Ecumenism with the LDS Church

[mtolympus]

Not sure what that has to do with anything?

It could just be put out of print, like Mormon Doctrine was. Someone keeps Talmage’s book in print, over 100 years since it was first published. It really is time to stop making new printings of it, and selling them.

We still believe there was an apostasy but the missionaries focus on Christ more and the apostasy less today than they did 50 years ago. My personal reading preference is “The Story of Christianity” by Justo L. Gonzalez. Volume 1 “The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation.”

 

[mtolympus]

I don’t understand what you are saying here, Deseret books says the paperback edition ship in 2-3 days and you can get an instant digital delivery to bookshelf and that has nothing to do with it’s popularity on Amazon. The rating on Amazon just show that LDS members are buying the book, a lot.

But I do see you danced away from the content of the book and it’s vile treatment of Catholicism.

OK, don’t read it and I won’t read what Catholics write about Mormon History.

 

[juliamajor]

As long as the Great Apostasy is still pushed and the negative language toward our church is still around and about, I’d say it Kleenexwould be difficult. Anti CATHOLIC rhetoric and pejoratives and downright mean spiritedness was part and parcel of the Great Awakening and the churches founded in that time . “it fed into the oldest and most accepted form of bigotry- in this country, Anti- Catholicism . But the church makes the decisions, thank God, not me.
Jesus said he wanted us all to be one .so the vitriol that was spewed on my church and myself as a child by any Protestant with a chip on his shoulder has made it very difficult for me to believe in any real possibility of dialogue or fellowship. Again I say that none of this is the church’s feelings these are my feelings .
we were made to feel like a Pariah at so called interdenominational meetings and it ogives me very little hope unless some of the negative attitude and unwillingness to even let us teach you some of our history that actually could help us all .
being treated as the questionable Christian or no Christians at all when we were the first church that were called Christians.
¶Orthodoxy and Catholic are your elder brothers in Jesus ,just as the Jewish people are our elder brothers in faith. “ we should be respected as an asset for Christianity but the vehemence and bigotry that I’ve experienced,and a pat on the head for being the cute Catholic who thinks she knows scriptures, has gotten under my skin. I’ve had enough of anti Catholic pornography.
I’ve put my hand out in fellowship to have it unshaken, or sneered at. I 've had enough of the lack of kindliness ,belittling and just plain rudeness. I’ve been in social situations when somebody will come up and expect me to answer them. I am not the enemy but have been made to feel like it. The obsession with all things Catholic just perpetuates the bigotry .when they really don’t know a thing about catholics.
The Lord gave us two great commandments, love God and love your man . Many are good with one of those commands but not with both.

 

[zaffiroborant]

OK, don’t read it and I won’t read what Catholics write about Mormon History.

It doesn’t matter if I read it or not, it’s LDS members who are reading a book by an LDS apostle and forming their opinions about Catholicism from the words of a member of the quorum of the 12 apostles. Talmage is not some run of the mill Latter-day Saint ranting and from the reviews, recommendations and sales of the book one can see he is still forming LDS opinion on Catholicism.

 

[jane_doe]

From what I have read in this thread, by definition of the word, the Catholic Church cannot enter into Ecumenism with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is good to know and I understand.

However, the actual question asked was, “Does anyone feel the Church should enter into better dialogue with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?” To this I believe the answer is yes!

I’ll second this sentiment :thumbs:

That aside, what kind of better dialogue would you like to see, MtOlympus? What kind of aims and goals would you like to see accomplished with the two ?

I’m not MtOlympus, but thought I’d swing at this anyway.

For me, the greatest goal is increased understanding and love between members of the two faiths.

Do you see the LDS Church as having pivoted more towards mainstream Christianity in those 50 years?

Doctrine wise: Mormons (people and theology) have gotten better about focusing on the most essentials and not getting stuck in speculative rabbit holes. I also see other faiths (including Catholicism) focusing more on the essential cores-- we all need to strengthen the foundation amongst the world’s increasing storm.

