Greek, which did have written vowels. These records indicate that in all likelihood the name should be pronounced “Yahweh.”

Shortly before the first century A.D., it became common for Jews to avoid saying the divine name for fear of misusing it and breaking the second commandment (“You shall not take the name of the Lord, your God, in vain,” Dt 5:11). Whenever they read Scripture aloud and encountered the divine name, they substituted another Hebrew word, “Adonai” (which means “Lord” or “my Lord”), in its place.

Eventually Hebrew developed written vowels, which appeared as small marks called vowel points and were placed above and below the consonants of a word. In the sixth or seventh century some Jews began to place the vowel points for “Adonai” over the consonants for “Yahweh” to remind the reader of Scripture to say “Adonai” whenever he read “Yahweh.”

About the 13th century the term “Jehovah” appeared when Christian scholars took the consonants of “Yahweh” and pronounced it with the vowels of “Adonai.” This resulted in the sound “Yahowah,” which has a Latinized spelling of “Jehovah.” The first recorded use of this spelling was made by a Spanish Dominican monk, Raymundus Martini, in 1270.

To Mormons Our Lord is the literal brother of the evil one. He is someone that worked out his salvation"with fear and trembling" and had to overcome sin as all of us are doing. Hinckley said, “We don’t believe in the Christ of traditional Christianity.” That’s one of the few things he got correct.

 

[Tannhauser_1509]

All this thread has proven is that people see things differently. Big surprise! This fact of reality in no way disqualifies the value of absolute truth and one’s seeking after it. So you don’t think LDS teaching is irrational? You’ve “integrated” it successfully into your daily life? Okay, great. That’s what it means to believe something is true.

And that is the best answer to your OP.