Ex-Mormon Missionaries

[Fidelis]

MarkCeras451:

Where you draw the line depends on when you want to draw it, though-- after Paul? Nicea? Luther?

I am well familiar with the concept of a Triune God, and struggle with it constantly-- but since, as my pastor is fond of saying, St. Augustine had an even tougher time with it, I don’t feel so inadequate.

Augustine did not struggle with accepting the Trinity, he only struggled with how to understand, define and describe it. Big difference.

My deliberately low bar covers the essentials-- those who profess Jesus as Lord and accept the Holy Spirit into their lives deserve, I believe, our consideration as brothers and sisters in a Christ-centered life. They certainly live it.

Your deliberately low bar is a deliberately misplaced bar. If one proclaims Jesus as Lord and is talking about a completely different concept of Jesus’ essence, then that is not a shared “essential” --it is an illusionary one.

That one lives an apparent Christ-centered life does not automatically make that person deserving of the name Christian. Gandhi lived a life that would put most Christians to shame, but he would have been the first to (honestly) admit he was not a Christian.

The “bugaboos” are automatically raised when one’s definition of who “can” and “can’t” be a Christian moves away from who shares what’s in our hearts and towards who we think can join our club.

This statement proves the last point of my previous post. Just because one honestly points out the obvious differences between Catholic Christian and Mormon theology, doesn’t mean he is appointing himself arbiter of “who can join our club.”

 

[MarkCeras451]

That’s entertaining, but Gandhi did not live a Christ-centered life, of course, because he did not profess belief in Jesus, which makes that a bit ridiculous-- as ridiculous, perhaps, as suggesting that the professed “orthodox” Christian and occasional Catholic Adolf Hitler was a better Christian than the LDS mom who truly lives the gospel and devotes her entire being to her family. Of course, the former was really a pagan-- which demonstrates the peril inherent in denying unorthodox Christians their Christianity by focusing on their doctrines instead of their hearts. And read the charming story of St. Augustine calling attention to the child trying to count the grains of sand on the beach for some insight into his travails.

My point, though, which seems to be aggressively missed here (maybe I am in the wrong group, and I apologize for that), is that those who profess to accept Jesus as Lord and live a Christ-centered life probably qualify for the title more than those who belong to the “right” church but are spiritually inactive. Pews are full of them- I used to be one myself before I dropped out.

But back up and look at the other point here: should Catholic Christians view this as an opportunity for ministry or as an continual and unending confrontation? Like it or not, there are strong Catholics and devout Mormons together in marriage, child-rearing, youth activity, community service, and much more. Many of us Catholics working, living and loving in such close proximity to these folks find it harder and harder to accept the idea that they are not worthy of consideration into the flock of Christ on their own merits and base beliefs, which I’ve now outlined several times. The more we get to know them and know about them, the more we’ll keep asking ourselves (and annoying others with) that pesky question: “if they don’t qualify, who does?”

I do know that the Mormon religion is young and will continue to evolve and adapt as it has done throughout its relatively brief history. As Catholics, we have an opportunity to be involved in that formation if we adopt a more ministeral, understanding and accepting approach. Toward that end, I would like to hear from other Catholic-Mormon groups, families, etc. on how they deal with it and what they need to be more complete-- llikely through a new posting, as this is probably not the forum ( and as a newcomer and guest I again apologize if I have strayed from the main subject).

Just a comment on the questions surrounding some of the information posted earlier: It was the Mormons posting on this page who suggested going to the source for information on their beliefs rather than recycling the same old sources, and they are right. Catholics who obviously have never set foot in an LDS church or stake center (yes, they are welcome-- most of the folks using the family history center in our neighborhood aren’t LDS), or even a Deseret bookstore will probably keep drawing their beliefs and perceptions (and misconceptions) about Mormons from websites and tracts and pamphlets, and that’s fine for them (as many Mormons will keep clinging to their old inherited Protestant canards about ‘popery’ and Mariolaty).

 

[Marauder]

rod of iron:

Do you always ask questions by calling someone a liar first? If you do, you must not be very popular. How can calling someone a liar be seen as anything but an attack upon them?

Where did I call you a liar? Are you offended by the line that says all the different branches claim they are the true church started by Joseph Smith? Well that is the case, they all do. I was stating a fact, not calling you a liar.

Also, what “Mormon” church goes by the name “Reformed”? You are showing your lack of knowledge about the different sects that trace their authority through Joseph Smith.