Now, is that switching Mormon theology to be more mainstream? I would not say that.

I see terms used now by Mormons that really weren’t used when I was LDS (although the definition of such words are different). For example the term “grace”. I have seen it used more in LDS discussions now, but never before.

I also was surprised last year during Holy Week, that the LDS website had something of an interactive page which went thru the day-by-day happenings in Our Lord’s life that week.

It was well done. Just unusual as there was no recognition of that when I was LDS (80’s-90’s)

Those trends in vocabulary are for sure there. Part of this is simply a change in word choice for the same concept, part of it is lessoning the walls between faiths, part of it is improved inter-faith dialogue, part of it is the influx of converts and their cultural traditions (like more Mormons practice lent), and so many other things.

I very much see them as pivoting towards a more traditional Christian narrative. Or at least talking more about Christ, and less about Joseph Smith and the BoM.

Again, focusing more on the foundation.

 

[Marie5890]

I’m not MtOlympus, but thought I’d swing at this anyway.

For me, the greatest goal is increased understanding and love between members of the two faiths.

I think this would be great, too.

(serious question here) Do you see that many Mormons now a days can do that without trying to either prove that the LDS church is the restored church, or trying to see others as potential converts?

I’ve been out long enough that I don’t know what the culture is like now when it comes to the edict of “every member a missionary”.

One of the biggest complaints I have heard is that many non-Mormons sense that there is a “strings attached” under current when dealing with Mormons, although I think it may be more contained to the Mormon corridor and less so the further one gets away from that part of the country.

Can Mormons engage in the kind of dialogue where increased love and understanding is fostered without the proselytizing stance? It was so ingrained into us when I was Mormon that it was challenge.

 

[jane_doe]

(serious question here) Do you see that many Mormons now a days can do that without trying to either prove that the LDS church is the restored church, or trying to see others as potential converts?

Yes, I see it every day actually. Example: just 20 minutes ago, the LDS missionaries left dinner at my house without making a single converting move towards my Evangelical husband.

A serious return question: do you see the day where Catholics can work alongside with Mormons without seeing the existence to the Mormon church as an insult to Catholicism? (Pardon me, this is poorly phrased but I can’t think of better words. I’m trying to ask, can Catholics agree to disagree)

I’ve been out long enough that I don’t know what the culture is like now when it comes to the edict of “every member a missionary”.

Every moment a member should be a missionary: because we should be a window to Christ’s love. If someone asks, then you can share. If someone doesn’t want to chat, ok, that’s there choice.

One of the biggest complaints I have heard is that many non-Mormons sense that there is a “strings attached” under current when dealing with Mormons, although I think it may be more contained to the Mormon corridor and less so the further one gets away from that part of the country.

Utah culture is … special… to put things very politely…

Can Mormons engage in the kind of dialogue where increased love and understanding is fostered without the proselytizing stance? It was so ingrained into us when I was Mormon that it was challenge.

Do you think I’m here in a proselytizing stance?

 

[Marie5890]

A serious return question: do you see the day where Catholics can work alongside with Mormons without seeing the existence to the Mormon church as an insult to Catholicism? (Pardon me, this is poorly phrased but I can’t think of better words. I’m trying to ask, can Catholics agree to disagree)

To be honest I don’t think most of your everyday Catholic know enough about Mormonism’s doctrine to be insulted. It’s only if a Mormon were to bring it up. Those of us here on CAF are a different breed because we tend to delve more deeply into both Catholicism and how it relates to other belief systems. Most of the Catholics here on CAF do not reflect your everyday practicing Catholic

Every moment a member should be a missionary: because we should be a window to Christ’s love. If someone asks, then you can share. If someone doesn’t want to chat, ok, that’s there choice.

Utah culture is … special… to put things very politely…

Having lived there for over a decade, I understand your point. LOL

Do you think I’m here in a proselytizing stance?

