Conversion to Mormonism?

[PaulDupre1]

A side-issue question - did they teach you the official Mandarin dialect, or the native Taiwanese dialect? From what I understand there are reasonable differences between the two.

As Mandarin is the official language of Taiwan, and the Taiwanese dialect is not allowed to be spoken in school or in public discourse, they taught us Mandarin.

Several Taiwanese told me tales of being whipped for speaking the Taiwanese dialect at school.

The Mormons like to stay in good stead with the governments of the countries in which they proselytize. Frankly, that just makes good sense.

The Mandarin we spoke, however, was the Taiwan-accented Mandarin and not the Mainland-accented Mandarin. The two are different. For instance (romanized) the Taiwan Mandarin version of the word for “restaurant” is FanGwan, while the Mainland Mandarin version is pronounced FanGwar. The mainlanders put a hard “R” sound on the end of many words where the Taiwanese will put and “N” sound. The Chinese word for “is” is pronounced in the Taiwanese accent as “sz”, while the Mainland version is pronounced “shr”. Again, that hard “R” sound.

Hope this helps.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[FabiusMaximus]

As Mandarin is the official language of Taiwan, and the Taiwanese dialect is not allowed to be spoken in school or in public discourse, they taught us Mandarin.

Several Taiwanese told me tales of being whipped for speaking the Taiwanese dialect at school.

The Mormons like to stay in good stead with the governments of the countries in which they proselytize. Frankly, that just makes good sense.

The Mandarin we spoke, however, was the Taiwan-accented Mandarin and not the Mainland-accented Mandarin. The two are different. For instance (romanized) the Taiwanese version of the word for “restaurant” is FanGwan, while the Mainland version is FanGwar. The mainlanders put a hard “R” sound on the end of many words where the Taiwanese will put and “N” sound. The Chinese word for “is” is pronounced in the Taiwanese accent as “sz”, while the Mainland version is pronounced “shr”. Again, that hard “R” sound.

Hope this helps.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

It does! Thanks!

Looks like that the plus side was that at least you learned the intricacies of a complicated language.

 

[PaulDupre1]

It does! Thanks!

Looks like that the plus side was that at least you learned the intricacies of a complicated language.

Yes, that was a blessing. I have studied several languages, but never to the extent that I was immersed in Mandarin.

The great thing about learning another language is that it provides you with a new way to think. You know that after the age of 5 or so, we stop thinking in pictures and start thinking in words (because it is so much more economical). So the more words we know (and the more ways of expressing those words) the greater our power to think and conceptualize. Often, the way another language phrases something can give insight into the true meaning of the word, just by seeing it in a different way.

One of my favorite examples from Mandarin is the word for “repent”. It is pronounced like “Hway Guy”. The Hway character means “turn around”, and the “Guy” character means to change. So “repent” in Mandarin means “turn around and change”.

Cool, huh?

It was also a great blessing that I studied German in High School. Many of the sounds in Mandarin that are most difficult for Americans to pronounce also occur in German. An example is the “tz” sound. It is like the double Z in “pizza”. My German teacher, when teaching us the word “zehn” which means ten (pronounced “tzayn”, would have us say “pizza, pizhen, zehn”. I learned to make that sound. So when I was learning Mandarin, I had a huge advantage over the missionaries who had no exposure to German and many of whom could never quite get those sounds right.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[debbie_h]

All we had were church publications. I had no idea that there was such a thing as anti-Mormon literature until the internet came along. We had the 4 “Standard Works” (The Bible, the Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price). We also had a large collection of church magazines, The Journal of Discourses and The History of The Church. We also had all of the church manuals that we had taught from for several years.

After my mission in Taiwan, for 3 years I taught Gospel Essentials. Then for 2 years I taught Gospel Doctrine. Then I was called to be 1st Counselor in the Elders’ Quorum Presidency in 1984, then 2nd Counselor in the bishopric in 1986.

My wife taught MIA Maids (they call it something different now) for about 5 years after we were married. The girls really loved her. Then she was Relief Society secretary and then Relief Society president. She asked to be released from that calling shortly before the birth of our second child (our daughter) in 1982. That was her last calling other than occasionally Visiting Teacher, which nearly all active women are called to. Her health suffered greatly after our daughter was born, so she was much less active after that.

It was in 1986 that we left the LDS church.

