Ex-Mormon Missionaries

  • Thread starter Thread starter cestusdei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Somewhere or the other a common misconception has been birthed among many Catholics that abortion is acceptable to Mormons. I’ve seen this in Bud McFarlane’s novels, for instance. It is NOT SO. Mormons deem abortion a sin: they feel that there are souls awaiting mortal bodies in Heaven and they tend these days to have larger families than american Catholics. It may be true that they permit abortion in limited situations, and they are less likely than many sects to actively engage in pro-life activity: they deem our American Constitution to be Divine in it’s source and they rarely engage in civil disobedience for this reason.

In any case, Catholics will find the tendency towards subjectivism in Mormonism to be in sharp contrast to the more well-reasoned and evidential approach one might find with Catholic apologetics. Don’t mistake this for a total inability to reason with Mormons but don’t be surprised either if some of your conversations with the LDS end with their affirmation of their ‘testimony’ (personal revelation) of the truth of Mormonism.

Regarding ‘multiplicity of Gods’: Mormon theology does permit a variety of interpretations of the notion that faithful LDS will experience 'eternal progression and eventually achieve to the stature that God the Father now has. Please do note that God Himslef is also–per Mormonism–also eternally progressing, and He will ever remain our superior. I do not deny however that Mormon mission work is often less than fully forthright: in fact, the entire LDS structure is like a tightly-woven gnostic sect, with greater knowledge revealed to one as one progresses through the LDS ranks.
 
exmormon.org
40.png
cestusdei:
Does anyone know any good sites with stories from ex-mormon missionaries? I have read a bit about how they are often disillusioned with their mission experience. It might be nice to know more about what they go through.
Click to expand...
 
oat soda:
also watch out for the mormons like rod of iron. he’s not worth debating as he and all other mormon apologist are not willing to hear reason.
Click to expand...
Oat soda, I guess you have not been on this forum long enough to know that I am not a member of the LDS chruch. You claim that I am not willing to hear reason. But using reason, anyone can rationalize something into the truth if they desire it to be true. The truth is written down in the scripture so that we do not have to rely on someone’s reasoning.
 
“Oat soda, I guess you have not been on this forum long enough to know that I am not a member of the LDS chruch.”

I personally have not been on this forum more than three weeks, however I have been posting at Beleifnet for over four years.

On the Beleifnet “Mormon Debate” boards I have been speaking with a charecter with the exact same user name as yourself. Who also says that there are simularities between mormon and Catholic/Christian thought as you have here, That certain heavily censored, and highly selective mini-quotes from early Catholic authorities “prove” that Early Catholics were polytheistic like the mormons, and beleived that “humans could become gods”.

As far as I know Ironhold, that Ironhold is a member of the mormon organisation, or one very simular, like the ROCOJCOLDS (Community of Christ), Temple Lot Church or another mormon organisation.

You are certianly a member of some mormon organisation, whether or not it is the Utah “lds” mormon organisation is immaterial, esp since most of the posters here would not know the difference.

Coincidence, I don’t think so.
 
“Oat soda, I guess you have not been on this forum long enough to know that I am not a member of the LDS chruch.”

And of course more mormon deception, what do you call this one Iron, “plausible deniability”.
 
rod of iron:
Oat soda, I guess you have not been on this forum long enough to know that I am not a member of the LDS chruch. You claim that I am not willing to hear reason. But using reason, anyone can rationalize something into the truth if they desire it to be true. The truth is written down in the scripture so that we do not have to rely on someone’s reasoning.
Click to expand...
Here is a quote from an earlier post of yours:

"Well, since you started the sophistry in your last post, I do not know if I can compete. Since no one has proven that the Catholic church is indeed the continuation of the church that Jesus established, this claim of the Catholic church sure appears to be sophistry.

On the other hand, Jesus restored His church again through His servant Joseph Smith. The authority was restored when Peter, James, and John laid their hands upon the heads of Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery. You may claim that the authority of the Catholic church comes through Peter, but so can I claim that of my church. You can claim that my claim is fallacious, but you cannot prove it."

That makes you a liar, if I’m not mistaken.

I am currently of the opinion that most LDS are not purposely deceptive when they withold the more esoteric teachings and history of their church. I am reconsidering that opinion.
 
There are so many errors pervading the understandings of LDS Christian belief presented as to render a proper reply impossible without penning several pages. Suffice it to say that the LDS missionaries are not experts on their faith. If you were aware of just how limited the training of an LDS missionary is, you might question why they are even used as the primary source of evangelization. In an area where the membership of the LDSChurch is strong, the missionaries are often amongst the least informed in a congregation.