No, but that is not allowed here and Eric would put an end to that. We have had Mormons in the past come here with a proselytizing stance and had to be informed of the forum rules. I have no idea if that rule didn’t exist if you would do it or not. Since you mention that your husband is not a Mormon, Im guessing that you, as an individual, are a different kind of Mormon. Do you feel you are a typical Mormon and fit the norm, or are you different? (serious question)

 

[jane_doe]

To be honest I don’t think most of your everyday Catholic know enough about Mormonism’s doctrine to be insulted. It’s only if a Mormon were to bring it up. Those of us here on CAF are a different breed because we tend to delve more deeply into both Catholicism and how it relates to other belief systems. Most of the Catholics here on CAF do not reflect your everyday practicing Catholic

Thank you for the honest response. Ignoring the uneducated Catholics, do you think that devout Catholics and/or Catholics like the ones on CAF could ever come to agree to disagree with Mormons?

No, but that is not allowed here and Eric would put an end to that. We have had Mormons in the past come here with a proselytizing stance and had to be informed of the forum rules.

I understand the anti-proselytizing rules, the Mormon forum I hang out on likewise has a smiler clause and it’s had to be used, including against Catholics. It’s one of those unfortunate realities that people sometimes act… like why does the internet rob people of common decency?

I have no idea if that rule didn’t exist if you would do it or not.

This (as I am on CAF) is 100% my normal behavior.

Since you mention that your husband is not a Mormon, Im guessing that you, as an individual, are a different kind of Mormon. Do you feel you are a typical Mormon and fit the norm, or are you different? (serious question)

Heh, it varies, just like most any other group. Most are very cool with other people having other beliefs and aren’t at all you-must-convert-or-I-shun-you. Even my very devote traditional LDS family is chill with my husband.

As to myself, my level of enthusiasm for inter-faith dialogue is… admittedly I’ve never met a person of any faith who shares close to my level of excitement. I go on vacation, I want to visit churches. I’m bored, I chat about God with random people, or see if a local church has something going on that I can just visit. I am THRILLED by this.

 

[Dirk_Skene]

Does anyone feel the Church should enter into better dialogue with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? We each represent a substantial body of believers with great influence and powerful moral authority, yet great doctrinal and theological division. I know it may be hard to engage the LDS doctrinally, given their decentralized engagement with theology and moral philosophy, but would anyone like to see Rome start taking this growing organization with greater attentiveness?

As long as these folks insist that men can become gods when they die and create their own heavens and their wives could only get in to those Hevens if they please their husbands on this planet then I would say no, we do not need to enter into dialogue with them. Their theology is just way too silly

 

[Marie5890]

Thank you for the honest response. Ignoring the uneducated Catholics, do you think that devout Catholics and/or Catholics like the ones on CAF could ever come to agree to disagree with Mormons?

.

In what sense “agree to disagree”? I think most devout Catholics and those who are on CAF, minus those who are former Mormons, most likely yes, would agree to disagree, unless of course the dialogue were more of a theological one. Those here on CAF tend to be very interested in apologetics.

For those of us who are former Mormons, or have had family members who are LDS or other closer associations with Mormons, the answer may be different.

For me personally, I am very well aware of how the LDS church has whitewashed it’s history, and allowed it’s people to believe things about it’s past that simply are not true. I do see there being a level of fraud by the LDS leadership. I have seen it’s destructive force in many a family and the rifts it causes. I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

So for me, it’s not as simple as “agreeing to disagree”. My conscience demands pushing back when I know falsehood and myths are being presented as facts and truth.

Take for instance the whole idea that Joseph Smith translated the BoM with the Urim and Thummin. Now the LDS leadership has come out and admitted that he used a stone in the bottom of a hat and he used to put his head into this hat.

This has been known for many years by those of us who are former Mormons, but we have taken heat and called anti-Mormon etc etc etc and spreading lies.

Well, it is factual. We have not been lying.

So, I suspect many of us former Mormons, we won’t be doing the “agreeing to disagree” when there is a need to speak up about what the facts are. What the truth is. What has been hidden , swept under the rug or whitewashed.

