Ex-Mormon Looking For The Truth

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigfootbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In addition to getting to become his friend, make sure you read up on his issues with the Church so that if they do come up again you can offer at least some insight and sources for him. For your own edification check out these tracts. You can even print them out and give them to him to read.

catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0504sbs.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0107bt.asp

catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202vbv.asp
 
I’m a former Mormon that more or less studied my way into Catholicism.

Could you give us a little more background on this person? That would help in making recommendations about books and arguments to use. From what I have seen on exMormon forums, many tend to have similar issues and concerns.

Does he believe in God?
Does he believe Jesus/Christianity?
Does he have issues with an organized church, rules, priesthood, etc?
Are there science vs. religion issues?
Are there reason vs. faith issues?
How much does he know about early Christianity and the catholic church?

Also let him know that unlike the experience of many of us with Mormon history, studying the history of Catholicism has actually led many people into, not out of, the Church.
 
I’m a former Mormon that more or less studied my way into Catholicism.

Could you give us a little more background on this person? That would help in making recommendations about books and arguments to use. From what I have seen on exMormon forums, many tend to have similar issues and concerns.

Does he believe in God?
Does he believe Jesus/Christianity?
Yes
Does he have issues with an organized church, rules, priesthood, etc?
Are there science vs. religion issues?
Not that I am aware of
Are there reason vs. faith issues?
I think this could be the area that he has the most issues with the RCC. He like the Mormon doctrine of no original sin, and he thinks the papal succession is too complicated to be authentic, even if Peter was meant to be the leader of the Church, and if that role was meant to be passed on to future popes. I don’t remember everything we talked about, but it wasn’t anything major. He doesn’t like the idea of us canonizing saints, because he believes that no one can really know if they are in heaven or not, but I kind of explained things to him and he seemed a little more comfortable with the idea.
How much does he know about early Christianity and the catholic church?
My perception is that he has done a lot of research, and he seems like he knows his bible pretty well. He knows the basic Catholic teachings relatively well, but he still might have some misconceptions.
 
Just recently, I have become friends with an ex-Mormon who is trying to find a religion he likes. He is looking at a few churches right now, including the Catholic Church. He seems like he is really just trying to find the truth. I was talking to him about what he likes/dislikes about Catholic teaching, and he mentioned a few things he didn’t like. One of the major things we talked about was the idea that Christ intended to make Peter the leader of the Church on earth, and that Peter passed that on…(throughout all the confusing anti-popes and true popes)… all the way down to the current pope. Does anyone have a good argument that I can use? I didn’t want to press the issues too much, as I am just getting to know the guy, and I think the best thing for me to do right now is be a friend to him and answer the questions that I can. He actually is interested in looking closer at the Church, and he sounded interested in going to mass with me to see what it’s like.
This is the first time I’ve really done any kind of apologetics (but I think he’s a good guy to practice on), so I will be looking for advice on some other issues he has in the future.
Yes I have a very answer to your request. First of all,Jesus founded His Church for sinners,not perfectionist. Second, your friend needs to realize the popes are human and can give their views,points and opinions and no,they are infallible in everything they say.Last but not least, tell your friend this:

Remember,Jesus founded the best office (bishopric) for the man,not the best man for the office. 👍
 
I would agree with previous post.

You can’t have two leaders. Rome was consulted for final answer when jurisdictions couldn’t. So the bishop of Rome/and later Vicar of Christ…has final say…doesn’t mean the issue is totally resolved or closed…just for now and sake of unity. Patience is golden in the universal church…

However,…

You can separate the office from the person who filled it.
 
Oops! I made an error.

Yes I have a very answer to your request. First of all,Jesus founded His Church for sinners,not perfectionist. Second, your friend needs to realize the popes are human and can give their views,points and opinions and no,they are NOT infallible in everything they say.Last but not least, tell your friend this:

Remember,Jesus founded the best office (bishopric) for the man,not the best man for the office
 
Maybe the best approach would be to try to get him more familiar with the early church and its teachings. That route has led many to the apostolic churches, Catholic or Orthodox. As a former Mormon who was indoctrinated about a supposed ‘Great Apostasy’, he may still have some misconceptions about the early Christian church. A free (and non-catholic) internet source for the writings of the early church fathers can be found at earlychristianwritings.com. I would recommend starting with Clement of Rome, Ignatius, and Polycarp. There is also the book Early Christian Writings: The Apostolic Fathers that he could purchase. For a broader overview of the first Christian centuries he could read The Early Church by Henry Chadwick (an Anglican).

For more apologetic works written by Catholic converts the following books could be helpful:

Evangelical is not enough by Thomas Howard

By what authority by Mark Shea

Upon this rock by Stephen Ray
 
Yes, agree here…also Tom Nash’s book, ‘Biblical Roots of the Mass’…that also perfectly describes the priesthood of Melchizedek within Jewish culture and Catholicism’s.