LDS Christians do not believe that Amerindians are descendants of two extremely limited infusions of Semites. They also do not believe that the Book of Mormon makes such claims and I would invite anyone claiming otherwise to present the passages from the Book of Mormon to the contrary. There are not several accounts of the viewing of the plates, there were two different viewings, one by the 3 (Oliver Cowdery, David Whitmer, and Martin Harris) and one by the 11 (Christian Whitmer, Hiram Page, Jacob Whitmer, Joseph Smith, Sen., Peter Whitmer, Jun., Hyrum Smith, John Whitmer and Samuel H. Smith). And although some of these individuals provided additional details regarding the event they were involved in, none of them conflict with the primary item contained within the introduction of the present 1981 edition. There are many other errors too numerous to address. Suffice it to say that I believe the egregious and pervasive nature of the misunderstandings present in these replies to be an embarrassment. If you are not willing to truly investigate LDS Christianity, at least avoid presenting such tarnished and inaccurate caricatures of it.
 
We deal with this issue everyday in our home-- my wife is a devout Mormon and I am a Catholic. Moreover, I am a returned Catholic who did so after examing the LDS Church and, while finding much to admire, could not accept its fundamental premise.

I say this because I know from experience that it is possible to get along. I served as a Scout leader in an LDS troop, for example-- and my parish deals with many such mixed households, which are more common in the west than you might think (the number two religion is Utah is actually Roman Catholicism, imported largely by the railroad workers and miners who comprised the second wave of pioneers in that area in the later 19th century). We have the local missionaries over for dinner each month, and they (and their church’s leadership) remain eminently respectful of the differences and resonances between the two religions. Mormons seem more drawn to and fascinated by Catholicism than any of the Protestant religions. My own opinion is that Catholics may want to fully consider the “Jesus Christ” part of the Mormon church’s full name before jumping to conclusions.

With that perspective, the best and brightest Catholic piece I’ve seen on this issue is “Is Mormonism Christian?” in the March 2000 issue of First Things, you can read it here:

firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0003/public.html
 
Mark,

I would agree that were I to consider any other denomination I would be drawn the Roman Catholicism due to it s belief in sacraments and authority, which I believe are vital. However, I also question such as the Catholic church has acquiesced far too much in regards to Protestantism, acknowledging their baptisms and professions of faith as sufficient for salvation when then have not been performed under authority. However, that is really beside the point.

Some of the most informative and enjoyable conversations I have engaged in, whether apologetic or merely investigational, have been with Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Greek Orthodox adherents. My objection to this entire dialogue has been the uniformed nature of the replies. I find that rather than truly investigating what LDS Christians believe, many Roman Catholics and Protestants are comfortable merely to pawn-off upon the religion the anti-Mormon caricatures of its detractors or the tidbits they have collected through dialogue with those not of the faith. This opposed to actually visiting www.lds.org or conversing with an informed Latter-day Saint about their faith.

And as I stated in my first post, and LDS missionary does not qualify as an “informed Latter-day Saint."
 
Sorry Matt but you are being boldly disingenuous. Several versions exist of the First Vision, and various ones of the Eleven Witnesses did indeed make–or were alleged by close associates to have made–statements about their experiences vis’a’vis their viewing of the golden plates. Some of those statements clearly are contradictory with the ‘official’ version. Martin Harris–I believe–was compelled to testify in court about what he saw and is recorded to have said that he ‘saw with spiritual eyes’. It is not clear whether he meant that he saw only the angel with ‘spiritual eyes’ or whether the entire experience was perceived ‘spiritually’.

The Amerindians–along with Polynesians, Eskimos, Pacific Islanders, Soutn American natives, and so forth–are known as “Lamanites” among the LDS and proselyitized accordingly. The Lamanites are identified as ‘remants of the Jews’ (D & C 19:27). Early Mormon leaders believed to a man that the events of the Book of Mormon not only described the forebears of what were then known as “Indians”, but that the events took place over the expanse of the entire North and South American continents. Books purporting to show Mormon archaeology for years identified ALL such New World peoples as derived to some degree or the other from the descendents of Laman and Lemuel. The Doctrine and Covenants commissioned ‘missions to the Lamanites’ and LDS history shows such missions to have been fulfilled when Oliver Cowery and others went to nearby Amerindian tribes as missionaries–see D&C 30:5-6, D&C 32: 2-3). The Saints fled under persecution “to the borders of the Lamanites”, in Missouri–D&C 54: 8. For many decades, ‘missionary copies’ of the Book of Mormon has included photographic illustrations of Mayan and Aztec artifacts as ‘evidence’ of the story told in the Book of Mormon.