It has to do with our honor and integrity. At least is does for me. It’s uncharitable to allow people to believe in something that can be demonstrably shown as not true.

 

[jane_doe]

In what sense “agree to disagree”? I think most devout Catholics and those who are on CAF, minus those who are former Mormons, most likely yes, would agree to disagree, unless of course the dialogue were more of a theological one. Those here on CAF tend to be very interested in apologetics.

For those of us who are former Mormons, or have had family members who are LDS or other closer associations with Mormons, the answer may be different.

For me personally, I am very well aware of how the LDS church has whitewashed it’s history, and allowed it’s people to believe things about it’s past that simply are not true. I do see there being a level of fraud by the LDS leadership. I have seen it’s destructive force in many a family and the rifts it causes. I could go on, but I think you get my drift.

So for me, it’s not as simple as “agreeing to disagree”. My conscience demands pushing back when I know falsehood and myths are being presented as facts and truth.

Take for instance the whole idea that Joseph Smith translated the BoM with the Urim and Thummin. Now the LDS leadership has come out and admitted that he used a stone in the bottom of a hat and he used to put his head into this hat.

This has been known for many years by those of us who are former Mormons, but we have taken heat and called anti-Mormon etc etc etc and spreading lies.

Well, it is factual. We have not been lying.

So, I suspect many of us former Mormons, we won’t be doing the “agreeing to disagree” when there is a need to speak up about what the facts are. What the truth is. What has been hidden , swept under the rug or whitewashed.

It has to do with our honor and integrity. At least is does for me. It’s uncharitable to allow people to believe in something that can be demonstrably shown as not true.

Thank you again for the honest answer.

 

[zaffiroborant]

In what sense “agree to disagree”? I think most devout Catholics and those who are on CAF, minus those who are former Mormons, most likely yes, would agree to disagree, unless of course the dialogue were more of a theological one. Those here on CAF tend to be very interested in apologetics.

I never would have wound up on religious boards at all had it not been for a series of LDS missionaries who accosted me in my yard, and on my porch, after telling me my church was wrong and me responding I wasn’t interested, they said straight up I must not love my children because I didn’t want to learn how I could be with them forever. So LDS missionaries confronted me and now LDS on line get me.

 

[Marie5890]

I never would have wound up on religious boards at all had it not been for a series of LDS missionaries who accosted me in my yard, and on my porch, after telling me my church was wrong and me responding I wasn’t interested, they said straight up I must not love my children because I didn’t want to learn how I could be with them forever. So LDS missionaries confronted me and now LDS on line get me.

Geez…

Zaff, when was this? Have no idea of what the strategies are now for the full-time missionaries, but that is really just awful.

I also am NOT fond of the practice of trying to commit someone to baptism after just a couple of meetings with them. Not sure if that is still the norm or not.

And it’s common knowledge, at least of the past, that the missionaries had baptism goals they were supposed to meet. You know, like salespeople have. Hopefully all of those things have changed. I certainly hope so

Makes me shiver…

 

[zaffiroborant]

I

So, I suspect many of us former Mormons, we won’t be doing the “agreeing to disagree” when there is a need to speak up about what the facts are. What the truth is. What has been hidden , swept under the rug or whitewashed.

It has to do with our honor and integrity. At least is does for me. It’s uncharitable to allow people to believe in something that can be demonstrably shown as not true.

Mormons seem to want to come here and explain why there was an apostasy, why they see their church as right and true and various other points in LDS thought and no one is supposed to disagree with this or present a counter thought to it. If we disagree with something it’s because we can’t even tolerate the existence of the LDS church.

 

[RebeccaJ]

A serious return question: do you see the day where Catholics can work alongside with Mormons without seeing the existence to the Mormon church as an insult to Catholicism? (Pardon me, this is poorly phrased but I can’t think of better words. I’m trying to ask, can Catholics agree to disagree)

I don’t see it as either/or. I see Mormon teachings as an insult but can ignore the insult to get along with Mormons.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Geez…

Zaff, when was this? Have no idea of what the strategies are now for the full-time missionaries, but that is really just awful.