Once people fully understand the Mass and its 3 levels of perception and understanding, then the entire context of Sacred Scripture comes to light and everything fits together.

This is how the Catholic Church approaches Scripture: All parts are connected together to form one main message: Jesus Christ is the Eternal Word, He is Savior and Messiah and the atonement of sin, the perfect living sacrifice to the Father Who is united to us at the Mass.
 
Maybe the best approach would be to try to get him more familiar with the early church and its teachings. That route has led many to the apostolic churches, Catholic or Orthodox. As a former Mormon who was indoctrinated about a supposed ‘Great Apostasy’, he may still have some misconceptions about the early Christian church.
That’s true. We Mormons picked up a lot of misconceptions from other anti-catholic churches, and for some time we mis-read the Bible and the Book of Mormon as to the city built on seven hills, the harlot in scarlets, etc., as the Catholic Church. And even though it’s been many decades since any church leader made any such statement, and even though the church required Elder McConkie to change the first Edition of “Mormon Doctrine” to remove that incorrect statement about the Catholic church, the opinion may persist.

I agree about having your friend read the early church fathers. Whether that sends him back to the LDS church, or into the Catholic church, that’s a good thing.

As I’ve cited here before,
More often, some have suggested that the Roman Catholic church might be the great and abominable church of Nephi 13. This is also untenable, primarily because Roman Catholicism as we know it did not yet exist when the crimes described by Nephi were being committed. In fact, the term Roman Catholic only makes sense after AD 1054 when it is used to distinguish the Western, Latin-speaking Orthodox Church that followed the bishop of Rome from the Eastern, Greek-speaking Orthodox Church that followed the bishop of Constantinople.
In the period between Peter and the Roman emperor Constantine, there were many Christian churches besides the Orthodox Church: Ebionites, Syrian and Egyptian churches, Donatists, Gnostics, Marcionites, and so on. Even if we use the term Catholic for the church Constantine made the state religion in AD 313, the New Testament as we know it was already widely circulating. That is, the plain and precious parts had already been removed. The notion of shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures is unfair and bigoted. We owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all.
By the time of Constantine, the apostles had been dead for centuries. Furthermore, the early Orthodox Church can hardly be accused of immorality. It had, in fact, gone to the extremes of asceticism. In some areas of the world, Orthodoxy replaced an earlier, already corrupt form of Christianity. And during much of the period, members of the Orthodox Church were not in a position to persecute anyone, as they were being thrown to the lions themselves. The Catholic Church of the fourth century was the result of the apostasy—its end product, not the cause. To find the real culprits, we need to look at a much earlier period in church history than the fourth century after Christ. Satan had his ministers in the world long before then, and we must remember that Babylon was already there to oppose Zion in the days of Cain, Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Herod.
 
The Vatican sits across from the 7 hills of Rome. Also at the time St John wrote Revelations there already existed Athens, Greece which has 7 hills and Jerusalem that has 7 hills. Some folks have brought on to CAF a list of a number of cities that are built on 7 hills.

Also in regards to Constantine, he was a temporal ruler but drew on the inspirations of the presence of Christ throughout his life. The most destructive emperors were those of the last period who literally destroyed many churches as well as kill a number of bishops and priests.

Constantine made Christianity legal. He also rebuilt the churches for Christ, give more ‘mouthspeak’ to the message of Christ by having a high altar, a pulpit where the bishop or priest could proclaim the Word of God with separation from the laity. Sunday was made a legal day of rest for everyone in the Empire. He in essence worked in a temporal way to promote the message of Christ.

But Constantine did not convert to Christ and be baptized until days within his death.
In his time, 1 million pagans entered the Church and with them brought their personal customs to honor God – genuflecting, the use of statues for meditation aids.

Cowboy Pete, if you truly want to study objective Catholic history, --that is very honest and does not hide ‘the dirt’, a beginning text used at our archdiocesan seminaries is ‘A Concise History of the Catholic Church’, by Thomas Bokenkotter. It covers Church history all the way up through John Paul II, but however sketchy regarding the last 40 years…as documentation is still forthcoming.
 
That’s true. We Mormons picked up a lot of misconceptions from other anti-catholic churches, and for some time we mis-read the Bible and the Book of Mormon as to the city built on seven hills, the harlot in scarlets, etc., as the Catholic Church. And even though it’s been many decades since any church leader made any such statement, and even though the church required Elder McConkie to change the first Edition of “Mormon Doctrine” to remove that incorrect statement about the Catholic church, the opinion may persist.

I agree about having your friend read the early church fathers. Whether that sends him back to the LDS church, or into the Catholic church, that’s a good thing.