It is true that the Book of Mormon is vague about details, so that no specific geographic locations can be pinned down. It is also true that LDS-FAIR, FARMS, and similar scholarly LDS apologetics and research organizations have vastly scaled down original assumptions regarding the Book of Mormon: it is also true that most run-of-the-mill LDS still largely believe otherwise and are not at all averse to suggesting that such things as the Cahokia Mounds near me here in Illinois are ‘evidences for the Book of Mormon’.

So far as the training for LDS Missionaries goes: although most folks think of the missionaries as a pair of young men or young women in their twenties, in fact there are missionaries of any age, some of them quite well educated. More importantly: the young men and young women missionaries–if they are lifelong LDS–have attended as much as five hours per week of ‘seminary’ after school, along with three hours-plus of Sunday services and educational events (Sunday School and either Priesthood Meetings or Women’s Relief Society). It is estimated that the material offered in Relief Society alone is sufficiently challenging as to earn a young women the equivalent of a Master’s degree every five to ten years.

This is in addition to the Family Home Evenings and other Church-related seminars and educational events which active LDS would experience while growing up. I’m told that seminary for the boys has always been particularly geared–especially in the last couple of years of high school–to preparing boys to be ‘called’ to mission work. While we should be charitable to their youth and inexperience, one should NOT underestimate the measure of training most LDS missionaries from faith, active LDS families have received even BEFORE they attend several weeks at the LDS Missionary Training Center.

I once’t’upon a time were an LDS Elder and a member of my ward Priesthood Presidency quorum. I have NOT been to the temple, am thoroughly ignorant thereof and can err at times on other matters. But I believe I have been reasonably accurate to date, and not at all unfair or uncharitable.
 
And I might add Mark, after reading the information at the suggested link, that *Mormon America: The Power and the Promise *is not exactly the place to go searching for LDS belief either. I would wholeheartedly endorse the Encyclopedia of Mormonism and I find it unfortunate that he did not appeal to that set of volumes with more regularity in his article. I still perceived errors in even this relatively informed and genuinely charitable article. Statements such as *“*The emphatic and repeated answer of the Mormon scriptures and the official teaching of the LDS is that we are not” are altogether erroneous. We do not deny the Christianity of any professed believer, heedless of their denominational affiliation. Accusing someone of being an inheritor of an apostate tradition is not synonymous with accusing them of failing to believe and follow Christ according to their understanding. I do however like this bit:
It is true that St. Paul says that nobody can say “Jesus is Lord” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). But that only indicates that aspects of Mormon faith are touched by the Holy Spirit, as is every element of truth no matter where it is found.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the LDS position in regards to all other religious traditions derived from apostolic Christianity, i.e. that they contain truth, albeit not the fullness of such. We do not deny the honest and truthful claim of those who request the appellation Christian who are to the best of their ability and according to their understanding seeking to follow the Master.
 
flameburns623

This forum is too limited to offer reply. I find the 4000 character limitation to restrictive. If you wish to discuss your post we will have to do so through e-mail or at another forum where the poster’s ability is not so derisory.
 
Matt, what mormon (I refuse to use the term latter day SAINTS for mormons because they aren’t Saints) “christian” teachings would you happen to be reffering to?

Multiple “gods”, polytheism?

Human beings becoming “gods”

The mormon “jesus” being the brother of Lucifer?

“heavenly father” having sexual intercourse with the non-virgin Mary to concieve the mormon “jesus”.

The mormon “jesus” attoning for our sins in the Garden of Gethsemene, and not on the cross.

The mormon redefinition of “atone” to mean the resurrection of the body only, which everyone gets?

The mormon “godhead” consisting of three seperate “gods”, “heavenly father”, the mormon “jesus”, and the Holy “ghost”?

“Eternal Progression” where “as humans are now ‘god’ once was, as ‘god’ is now human beings will become”?

“heavenly father” with a “body of flesh and bone”, who is not omniscient and omni present, but limited to where his body can take him one place at a time only?

“heavenly father” who did not create “ex nihilo” from nothing, but "organised eternally existing matter?

And don’t pull your deceptive mormon nonsense on me that I don’t know what I am talking about. I am an ex-mormon myself and know exactly what I am talking about, everything I said is substantiated in official mormon writtings.
 
