Church swap with Mormons

[pmccombs]

I could ask about all three but do tell me about Mormons raising the dead.

Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, wrote in detail his experience of raising his wife, Phoebe, from the dead. Matthew Cowley recounts a miracle he witnessed in New Zealand when a man was raised from the dead by his brother. Both are stories of the Mormon priesthood. I’m sure there are others… I seem to recall a fairly recent one from a general conference talk, but I can’t find it now.

 

[Porknpie]

Wilford Woodruff, fourth president of the Church, wrote in detail his experience of raising his wife, Phoebe, from the dead. Matthew Cowley recounts a miracle he witnessed in New Zealand when a man was raised from the dead by his brother. Both are stories of the Mormon priesthood. I’m sure there are others… I seem to recall a fairly recent one from a general conference talk, but I can’t find it now.

Here’s the words of Wilford Woodruff. His wife seems to have had a “near death” experience, an experience that many people have reported. He is ascribing some power to himself (the Power of Faith…how do we know?) of which there is no evidence in that it may have happened without him. This experience varies greatly with the raising of Lazarus where he was dead for days, a stench had developed, Jesus called him out of the tomb and there were many witnesses. Now that was truly “raising the dead”. I don’t see the description below as qualifying. Plus all we have is his testimony and his wifes words are herasay.
"While I was undergoing this ordeal (as my wife related afterwards), her spirit left her body, and she saw it lying upon the bed and the sisters there weeping. She looked at them and at me, and upon her baby; while gazing upon this scene, two persons came into the room, and told her they had come for her. One of these messengers said to her that she might have her choice - she might go to rest in the spirit world, or, upon one condition, she could have the privilege of returning to her tabernacle and of continuing her labors upon the earth. The condition was that if she felt she could stand by her husband, and with him pass through all the cares, trials, tribulations, and afflictions of life which he would be called upon to pass through for the gospel's sake to the end, she might return. When she looked at the situation of her husband and child she said, 'Yes, I will do it.' At the moment that decision was made the power of faith rested upon me, and when I administered to her, her spirit re-entered her tabernacle."

 

[pmccombs]

Here’s the words of Wilford Woodruff. His wife seems to have had a “near death” experience, an experience that many people have reported. He is ascribing some power to himself (the Power of Faith…how do we know?) of which there is no evidence in that it may have happened without him. This experience varies greatly with the raising of Lazarus where he was dead for days, a stench had developed, Jesus called him out of the tomb and there were many witnesses. Now that was truly “raising the dead”. I don’t see the description below as qualifying. Plus all we have is his testimony and his wifes words are herasay.

Yes, yes. And I’m able, with my own similar casuistry, to dismiss all accounts of miraculous events such as these. Since we can’t reproduce the circumstances and results at will, all such stories become “anecdotal” in spite of alleged multiple witnesses and careful(?) documentation. There is no objective way to affirm them. Woodruff’s account is one of several I have been made aware of. Whatever it was, it seems miraculous if it’s true. What of the others?

You brought up the story of Lazarus as some sort of more legitimate example of raising the dead. Let me remind you that this story is only found in the fourth gospel and is not synoptic. The author of the gospel is unknown and it is thought that there was more than one author who all based their work on a Johanine tradition. Textual evidence suggests that the New Testament source for this gospel has been redacted and it is apparent from the writing that the author was not even an eyewitness to the events. It’s not really known when the gospel was organized, but is thought to have been at least a decade after the events they describe and likely much later. The oldest textual source for the gospel is fragmentary and of no earlier date than 100 AD, with more complete sources coming on the scene much later. The gospel itself claims that the remarkable raising of Lazarus was the immediate cause of the crucifixion and Higher Criticism therefore suggests that, because the synoptic gospels omit this crucial point, it stands to reason that the story is meant to be symbolic and not literal. Historically speaking, the story doesn’t even count as hearsay since it is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint with certainty where it even came from. It’s like an attributed accounting of hearsay–weaker than weak. Jesus may have raised Lazarus from the dead, but you’ll have to take it on faith, apparently.