Thanks for asking.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

That’s a lot of material to get through! What first tipped you off that something wasn’t right in the LDS? Where did you start & how did you navigate your way through the information to come to that conclusion?
Sorry, I know that’s a lot of questions but I do appreciate your answers

 

[PaulDupre1]

That’s a lot of material to get through! What first tipped you off that something wasn’t right in the LDS? Where did you start & how did you navigate your way through the information to come to that conclusion?
Sorry, I know that’s a lot of questions but I do appreciate your answers

When I was teaching (especially Gospel Doctrine, which is a class for Mormons, while Gospel Essentials is a course on the basics for potential converts or those new to the LDS faith) some of my brighter students asked difficult questions that I didn’t know the answer to. Like when I was a missionary, I would say “I don’t know, but I’ll look it up for next time”. Then I would go home and start digging.

One book that I had that I forgot to mention before was “Mormon Doctrine” by Bruce R. McConkey, who got to be an apostle the old-fashioned way - he married the prophet David O. McKay’s daughter.

Mormon Doctrine was at that time the equivalent of the Catechism of the Catholic Church because it was the only comprehensive compendium of LDS teachings. In the 1970s and 1980s if there was a doctrinal dispute, you would take Mormon Doctrine off the shelf, look up the doctrine and that was the end of the debate. Of course, these days the LDS have thrown McConkey and Mormon Doctrine under the bus because Mormon Doctrine (even the sanitized 2nd edition that I have) contains all the racism, sexism, virulent anti-Catholicism and other unpopular stuff that the LDS have recently tried to distance themselves from.

Mormon Doctrine, with its many references to the standard works, The History of the Church and the Journal of Discourses (similar to the way the CCC is chock full of references to the Bible, the Early Church Fathers, church councils and papal bulls and encyclicals throughout the centuries), was always a good place to start. Then we would follow to the source documents for the full context. I still do the same when I study the CCC.

These days, whenever I look at Mormon Doctrine, I am truly repulsed and wonder how I could ever have believed any of that nonsense.

Anyway, that was what started my journey.

Paul (formerly LDS, now happily Catholic)

 

[TexanKnight]

That’s a lot of material to get through! What first tipped you off that something wasn’t right in the LDS? Where did you start & how did you navigate your way through the information to come to that conclusion?
Sorry, I know that’s a lot of questions but I do appreciate your answers

For me, it was studying to be a better Mormon. I wanted to be a great LDS apologist. SO, I began to dig deeper than the surface. The more I studied, and the more I researched, I began to uncover the ugly truths and doctrines.

 

[debbie_h]

Paul & Texan,
You both served missions, what was the convert retention rates? Did you meet anyone who had maybe shaken your faith up a little (or a lot)? Thinking back to my own ward I can’t say that many new converts lasted very long. While I was part of a large ward, it was mostly BIC families. I had one new convert say to me during YSA Sunday school that he only got baptised & was only there for his girlfriend & that he didn’t care for the YSA activities (he left as soon as the relationship ended after a few months).

 

[taylorf]

Wow…how many times do I need to respond the same question? But, I will answer one more time.

Sorry, I looked back through the thread and didn’t see you had answered this already.

Before I answer I want to clarify that he did not propose that Adam was a God, but that God was Adam. Mormons do not have any trouble believing that Adam, Abraham and Jacob are gods.

I don’t really get the relevancy to my question, but isn’t it logical to assume that if Brigham is proposing that God is Adam, then it’s implicit that Adam is a God?

As I said in my previous posts…Mormons do not believe in infallibility of the Prophets and Apostles as Catholics do regarding the Pope.

I don’t understand why this is always mentioned when errors from prophets comes up. Who is claiming they are infallible? And you should know the differences between the Pope and the LDS prophet since you were once Catholic and studied Catholicism.

The Adam-God was just a theory that evolved in the mind of Brigham Young. It was not introduced as a revelation or commandment from God and it was never submitted for official consideration to the First Presidency or Quorum of the 12 Apostles or the body of the Church.

Do the following statements sound like he was advancing just theory?

“Now, let all who may hear these doctrines pause before they make light of them or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.”

“How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which I revealed to them, and which God revealed to me—namely that Adam is our Father and God”

“When our father Adam came into the garden of Eden, he came into it with a celestial body, and brought Eve, one of his wives, with him. He helped to make and organize this world. He is MICHAEL, the Archangel, the ANCIENT OF DAYS! about whom holy men have written and spoken—He is our FATHER and our GOD, and the only God with whom WE have to do. Every man upon the earth, professing Christians or non-professing, must hear it, and will know it sooner or later.”