Know who is assuming something about me without knowing. I now see why it is so hard to have a charitable conversation with you. I guess the house I drive by about once a week with a sign that says “Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” isn’t really there. Is it possible you don’t know about one of the different branches or that this group calls itself something different.

Are you referring to the Reorganized Church?

They could actually be part of the Reorganized church but they called themselves the reformed church.

 

[flameburns623]

If I might be so bold as to referee a bit here.

“Rod of Iron” is a reference to a vision by Nephi the First in which he saw certain people, enveloped in mists and surrounded by chasms and other physical hazards, trying to make their way along the path of Godliness while holding on to an iron rod, like a handrail. Those who let go of the iron rod would wander off the path and become lost. The rod of iron, obviously, is a symbol of Christ; it is also a very popular image for Latter-Day Saints to appropriate. It has a parallel in the Liahona, a sort of Divinely-empowered directional device which was used to help the family of Lehi find their way to the New World. It also is a type of Christ, pointing ever to the Father.

Both are sometimes used to illustrate different ‘styles’ of leadership in the LDS Church–the Iron Rod leader sticks to the tried-and-proven way, the known path. He can be rigid and inflexible, but turning away from his guidance can also present many perils. The ‘Liahona’ leader points ever to the ultimate goal, but leaves it to the individual to find one’s way through the uncharted wilderness, the un-navigated seas. One can have many adventures and be compelled to grow to meet many challenges while following the guidance of the Liahona–or one can be unwary in one’s journeys or overwhelmed by the dangers one meets, and meet one’s end before the journey is complete.

As you can imagine therefore, it is very possible that there are not just one or two mut many Mormons who employ the nickname ‘Rod of Iron’ or some variant thereof. We need not assume that our friend here is synoymous with another of the same nic.

So far as I know there is no 'Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints". I could be entirely mistaken. Or someone could be misreading the sign? As someone else has noted, there IS a ‘Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’. It is now called the 'Community of Christ, and it is a remarkably liberal organization. I rather think Rod of Iron is not a member of that group. His stress on ‘the original teachings’ of the LDS faith lead me to wonder if he is not a member of one of the schismatic polygamous sects which are rather frequent in Utah. I do know that someone in this forum called Rod a liar, and went to the trouble to cite a post of his in which he claimed to belong to the LDS Church. I don’t think, from what he is now posting, that he means the main LDS church which we have been discussing here. Perhaps he will clarify . . . .

 

[rod_of_iron]

Marauder:

Where did I call you a liar? Are you offended by the line that says all the different branches claim they are the true church started by Joseph Smith? Well that is the case, they all do. I was stating a fact, not calling you a liar.

I’m sorry Marauder. I had you confused with Fidelis who did call me a liar in post #26 of this thread. I assumed that since you quoted that part of my post to Fidelis which asked Fidelis how I had lied, that you were the one who had called me a liar. My apologies for confusing you with Fidelis.

Marauder:

Know who is assuming something about me without knowing. I now see why it is so hard to have a charitable conversation with you. I guess the house I drive by about once a week with a sign that says “Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” isn’t really there. Is it possible you don’t know about one of the different branches or that this group calls itself something different.

I don’t know what sign you are seeing each week, but I have never heard of this “Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”. Often when people are referring to the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, they refer to it as the Reformed church. I thought that you were doing the same. I searched the internet to see if I could find this “Reformed Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, but every link that came up seemed to be really speaking of the “Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints”, but using Reformed instead of Reorganized when stating the name of the church. Can you show me any evidence of this Reformed church you speak of?

 

[Marauder]

rod of iron:

I’m sorry Marauder. I had you confused with Fidelis who did call me a liar in post #26 of this thread. I assumed that since you quoted that part of my post to Fidelis which asked Fidelis how I had lied, that you were the one who had called me a liar. My apologies for confusing you with Fidelis.

Hey it happens, I understand.

Can you show me any evidence of this Reformed church you speak of?

I looked for a link to the church itself online and I don’t see any references to it either by the name Reformed, Reorganized or anything else. I will drive by the place within the next week. If I remember I will take my camera. There is a chance I am remembering wrong and I will be the first to admit it, but I swear I remember the sign saying reformed and the person that I knew that belong to it saying reformed. In searching on the web I have found references to Reformed LDS churches but I haven’t found one on a link where a church says it calls itself that so I didn’t feel I could use it as proof.