Historically speaking, the Woodfruff account is a much better source. We have a well-known historic figure giving a detailed first-person account of the incident. I notice that you conveniently left out the parts of that account which also claim there were multiple witnesses present and that they all thought the woman was dead. You also didn’t report Woodruff’s experience immediately prior to the seeming miracle. Woodruff could have been making it all up, of course; just like the author(s) of the book of John could have been making it all up.

We only apply critical thinking to other people’s miracles, I guess. Our own are off-limits and beyond criticism.

My apologies to the OP… I’m off topic.

 

[TexanKnight]

Yes, yes. And I’m able, with my own similar casuistry, to dismiss all accounts of miraculous events such as these. Since we can’t reproduce the circumstances and results at will, all such stories become “anecdotal” in spite of alleged multiple witnesses and careful(?) documentation. There is no objective way to affirm them. Woodruff’s account is one of several I have been made aware of. Whatever it was, it seems miraculous if it’s true. What of the others?

You brought up the story of Lazarus as some sort of more legitimate example of raising the dead. Let me remind you that this story is only found in the fourth gospel and is not synoptic. The author of the gospel is unknown and it is thought that there was more than one author who all based their work on a Johanine tradition. Textual evidence suggests that the New Testament source for this gospel has been redacted and it is apparent from the writing that the author was not even an eyewitness to the events. It’s not really known when the gospel was organized, but is thought to have been at least a decade after the events they describe and likely much later. The oldest textual source for the gospel is fragmentary and of no earlier date than 100 AD, with more complete sources coming on the scene much later. The gospel itself claims that the remarkable raising of Lazarus was the immediate cause of the crucifixion and Higher Criticism therefore suggests that, because the synoptic gospels omit this crucial point, it stands to reason that the story is meant to be symbolic and not literal. Historically speaking, the story doesn’t even count as hearsay since it is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint with certainty where it even came from. It’s like an attributed accounting of hearsay–weaker than weak. Jesus may have raised Lazarus from the dead, but you’ll have to take it on faith, apparently.

Historically speaking, the Woodfruff account is a much better source. We have a well-known historic figure giving a detailed first-person account of the incident. I notice that you conveniently left out the parts of that account which also claim there were multiple witnesses present and that they all thought the woman was dead. You also didn’t report Woodruff’s experience immediately prior to the seeming miracle. Woodruff could have been making it all up, of course; just like the author(s) of the book of John could have been making it all up.

We only apply critical thinking to other people’s miracles, I guess. Our own are off-limits and beyond criticism.

My apologies to the OP… I’m off topic.

When one judges credibility, one looks at who is making the claims. You say Woodruff is much more credible, but the people making the comments were never known for their integrity. Makes it hard to say they were more credible.

 

[Porknpie]

Yes, yes. And I’m able, with my own similar casuistry, to dismiss all accounts of miraculous events such as these. Since we can’t reproduce the circumstances and results at will, all such stories become “anecdotal” in spite of alleged multiple witnesses and careful(?) documentation. There is no objective way to affirm them. Woodruff’s account is one of several I have been made aware of. Whatever it was, it seems miraculous if it’s true. What of the others?

You brought up the story of Lazarus as some sort of more legitimate example of raising the dead. Let me remind you that this story is only found in the fourth gospel and is not synoptic. The author of the gospel is unknown and it is thought that there was more than one author who all based their work on a Johanine tradition. Textual evidence suggests that the New Testament source for this gospel has been redacted and it is apparent from the writing that the author was not even an eyewitness to the events. It’s not really known when the gospel was organized, but is thought to have been at least a decade after the events they describe and likely much later. The oldest textual source for the gospel is fragmentary and of no earlier date than 100 AD, with more complete sources coming on the scene much later. The gospel itself claims that the remarkable raising of Lazarus was the immediate cause of the crucifixion and Higher Criticism therefore suggests that, because the synoptic gospels omit this crucial point, it stands to reason that the story is meant to be symbolic and not literal. Historically speaking, the story doesn’t even count as hearsay since it is difficult to p(name removed by moderator)oint with certainty where it even came from. It’s like an attributed accounting of hearsay–weaker than weak. Jesus may have raised Lazarus from the dead, but you’ll have to take it on faith, apparently.