As I’ve cited here before,
I’ve never heard of anyone who read themselves into Mormonism buy studying the ECF’s. It most often has the opposite result. The more one studies the writings of the Early Christian Father’s, the more likely one is to leave Mormonism (and Protestantism for that matter) for the Catholic Church.

The fallacy of Mormonism’s Great Apostacy becomes more and more evident the more one studies the ECF’s, particularly from the first three centuries. The overwhelming reality is that the earliest Christian writers believed in distinctly Catholic doctrines, whereas Mormon beliefs are just not there.
 
I’ve never heard of anyone who read themselves into Mormonism buy studying the ECF’s. It most often has the opposite result.
Gah. Hi Chris. Believe it or not, I’m not here to play the my-church-can-beat-up-your-church game.

Do you disagree that reading the early church fathers, reading the scriptures, and praying, is a bad thing?

I reckon, do the right thing and see where it leads you.
The overwhelming reality is that the earliest Christian writers believed in distinctly Catholic doctrines, whereas Mormon beliefs are just not there.
Thank you for your opinion, Chris. I’ve been told repeatedly here that only the Catholic church is allowed to interpret the scriptures or the ECFs, so I’ll just wish you a good day, and hope you continue to read both yourself. 🙂
40.png
Kathleen:
Tom Nash’s book, ‘Biblical Roots of the Mass’…that also perfectly describes the priesthood of Melchizedek within Jewish culture and Catholicism’s.
That’s much improved in terms of being specific, Kathleen. Thank you.
 
Cowboy Pete,

I wake up in the night to pray…and I think about false teachers who are deliberately misrepresenting the Catholic faith. And it has come to my attention that for the past 3 years, Mormon ‘scholars’ are researching the early Church Fathers, but completely misrepresenting our teachings to your fellow believers.

You mention other anti-Catholic congregations here in the USA. These same sorts go out into foreign lands indoctrinating them with the same bias. I actually met and worked with African women who were subject to an American based Christian sect that was going about teaching that the priests had alot of money. I asked how, ‘They drive jeeps’. Then they told me that these sectarians taught them that we worship statues, and the typical other ‘stuff’ vulnerable people hear.

These kinds of sects primarily come out of our country. There is also a great dearth of lack of scholarship found in non-denominational communities always pointing the finger at the Catholic Church being a man made religion.

I am beginning to see that such ‘Christian’ teachers and others deliberately misrepresent our faith to simple people, are in fact promoting prejudice.

Likewise, if a person claims to be a scholar, and as a title representing some academic discipline, you would also assume like myself, that they have been taught prior to the fact, of learning to read documents objectively.

So when I see Mormon men quoting St. Athanasius whose position is complete contradiction to Mormonism polytheism where one progresses to become a god or goddess, St. Justin the Martyr, Origen, Tertullian, Ireneaus, to support your contrary beliefs, I see it on one hand…a good movement to study such teachings, but then the same falseness of not understanding, and subsequently misrepresenting.

You can recommend texts…Mr. Nash’s book gets into Scriptural depth on the background of Melchizedek and the perpetual sacrifice which is Christ in the Mass…Who has no beginning and no end.

We do not believe Christ had a beginning and thus an end, making Him separate from the Father. This is what St. Athanasius taught and affirmed at the Council of Nicea…otherwise, if Christ had a beginning and an end, He had a different substance from the Father…and this would lead to polytheism and a return to paganism…where really – the gods are either representations of unknown and uncontrolling forces or extensions of the will of men.

Christ never called us to be a god. Christ called us to a new life with Him and the Father. We are to renounce ourselves and to allow the new life of Christ to enter, to seek the humble life, and the perfect life in this world does not comprise of a family, or a big house, or money, or social status, but a renunciation of all these things for Christ. In return, we receive all of life. We then receive eyes, ears, hearts…that can perceive the goodness of life given us by the Creator that surrounds us, that brings us to joy and happiness the world can’t bring.

As Jesus said to the rich, young man, to gain perfection – not progression – Jesus said to renounce all that he had and to follow Him. For this you see in the Catholic Church many saints who lived lives of poverty but in joyful service to the Lord.
 
Why would Jesus start a Church that was doomed to fail? Answer…He wouldn’t. He said He would be with His Church and He is still with His Church.

Corruption has been in the Church since Judas betrayed Jesus. But Perhaps Judas was necessary to bring about our salvation. Likewise, during the Church’s biggest trials, the emergence of some of our greatest Saints came forth with powerful insights.

As a mother, God allows me to participate in His creations. However, as long as God has the power to remove me from existence, I can never BE GOD.

I’m not responding to anyone in particular but to different posts throughout this thread. Just some things to think about.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top