I did talk to him (in this case the parent) about his spirituality and the differences between his branch of the LDS church and the more widely known one. These conversations happened over a year ago. I remember being suprised that he said reformed because I knew of the “reorganized” branch, but not the “Reformed” branch.

As I said before I have had a lot of contact with members of the LDS church through Scouting. As you know all boys of the LDS church (at least the largest branch) are highly encouraged to be Boy Scouts (I was going to say required to be, but I know that isn’t the case.)

 

[Fidelis]

**Bottom line:/B] Mormons are not Christians because they do not have a valid baptism. They do not have a valid baptism because of their erroneous theology, especially on the nature of God (or, in their case, of “gods”).

The declaration by the Vatican on the invalidity of Mormon baptisms sums up and clarifies these issues very nicely:

ewtn.com/library/Theology/MORMBAP1.HTM

Rome has spoken, the matter is closed. No amount of wishful thinking or making nice will change that. While we are called to work with Mormons and others of good will, theological truth matters, whether it is convenient and comfortable or not.**

 

[boppysbud]

Obviously the Mormons are highly relativeistic, when it comes to their being wanted to be called Christians.

It does not matter if they believe in multiple “gods” or a “god” who is a glorified human being.

They beleive in a entity they call “Jesus Christ”. that’s all it takes in their view to be “christians”

Never mind that their “jesus christ” is a completely different person from the Christian Jesus Christ.

 

[boppysbud]

Fidelis, of course you realise that the mormons will not recognise the validity of our baptisms, becaase we were not baptised by men holding the “priesthood authority”.

Yet they expect us to recognise their baptisms.

By mormons all the recognition, and respect goes one way only.

We are the great whore of babylon, and completely “apostate” according to mormon teachings.

 

[rfk]

Wow, I hesitate to even post in this thread because I am just a cradle Catholic with only the most rudimentary knowledge of Mormanism.

And part of me wonders if what I am going to report will be taken like me rolling a grenade into the room. Hey, please understand I am not looking to get into flame wars with anyone.

But regarding:

chimakuni:

Catholic Deacon Steve Seever, was on the Journey Home last night and this morning. He was a Mormon and his discussion with Marcus Grodi was very interesting.

I should also mention that he is a transitional deacon in his last year of seminary, and should be ordained a Catholic priest next June. So, in this Catholic’s mind, I have a lot of willingness to listen with an attentive ear, if it is something that an “almost priest” is willling to say on EWTN. After all, it is hard to deny you said something if anyone on the web can go to the EWTN website and watch the program – no “plausible deniability”.

Deacon Steve made a statement in passing that the Book of Mormon was a fraud, written by Joseph Smith. Since Smith had little education, however, it seemed unlikely that he would be capable of writing such a work. Deacon Steve said there was now historical evidence that much of the book was plagiarized from a variety of sources.

True? Not true? I have no idea if there is solid, historical evidence of plagiarism.

 

[Fidelis]

boppysbud:

Fidelis, of course you realise that the mormons will not recognise the validity of our baptisms, becaase we were not baptised by men holding the “priesthood authority”.
…

By mormons all the recognition, and respect goes one way only.

This is very true, as the document I linked above points out. True, and ironic.

 

[rod_of_iron]

rfk:

Wow, I hesitate to even post in this thread because I am just a cradle Catholic with only the most rudimentary knowledge of Mormanism.

And part of me wonders if what I am going to report will be taken like me rolling a grenade into the room. Hey, please understand I am not looking to get into flame wars with anyone.

But regarding:

I should also mention that he is a transitional deacon in his last year of seminary, and should be ordained a Catholic priest next June. So, in this Catholic’s mind, I have a lot of willingness to listen with an attentive ear, if it is something that an “almost priest” is willling to say on EWTN. After all, it is hard to deny you said something if anyone on the web can go to the EWTN website and watch the program – no “plausible deniability”.

Deacon Steve made a statement in passing that the Book of Mormon was a fraud, written by Joseph Smith. Since Smith had little education, however, it seemed unlikely that he would be capable of writing such a work. Deacon Steve said there was now historical evidence that much of the book was plagiarized from a variety of sources.

True? Not true? I have no idea if there is solid, historical evidence of plagiarism.