Historically speaking, the Woodfruff account is a much better source. We have a well-known historic figure giving a detailed first-person account of the incident. I notice that you conveniently left out the parts of that account which also claim there were multiple witnesses present and that they all thought the woman was dead. You also didn’t report Woodruff’s experience immediately prior to the seeming miracle. Woodruff could have been making it all up, of course; just like the author(s) of the book of John could have been making it all up.

We only apply critical thinking to other people’s miracles, I guess. Our own are off-limits and beyond criticism.

My apologies to the OP… I’m off topic.

PMCcombs-

First, I was not conveniently leaving out anything in the Woodruff account. I believe the descriptions were that his wife “appeared dead” or something to the affect. Point being, it’s not clear that she was ever dead… no doctor testimony and no lapse of time like there was with Lazarus.

Sounds like you discount the story of Lazarus…it is only symbolic and the Synoptics hold more credibility. OK, well you are virtually alone on believing the raising of Lazarus was symbolic.

But let’s look at the synoptics! Did Jesus ever raise someone from the dead in the synoptics? Well YES he did!

Luke 7 -the widow’s son
Mark 5 and Luke 8 - Jairus daughter

So if Jesus can heal the sick, give sight to the blind, give hearing to the deaf, make the lame walk, walk on water, feed 5000, and raise two people in the synoptics, why do you believe he can not raise Lazarus in John’s Gospel? I don’t understand where you get this “symbolic” belief. The credibilty factor in John’s Gospel on the raising of Lazarus is high. If you reject that the raising of Lazarus was a real event, then you reject the raising of the dead in the synoptics. If you reject those, then all miracles are open to speculation including the biggest one of all, the Resurrection of Christ.

Tex is right though (he’s one smart ex-Mormon). This is about credibility. I’ll be charitable and say no more.

(personal note: the Synoptic Gospels was one of my favorite classes in college )

 

[pmccombs]

PMCcombs-
Tex is right though (he’s one smart ex-Mormon). This is about credibility. I’ll be charitable and say no more.

I think I’ll follow your example myself. Enough said, for my part.

 

[Candescent]

The real test, after turning down their invitation, is how friendly they remain. My experience is, Mormon neighbors stick to themselves once they know you have no interest in converting to their religion.

My Mormon neighbors are well aware that I will never convert- (I have one family on either side of me , one across the street, and 2 Mormon churches within walking distance.)

The wives often drop off fresh vegetables or home made bread, stop to chat, and one morning 6 young men showed up with weed-wackers to attack my huge back lot when I was unable to mow it. Whatever you think of Mormonism- Mormon’s make wonderful friends, co-workers and neighbors.

I’ve seen some pretty convincing evidence that J. Smith was a total charlatan-the question I really do not understand how a con-man could create a religion that is able to instil and nurture good values, which it’s people manifest strongly in their every day lives, when other churches are struggling so?

 

[RebeccaJ]

My Mormon neighbors are well aware that I will never convert- (I have one family on either side of me , one across the street, and 2 Mormon churches within walking distance.)

The wives often drop off fresh vegetables or home made bread, stop to chat, and one morning 6 young men showed up with weed-wackers to attack my huge back lot when I was unable to mow it. Whatever you think of Mormonism- Mormon’s make wonderful friends, co-workers and neighbors.

I’ve seen some pretty convincing evidence that J. Smith was a total charlatan-the question I really do not understand how a con-man could create a religion that is able to instil and nurture good values, which it’s people manifest strongly in their every day lives, when other churches are struggling so?

I’m glad you have nice neighbors.