“Some years ago,** I advanced a doctrine with regard to Adam being our father and God**, that will be a curse to many of the Elders of Israel because of their folly. With regard to it they yet grovel in darkness and will. It is one of the most glorious revealments of the economy of heaven, yet the world hold derision…”

Brigham Young had to go back to the drawing board a few times and revise his theory or opinion when other leaders of the Church pointed out that his opinion was against revealed truth contained in the four standard books of revelation…Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price and Book of Mormon.

Can you show me where he has to go back to a drawing board? Even then, this doesn’t make sense. Why would a prophet need to draft and revise theories when he can go just directly to God for an answer? Joseph did this regularly, so why not Brigham?

In Summary, this idea, opinion or theory never have gotten any traction in the Church and it was never incorporated as doctrine in the church. Everyone is free to speculate, but in this case Brigham Young speculated too loud. Towards the end not even Brigham Young was not certain of this theory. He used words such as I recon…and the like when talking about it.

There had to have been some traction, otherwise why would Spencer W. Kimball need to specifically call out Adam-God doctrine? For those that believed in Brigham’s teachings, shouldn’t he be held accountable for leading them astray?

“We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the Scriptures…, for instance, Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine.”

Any new proposed revelation has to be addressed to the governing body of the church and submitted to the Lord and they do expect to receive a revelation from God whether such proposal is true or not. Adam-God theory did not even get advanced for deliberation before God.

Can you provide the reference in the standard works that clearly defines the process that revelation has to be addressed by a governing body of the church? I checked out FAIR on this and all they have are a bunch of quotes from church leaders. Given that we can’t rely on statements from church leaders as official position, I’m trying to validate that the process is canonized in the standard works. Can’t find it.

Also, the statement on prophets at lds.org even seems to contradict this, or fails to footnote that prophetic revelation is subject to the approval of a governing body:

"We can always trust the living prophets. Their teachings reflect the will of the Lord, who declared: “What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).

Our greatest safety lies in strictly following the word of the Lord given through His prophets, particularly the current President of the Church. The Lord warns that those who ignore the words of the living prophets will fall (see D&C 1:14-16).

“Thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

”For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith.” (D&C 21:4-6).

 

[FabiusMaximus]

For me, it was studying to be a better Mormon. I wanted to be a great LDS apologist. SO, I began to dig deeper than the surface. The more I studied, and the more I researched, I began to uncover the ugly truths and doctrines.

^^ The textbook example of the Lord working in mysterious ways.

Did you ever feel, Texan, that perhaps God allowed your stay in Mormonism so that once you converted to Catholicism, you’d be armed with arguments to defend it from LDS claims?

 

[TexanKnight]

Paul & Texan,
You both served missions, what was the convert retention rates? Did you meet anyone who had maybe shaken your faith up a little (or a lot)? Thinking back to my own ward I can’t say that many new converts lasted very long. While I was part of a large ward, it was mostly BIC families. I had one new convert say to me during YSA Sunday school that he only got baptised & was only there for his girlfriend & that he didn’t care for the YSA activities (he left as soon as the relationship ended after a few months).

funny you should ask. I served in Honduras in 1984-1986. Later, when I was a Captain in the US Army, I was stationed in Honduras- 1992-1993. I was no longer LDS at that time. I determined to visit all my areas and apologize to all those I baptized…which was a LOT. I would say over 80% were no longer LDS, most od the rest were LDS in name only. When I asked them about certain LDS beliefs, they did not did not believe them.

two or three I baptized went on to serve missions as well…and were still LDS.

But, I was grateful that so many left.

 

[TexanKnight]

^^ The textbook example of the Lord working in mysterious ways.

Did you ever feel, Texan, that perhaps God allowed your stay in Mormonism so that once you converted to Catholicism, you’d be armed with arguments to defend it from LDS claims?

Good question. I became LDS at a very difficult time in my life. I am not certain, looking back, that I would be Catholic today had I not been LDS. If nothing else, it brought me to the realization that there should only be ONE true Church.

And yes…I think God led me to be a missionary, and serve in Bishoprics and EQ Presidency and visit so many temples and historical sites so that I would be ready to warn those who are still LDS.

Maybe that is presumptuous…but so be it

 

[seanman611]

for me, it was the fact that they did not smoke or drink alcohol, as I did not either.

It’s no wonder why they don’t get many Episcopalian converts lol

 

[Sabacthani]

I’ve been curious to find out what motivates people to convert to Mormonism. Most of what I’ve read and watched seems to be connected with an emotional or spiritual sensation, or perhaps after doing “Moroni’s challenge.”

I’m curious to know if any LDS converts here can confirm whether that “challenge” is what brought them to Mormonism, or whether they had an intellectual argument that won them over?