Ever since the coming forth of the Book of Mormon, people who did not want to believe it was sacred have formed all kinds of theories to discredit the book. It has long been claimed that either Joseph Smith wrote the book or that he plagiarized from other sources to write the book. Neither theory has been proven. No one who speaks against the book wants to believe that it could have been translated from plates of gold by the power of God. People like to claim that since no plates are available to prove that the source for the Book of Mormon was the plates, the story of the plates must be false. But why would this be false? Has God never sent a heavenly messenger to reveal information? Did God not send Gabriel to Mary to reveal the fact that she would bear the Son of God in the flesh?

There are too many internal evidences for the Book of Mormon for me to reject it. Most of the time, the anti-Book of Mormon people try to prove that the book is false by showingthat there is** lack of evidence**. As I have said elsewhere on this forum, lack of evidence proves nothing. Only the revealing of evidence proves something is factual. I believe that if Catholics were to accept the Book of Mormon as a sacred book of God, the Roman Catholic church would structurely topple to the ground. I don’t believe that many Catholics would risk that happening, even if accepting the Book of Mormon could be a coming to the knowledge of the truth.

 

[rfk]

rod of iron:

Most of the time, the anti-Book of Mormon people try to prove that the book is false by showingthat there is** lack of evidence**. As I have said elsewhere on this forum, lack of evidence proves nothing. Only the revealing of evidence proves something is factual.

I agree it is difficult to prove something is false because of lack of evidence. After all, that is the very essence of Faith.

But that is quite different from proving something is false by having evidence of falsehood. And that is the question I raised:

rfk:

Deacon Steve said there was now historical evidence that much of the book was plagiarized from a variety of sources.

Is anyone familiar with this evidence of plagiarization?

 

[flameburns623]

Gerald and Sandra Tanner, in particular, have gone to some lengths to document the various strands of sources which the young Joseph Smith could have used to create much of the material of the Book of Mormon. Add in a fecund imagination on Joseph’s part and I think there is little mystery about the source material of the BofM.

Some caveats: the Tanners were very good at collecting and mimeographing original source materials. However the Tanners left the LDS Church to become committed Evangelicals, and their biases need ever to be considered. They, like Richard Abanes, have been criticised for the selective way they present evidence, and in particular their tendency NOT to present evidence which might put the LDS Church or it’s founders in a more-favorable light.

Moreover, Hugh Nibley–a Mormon apologist–explored a great many facets of the Book of Mormon. He has his OWN biases, mind you, but one should take his views into consideration. The well-read Later-Day Saint certainly will. Generally: a person such as Nibley can powerfully ‘innoculate’ many members against the onslaughts of such critics as the Tanners. One might want to give some thought to the work of some of the major proponents of Mormonism and be prepared to explain the flaws in their approaches. One should also familiarize oneself with LDS critiques of some of the best-known opponents of Mormonism.

In some cases, one might want to reconsider certain sources. The ‘Spaulding Manuscript’ theory is an example: this was the claim, first made in Joseph Smith’s lifetime I believe, that a minister named Solomon Spaulding wrote the Book of Mormon or something very close to it, which Smith then came somehow into possession of and put forward as his own. Some decades after the theory first was proposed, the first of several Spaulding manuscripts emerged: the story had a very superficial resemblance, in some areas, to the story of the Book of Mormon. However, no version of the unpublished Spaulding manuscripts comes close to the Book of Mormon in terms of complexity–and none is so thoroughly centered upon theological issues as is the BofM. More importantly: Spaulding has never been shown to have ever had any connection to Joseph Smith or any of his associates at the time the Book of Mormon was being ‘translated’ and published. AFTER the publication of the BofM, one Sidney Rigdon, a one-time associate of Spaulding’s, was converted, but this is clearly a tenuous connection and much too late to have influenced Joseph Smith’s work. Nonetheless, this theory pops up occasionally in various new forms, much like the Charles Chiniquy story among Catholics.

Finally: bear in mind that while one can dialogue with a Latter-Day Saint and perhaps introduce evidences and critiques they had not considered–one cannot ‘argue’ someone into Christianity.

 

[Matt16_18]

rfk:

Is anyone familiar with this evidence of plagiarization?

See: D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, chapter 6: “Mormon Scriptures, The Magic World View, and Rural New York’s Intellectual Life”.

 

[rod_of_iron]

flameburns623:

Gerald and Sandra Tanner, in particular, have gone to some lengths to document the various strands of sources which the young Joseph Smith could have used to create much of the material of the Book of Mormon.