The niceness has attachments to it, has always been my experience. A form of currency if you will. But maybe I just know a disproportionate number of manipulative Mormons.

 

[HonoraDominum]

My Mormon neighbors are well aware that I will never convert- (I have one family on either side of me , one across the street, and 2 Mormon churches within walking distance.)

The wives often drop off fresh vegetables or home made bread, stop to chat, and one morning 6 young men showed up with weed-wackers to attack my huge back lot when I was unable to mow it. Whatever you think of Mormonism- Mormon’s make wonderful friends, co-workers and neighbors.

I’ve seen some pretty convincing evidence that J. Smith was a total charlatan-the question I really do not understand how a con-man could create a religion that is able to instil and nurture good values, which it’s people manifest strongly in their every day lives, when other churches are struggling so?

I agree 100% with RebeccaJ - the “niceness” always has strings attached. Conversion is always the ultimate goal, even if the task at hand is just planting the mustard seeds, as it were.

 

[gazelam]

Follow Paul’s admonition in 1 Thessalonions 5:21 - Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. Go!

 

[RebeccaJ]

I wouldn’t agree it is necessary to attend a Mormon meeting in order to test the truth of it. Paul isn’t admonishing people to try everything under the sun. Gal. 1:9

 

[RebeccaJ]

I agree 100% with RebeccaJ - the “niceness” always has strings attached. Conversion is always the ultimate goal, even if the task at hand is just planting the mustard seeds, as it were.

A bit of a different experience for those who were once Mormon, and have left.

 

[PaulDupre]

The only reason any Mormon associates voluntarily with a non-Mormon is to convert him/her. As soon as the Mormon finally realizes that the non-Mormon will never convert, the alleged “friendship” will end and the Mormon will move on to the next prospective convert.

In Mormonism, “friendship” is a procedure done to a non-member in order to lead him/her to conversion. They even have a booklet called “I Need a Friend - a Guide to Friendshipping” that outlines the procedure for using “friendship” to gain converts. It is the most cynical thing I have ever seen.

Mormons have no concept of true friendship. Mormon love/friendship is always highly conditional and predicated on following the rules of Mormonism.

Once you stop professing belief in Joseph Smith or refuse to continue to profess belief in Joseph Smith, all Mormon “love” and “friendships” evaporate into thin air.

When my wife and I left Mormonism, all of our supposed Mormon “friends” turned on us and spread viscous rumors about us. Chief among these was the wife of my alleged friend the bishop whom I had served as councilor. By the time she and her “sisters” were through, my wife and I were in prison for selling drugs and our children had been taken from us and placed in foster care (none of which was true). We ran into my wife’s co-relief-society-presidency councilor in the grocery store. She asked us, in all sincerity, how we had managed to get out of prison, and did we think we would ever be allowed to see our children again.

You see, a Mormon has a deep-seated psychological need to explain why people leave the Mormon faith in a way that protects his fragile “testimony”. It cannot possibly be because we had studied LDS history and doctrine and realized it was all a scam. So of course it had to be that we had committed some heinous sins that had driven the Holy Ghost from us and allowed Satan to gain control over us. No matter that none of it was true - they would invent whatever story was necessary in order to maintain their Joseph Smith fantasy intact.

It just makes me glad that we got out of that sick cult when we did.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[vsedriver]

They seem to receive a spiritual confirmation of particulars, such as Joseph Smith or the Book of Mormon. Then there are these little leaps of logic that lead them along to the “Only true Church” conclusion. Well, it’s in the D&C. So if JS is a prophet, it must be true. And so on.

What seems unreasonable to me is that a 19th century American would translate ancient text into 16th Century English.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

I actually have no intention of converting them. My job is to live my faith to the fullest and answer questions if people have them. Godis in charge of changing hearts and I can’t make anyone Catholic. I was thinking it would be neat for them to see a Catholic Mass because I know her Mother was Catholic before converting.