I’m not attempting to downplay or dismiss either Mormonism, converts to Mormonism, or experience leading to conversion. I’m just genuinely interested.

For me it was that the whole families thing, and the fact that they induced you with fruits of the spirit, i.e. peace, love, all that good stuff in Galatians, rather than trying the anti-biblical terrorist game some call “Pascal’s wager.” I was so sick of fundamentalist Christians trying to scare me into their church, and I just don’t think that’s how Jesus would operate.

You didn’t ask why I left the church so I won’t address that.

 

[taylorf]

For me it was that the whole families thing, and the fact that they induced you with fruits of the spirit, i.e. peace, love, all that good stuff in Galatians, rather than trying the anti-biblical terrorist game some call “Pascal’s wager.” I was so sick of fundamentalist Christians trying to scare me into their church, and I just don’t think that’s how Jesus would operate.

You didn’t ask why I left the church so I won’t address that.

You got me interested. So why did you leave the church?

 

[Sabacthani]

You got me interested. So why did you leave the church?

I didn’t want to be a member of a church that would give me the priesthood. Don’t get me wrong, I like the whole unpaid lay priesthood thing, and I hope you Catholics catch onto it. But the push on ordaining all males to the priesthood seems a bit much.

 

[Porknpie]

I was reading a little bit about the third century saint, St Cecilia, and was impressed how she died as a great witness to the Christian faith, including her belief in the Trinity. For refusing to marry, she was sentence to be executed by beheading, but three strokes of the sword failed to do so but left her mortally wounded (the first two strokes inflicted little damage). She died three days later professing her belief in the Trinity by displaying three fingers on one hand (three beings: Father, Son and Holy Spirit) and one finger on the one hand (in one person). The outline of her body is shown in the image below.

No where in the early church do we read of an LDS type belief of people ascending to be God’s and becoming God’s of their own planets. Rather what we read of is an understanding of the Trinity, three persons in one being.

What a wonderful witness she was to the Christian faith passed on by Christ to the apostles and from the apostles to their descendants.

PnP

 

[zaffiroborant]

I didn’t want to be a member of a church that would give me the priesthood. Don’t get me wrong, I like the whole unpaid lay priesthood thing, and I hope you Catholics catch onto it. But the push on ordaining all males to the priesthood seems a bit much.

I don’t see what is so special about an unpaid clergy, nor are all lds clergy unpaid, just the lowly ones.

 

[Sabacthani]

I don’t see what is so special about an unpaid clergy

I refuse to engage in a prideful and therefore sinful contest of whose church or former church is better. It’s not polite and it’s not charitable either.

I know many wonderful Catholic priests and nuns and I think it’s a tragedy that your lower clerical orders are prohibited marriage and family. I don’t mean that makes your church bad. I mean that it hurts you, because your best and most spiritual people are banned from reproducing and raising their own children. I’m happy to see the Catholic Church making more use of their deacons, and hope that there will be more part time lay clergy who have jobs and families.

I think it’s prideful to get offended when someone suggests that Catholicism might learn something useful from the Mormons. I’m willing to bet that a number of good Catholics will agree with me there.

 

[iepuras]

I didn’t want to be a member of a church that would give me the priesthood. Don’t get me wrong, I like the whole unpaid lay priesthood thing, and I hope you Catholics catch onto it. But the push on ordaining all males to the priesthood seems a bit much.

You get what you pay for. If you want a priest who has studied the Bible, theology and counseling and has time to actually care for his flock, then you need to pay him or otherwise provide for his temporal needs. In the LDS church, the local lay leaders have little to know training in their scriptures or theology. They receive no training on counseling or pastoral care. They are simply given a book of instruction and can talk to someone higher up who also has had no training. LDS bishops also have day jobs so they don’t have much time to dedicate to their flocks. Their families often suffer from not seeing dad all that much.

I understand the sentiment and it sounds good but it doesn’t really work all that well in reality.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I refuse to engage in a prideful and therefore sinful contest of whose church or former church is better. It’s not polite and it’s not charitable either.

I know many wonderful Catholic priests and nuns and I think it’s a tragedy that your lower clerical orders are prohibited marriage and family. I don’t mean that makes your church bad. I mean that it hurts you, because your best and most spiritual people are banned from reproducing and raising their own children. I’m happy to see the Catholic Church making more use of their deacons, and hope that there will be more part time lay clergy who have jobs and families.

I think it’s prideful to get offended when someone suggests that Catholicism might learn something useful from the Mormons. I’m willing to bet that a number of good Catholics will agree with me there.

Yet it’s perfectly fine to say that the lds way is better