This happened a few months before I joined here, I spent some time at other places (Catholics at one site warned everyone off of this site, you’ll get banned, they a are crazy orthodox/traditional bunch). I wound up here because of reading Whyme on the then called MAD board. More recently (and what fries me even more) my cousins children were invited over to a relatively new neighbors home, ostensibly for “pizza and a movie” but the missionaries were there, and you know what their job is, the parents never told Julie that this was part of the deal, she felt betrayed and decieved. The big problem I have now is LDS reaction to that situation. Overall they think it’s fine, I have rarely if ever seen a truly negative reaction to this. It’s always well missionaries this and missionaries that.

The LDS weren’t the worst I’ve run across though, I spent a summer in high school working a part time job where at lunch time I hid from aggressive proselytizers either in my car (95 degrees outside in a parked car with no A/C) or under the counter where I worked (at least it wasn’t 100 plus degrees there). My dad eventually called the local police when I described being physically restrained by those people.

 

[Marie5890]

This happened a few months before I joined here, I spent some time at other places (Catholics at one site warned everyone off of this site, you’ll get banned, they a are crazy orthodox/traditional bunch). I wound up here because of reading Whyme on the then called MAD board. More recently (and what fries me even more) my cousins children were invited over to a relatively new neighbors home, ostensibly for “pizza and a movie” but the missionaries were there, and you know what their job is, the parents never told Julie that this was part of the deal, she felt betrayed and decieved. The big problem I have now is LDS reaction to that situation. Overall they think it’s fine, I have rarely if ever seen a truly negative reaction to this. It’s always well missionaries this and missionaries that.

The LDS weren’t the worst I’ve run across though, I spent a summer in high school working a part time job where at lunch time I hid from aggressive proselytizers either in my car (95 degrees outside in a parked car with no A/C) or under the counter where I worked (at least it wasn’t 100 plus degrees there). My dad eventually called the local police when I described being physically restrained by those people.

Doesn’t surprise me about the LDS reaction to the whole missionaries-at-the-pizza-movie deal, them seeing it as B9.

“every member a missionary” “every member a missionary” ad nauseum.
It’s their way of trying to create a “teaching moment” a “teaching opportunity” or create “a relationship of trust”…(that used to be a strategy they were taught to utilize. IE building a trusting relationship in order to foster possible conversion.

It’s all so manipulative and contrived. Man, I wonder when they will ever stop?

 

[lax16]

Yes, I see it every day actually. Example: just 20 minutes ago, the LDS missionaries left dinner at my house without making a single converting move towards my Evangelical husband.

What was the reason for them coming to your house for dinner?

A serious return question: do you see the day where Catholics can work alongside with Mormons without seeing the existence to the Mormon church as an insult to Catholicism? (Pardon me, this is poorly phrased but I can’t think of better words. I’m trying to ask, can Catholics agree to disagree)

Mormonism is an insult to Catholicism? I wouldn’t say that. Calling the Catholic Church the whore of babylon and an apostate church is not exactly heartwarming though.

Every moment a member should be a missionary: because we should be a window to Christ’s love. If someone asks, then you can share. If someone doesn’t want to chat, ok, that’s there choice.

Agree.

Utah culture is … special… to put things very politely…

Totally agree!

Do you think I’m here in a proselytizing stance?

I am sure you are here to clarify Mormon teachings and beliefs. However, I have found most LDS either don’t know the history of their church and beliefs or try whitewash them.

 

[lax16]

I never would have wound up on religious boards at all had it not been for a series of LDS missionaries who accosted me in my yard, and on my porch, after telling me my church was wrong and me responding I wasn’t interested, they said straight up I must not love my children because I didn’t want to learn how I could be with them forever. So LDS missionaries confronted me and now LDS on line get me.

I could write a book about our Mormon missionary stories. And not a nice one, either.