We decided not to do the swap but have them over to talk over dinner. I hope we don’t lose their friendship. They are the only other family on our block with conservative values and it’s nice not to feel so isolated.

Pretty: Mormonism has nothing of deep spiritual substance to offer you.

This is the bottom line in advice to just about anybody:

I would say spend more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament; God lavishes us (as He chooses of course) & sometimes that "something’ is sensed by others who want for themselves but don’t have it where they are . There is nothing like a HOLY PERSON radiating God’s magnetic Love. HOLINESS in those blessed with it and noticed by those blessed to realize it is a *real *gift. I saw JP2 in Canada in early 1980’s. Had me bawling my eyes out! It’s WHO that travels him that was so amazing! Left me speechless as tired and sunburned as I was, the LOVING POWER of THE TRI-UNITY was something I still don’t have a lexicon for but without a doubt knocked my socks off.

God’s Love - sooooo pure the ultimate gift, a taste of heaven on earth, found at the Eucharist every time. Let Christ take over & EVERYONE will take notice. That’s our job and indeed my life-long struggle: “Let go & let God”.

 

[SteveVH]

Pretty: Mormonism has nothing of deep spiritual substance to offer you.

This is the bottom line in advice to just about anybody:

I would say spend more time in front of the Blessed Sacrament; God lavishes us (as He chooses of course) & sometimes that "something’ is sensed by others who want for themselves but don’t have it where they are . There is nothing like a HOLY PERSON radiating God’s magnetic Love. HOLINESS in those blessed with it and noticed by those blessed to realize it is a *real *gift. I saw JP2 in Canada in early 1980’s. Had me bawling my eyes out! It’s WHO that travels him that was so amazing! Left me speechless as tired and sunburned as I was, the LOVING POWER of THE TRI-UNITY was something I still don’t have a lexicon for but without a doubt knocked my socks off.

God’s Love - sooooo pure the ultimate gift, a taste of heaven on earth, found at the Eucharist every time. Let Christ take over & EVERYONE will take notice. That’s our job and indeed my life-long struggle: “Let go & let God”.

Great advice!

 

[FrRob]

My neighbors are Mormon and they have invited us to go to their church one day and said they’d love to go to our church, too. We are both practicing members of our faith with no intention of converting, yet we have noticed subtle hints that they’d love to convert us over the years. I don’t want them to think we are interested in switching, but it would be neat to get them to go to a Catholic Mass for the first time. Thoughts?

If they were Christians or Jews, I think maybe I could see doing this, but with a group that specifically denies the Eternal Divine Nature of the Christ . . . no.

I would not do it.

If you feel you simply MUST, in order to be polite, I would be VERY cautious. You have to remember that the goal is to convert you, and they will all be SUCH NICE PEOPLE!

Nevertheless. The “niceness” of the people you meet will be immaterial. Their church speaks of a “God the father” who was once human,mbut got a promotion. An he “promoted” Jesus. And the goal to to “get promoted” in a similar way.

To godhood.

You can’t reconcile this with Christianity. Don’t even try.

I’d do my best to back out of this. If you want to try inviting them to mass, I’m sure that will be nice,mbut not at the cost of having to submit yourself to LDS proselytizing.

Fr. Rob

 

[mtolympus]

If they were Christians or Jews, I think maybe I could see doing this, but with a group that specifically denies the Eternal Divine Nature of the Christ . . . no.

I didn’t know the Jews claim the Eternal Divine Nature of the Christ…but, I thought I did.

 

[Jerusha]

Jews don’t participate in aggressive proselytization. They are more interested in reducing anti-Semitism. Perhaps Mormons can learn a bit from them.

 

[Marie5890]

I didn’t know the Jews claim the Eternal Divine Nature of the Christ…but, I thought I did.

If you think about it though mtolympus, since LDS doctrine proclaims that Christ is the first born in the spirit of all of heavenly father and heavenly mother’s spirit children, that means Christ can not be eternal. That at some point, He was indeed created.

Therefor, not eternal.