To everyone here:

The mormons are masters of deception and redefinition.

The mormon “Articles of Faith” are an excellent example of this. They use Christian words and terminology, yet do not inform that they redefine these words and terms, to mean completely different things.

Formerly the mormons openly differentiated themselves from Christians, now they are involved in a vast media campaign deceptively trying to make themselves look like Evangelical Christians, and hide their more esoteric doctrines until after the convert is already RE-baptised into their faith, and make it nearly impossible to get out.

(of course how making themselves look like Protestant Evangelicals is supposed to help their case on a Catholic board is beyond me)
 
I will say that a book written by Evangelical Christians about Mormons would NOT be the only source I would look at to learn about Mormonism. I am extremely critical of the ‘scholarship’–or lack thereof–displayed by Richard Abanes in “One Nation Under Gods”. It’s a very one-sided review of Mormon history, putting the worst possible face on everything and has been accused of mishandling it’s citations in a really egregious and dishonest fashion. Reading Abanes, or Fawn Brodie, or D. Michael Quinn, or the Tanners, etcetera will give a person some of the hidden underbelly of LDS history that you would NOT hear about in any official LDS history. (I own a little pocket-sized paperback put out by the Church entitled “Truth Restored”: it is a history of the LDS Church which allows the system of Plural Marriages in early Mormonism to go entirely unmentioned). But some of the writers I just noted are really jaundiced against the Church and should be read with that in mind.

Some secular accounts, mainly from the late 80’s and early 1990’s are still extant in libraries. Keep in mind that secularists are not ‘unbiased’ either–they just have ‘different’ biases than someone with a religious perspective has. Ron Rhodes does a masterful refutation of LDS theology in “Reasoning From the Scriptures With Mormons”–but his approach is Evangelical/Lutheran and perhaps not fully acceptable to Catholics.

I’ve already cited several LDS sources well worth reading: James Talmage, Hugh Nibley, FARMS, and LDS-FAIR. There is a great novelization of Mormon history available practically anywhere there is a public library–I say ‘great’ in the sense that you’d learn a lot of LDS history very painlesly. I do think the characters and storyline get predictable in a lot of places. I don’t think personally that the ‘official’ LDS website is especially helpful. I think they link to a forum like this one however, if someone had specific questions or were seeking dialogue. Or perhaps I’m thinking of the Deseret Books website, the largest LDS publisher? As you can tell I would rather hold a book in my hands than read stuff online.

Matt: I’m not certain we have anything to talk about privately. If I’ve made a factual error point it out here. If we have a difference of opinion–well, that’s why you’re Mormon and I no longer am. (I’m still on membership rolls by the way–never bothers to be expunged, just ‘dropped out’, as 60% of converts are wont to do). We WON’T see things eye-to-eye–wouldn’t likely do so even if we were both of the same faith. I do think I’ve been fair to the LDS on the facts, even if someone else would parse those facts differently and draw differing conclusions. And I’ve really said very little which is critical-most of what I’ve conveyed is analytical and descriptive.
 
boppysbud,

You aversion to my use of the term saint is entirely irrelevant. I care little how you define the term, only how the early Christians defined the term.

As for your polemical presentation of my beliefs, we are not polytheists; we certainly believe in becoming gods; your over- hyperbole regarding the relationship between Lucifer and Jesus is sensationalistic; there is no Latter-day Saint who would support the assertion that God the Father engaged in sexual intercourse with Mary, such is abhorrent and falsely attributed; we do not deny the role of either the cross or Gethsemane in the atonement of Christ, both are part and parcel of the whole; we do not redefein atone in the manner you specify; we do believe in the three that are one but that is pretty biblical as far as I am concerned; Lorenzo Snow’s couplet sounds very similar to some of the ECF’s; I do not see how the physically of God can be an issue of Christ has a physical body, even if it were an issue Christ was not perfected until resurrected therefore a perfect Father must have a physical form; the word create can be defined in the manner we believe; and yes, clearly you don’t have a clue what you are talking about! Status as an x-mormon or the previous member of a priesthood quorum presidency does not qualify either you or your compatriot in arms as an expert. If “everything I said is substantiated in official mormon writings” please present each item in turn with its support. And I would prefer support from the Standard Works.
 