The important words in your above sentence are “could have”. Historical fact is not founded upon “could have” speculations. It would seem to me that historians must depend on what what written down during a certain time period to know what might have occurred at that time. But if someone writes down lies, the historian living years, decades, or centuries later, may never know that he or she is reading lies.

flameburns623:

Add in a fecund imagination on Joseph’s part and I think there is little mystery about the source material of the BofM.

I have heard these claims about Joseph Smith’s imagination. But how can anyone verify these claims if these stories he allegedly told from his imagination were never written down? You may claim that the Book of Mormon is filled with these stories. But I want to see proof of these imaginative stories from other documents outside of the Book of Mormon.

 

[oat_soda]

rod of iron,

how do you explain the fact that the pearl of great price is a forgery?? or that joseph smith was put in jail because he broke into a mormon run press that was publishing stories of how he was printing money without gold to back it up and married to multiple wives (over 44 at least and married a mom and daughter with husbands approval)?

His deceptions and lies can’t be hidden forever. the whole point of life is finding the truth -veritas.

 

[Fiat_Lux]

oat soda:

rod of iron,

how do you explain the fact that the pearl of great price is a forgery?? or that joseph smith was put in jail because he broke into a mormon run press that was publishing stories of how he was printing money without gold to back it up and married to multiple wives (over 44 at least and married a mom and daughter with husbands approval)?

His deceptions and lies can’t be hidden forever. the whole point of life is finding the truth -veritas.

Joseph Smith was a deeply flawed man, a fact he acknowledged; in fact, he reported that he was chastized by God on more than one occasion for his failings. Considering the flawed character of some of our popes through the years, I don’t put a great deal of weight on such things as his sexual appetites.

I put more weight on such things as his having used the same “seer stone” used in translating the BoM for (unsuccessful) “treasure hunting”, and his apparently keen interest in the occult.

As for the papyri from which the PoGP was allegedly translated, they went missing for quite some time before a small portion of them reappeared. There are claims from the LDS camp that the small part we have was unimportant to the “translation”. There are also disagreements about what they contain; JS claimed that it depicts the sacrifice of Abraham, while non-LDS scholars claim it is an unremarkable rendering of the mummification process. Having looked at the image myself, I have to say it looks as though the person on the table/altar is alive… but, I am no expert in these matters and have never compared the image to known images of mummification.

But, I digress. My point is that there are two sides to these issues; they are not as cut and dried as the anti-Mormons would have you believe. The explanations LDS apologists have advanced for them are possible, even if improbable.

My skepticism regarding the BoM stems more from the tremendous amount of questionable evidence, as opposed to any one thing, because there are plausible explanations for every issue I have seen raised.

 

[cestusdei]

On the FARMS site the mormons have worked hard to develope their apologetics skills. I think they are learning from us. But I saw their program on the Pearl of Great Price. As I listened I noticed they left out some things and made some major leaps. They never really explained how Smith got it so wrong. Basically they claimed that he translated parts that were burned in the fire. They could not prove that, but tried to shift the burden of proof on to us. Nope, that won’t work. It is clear that Smith did not know what he was doing when it came to translation. Basically he made it up as he went along. I have read the BOM. It is obviously a 19th century production. You would think they would have found one coin, horse, or something/anything to show it has some factual basis. They would if they could, but they can’t. They believe it because they feel a burning in the bosom. That sums it up. It is not really faith which is a supernatural gift. Rather it is a self-generated feeling to support belonging to the group. Many don’t question it much. But those who do often end up leaving. Catholicism can produce actually history to back up its claims. You might reject the evidence, but at least it is real.

 

[Tmaque]

There was an article in the newspaper here in Salt Lake City last week discussing the fact that FARMS, and other LDS apologists like those at BYU are creating a disconnect in belief systems between the average LDS member and the intellectual apologists.
Particularly regarding the Book of Mormon and DNA evidence.

The DNA evidence against the original church teaching regarding the origin of native americans (Lamanites) is irrefutable. It’s simply been proven to be false. So FARMS and the like have come up with apologetics to explain away the DNA evidence by saying that the Lamanites were only a small portion of the total population of the Americas and the BOM only covered a small portion of land in Central America.

This is direct opposition to mainstream and historical LDS teaching that ALL native americans were Jewish descendants and that the BOM is a history of North, South and Central America. Facts are forcing LDS apologists to create a NEW theology based on evidence. But, for Mormons new theology is nothing new at all.