40.png
MarkCeras451:
Catholics may want to fully consider the “Jesus Christ” part of the Mormon church’s full name before jumping to conclusions.QUOTE]

As I noted above, I live in an area that is heavily Mormon and features a Mormon temple. There are probably at least 150 “wards” (local meeting houses, the equivalent of a parish) in one local city alone. On the front of the older buildings you will see the placard “Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.” On the newer buildings, however (those built in the last two or three years) the placards are now reading “The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter Day Saints.” If you do this little comparison in your own town, I’ll be willing to bet you’ll find the same thing. This has coincided with their recent push to be accepted as Christians even while, ironically, their official teaching is that all other churches, especially the Catholic Church, are apostate and “an abomination before God.” (This reasoning always reminds me of the laughable claims of the anti-Catholic Filipino sect,* Iglesia ni Cristo * [Church of Christ]. Their claim is that, since their name is “The Church of Christ,” then they must be the true church founded by Christ. :rolleyes: )

Don’t be fooled by the double-talk and soft-pedaling of Mormon apologists. The LDS has one of the greatest PR machines ever known to man and they will do anything to present their image in the most wholesome and “Christian” light possible.
Click to expand...
 
boppysbud,

Further, in regards to your assertion that “The mormons are masters of deception and redefinition” such could not be farther from the truth. The Articles of Faith are not meant as a deception, far from it, they are meant as a brief albeit incomplete overview of LDS belief. I would ask you to demonstrate where the definitions are disparate. And Mormons have always considered themselves Christian in the sense they press presently.

I have never hidden the “more esoteric doctrines until after the convert is already RE-baptised into their faith” and such would not “make it nearly impossible to get out.” You may at any point request that your records be removed and confirmation of such sent to you. I served an LDS mission and all those I taught were made fully aware of LDS belief, including a former Roman Catholic who read the King Follette Discourse prior to baptism. You are full of bitterness and recrimination, hardly an emissary of Christ.

I have no desire to be considered a historically orthodox Evangelical Christian and there is no secret media ploy to obtain real estate in this niche for LDS Christians. That our dialogue has been with Evangelical Christians indicates only that they are the first group to truly seek dialogue as opposed to accusation and vituperation.
 
Matt:

My ‘expertise’, such as it is, consists in the fact that I have lived as a devout, practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints for no small number of years. Moreover, I have read all of the works I cited and many times that many, over long years of my adult life. I at least have been fair, reasonably accurate, and I have tendered responses to at least one point you have raised by extensive citations from the D&C. I have avoided the polemical response offered by boppysbud, and frankly would encourage others to likewise not adopt such a tone with the Latter-Day Saints or with any other faithful member of any other sect. It isn’t helpful at all.

Incidentally: I could point out that the Discourses of Brigham Young–in their unabridged form–do confirm that Brother Brigham, the second Prophet/Seer/Revelator of the LDS Church, made some pretty tasty comments about such matters as our Heavenly Father and the Virgin Mary, and so forth. I will refrain, except to point out that when the citations are provided for such matters, the nature of the debate is then shifted to whether Brigham’s comments were ‘official doctrine’ or not. A tough matter to sort out, given that LDS theology does not define the concept of ‘ex cathedra’ quite so cleanly as does Roman Catholic theology.

This is NOT the ‘debate a Mormon’ forum, I would note. It is a forum for Catholics to discuss non-Catholic faiths. At some point this discussion is likely to become thoroughly dull to our kind hosts. I have done what I could do to offer resources both pro- and against- the LDS Church. They are very good resources: James Talmage’s book, Jesus the Christ was once a candidate for addition to the Mormon ‘standard works’, the LDS term for inspired Scripture. Is there really more to add? Or do you care to challenge me directly on something for which I have made a mistake?
 
flameburns623,

Suit yourself. Your presentation of the missionaries’ abilities is over-exaggerated. Apparently you have never attended seminary. Likewise, I never mentioned the First Vision but referred to the accounts of the witnesses. Your arguments regarding any alleged variations in these specifically was subjective as you yourself admitted that one cannot know what Harris meant. Your perception of Lamanites is also flawed. I would suggest you peruse “Nephi’s Neighbors: Book of Mormon Peoples and Pre-Columbian Populations” by Matthew Roper at farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=review&id=505 which addresses most of your post. As I stated to another poster, membership and service in a priesthood quorum presidency does not qualify one as an expert on LDS Christianity. If such were the case, I would be trump your opinions merely due to my superior expertise as I have served an LDS mission, served in an Elder’s Quorum Presidency, taught as an Elder’s Quorum instructor, taught Gospel Principles for over five years, and am presently in the Stake Sunday School Presidency. However, such does not qualify me as an expert either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top