ex-mormon wants to talk

[paul_barlow]

Tmaque:

Wow! So many misconceptions…so little time.

1. Catholic’s don’t claim a child, or anyone else for that matter, will go to hell simply because they are not baptized.
2. The baptism of infants was practiced right from the beginning as evidenced by the fact that baptism replaced circumcision, and the evidence of writings on the subject by the ECF’s. Where in the Bible does it say infant baptism is wrong? We have ECF’s saying it was taught by the apostles, and we have no evidence to the contrary. Pretty simple conclusion and a baseless accusation to say it was a an invented practice.
3. The concept of asking another person to pray for you is not strange at all. The idea that we can ask those who are in heaven to pray for us is not prohibited anywhere in scripture. We also know it was practiced in the early Christian church.

1. false doctrine they are check your teachings.
2. how can an infant chose to follow christ. were does it say to do it. what your ecf putting or changing the teachings of the aposles. were exactly does it say to do it.
3. the only person who can help you is jesus christ not his mum. where in scripture is it preformed.

 

[ben_dy]

amgid:

Yes, it is a policy of the Church to commit an investigator to set a date for baptism early on, after the first couple of discussions. This is because some investigators gain a testimony of the Church early on in the teaching process, and it would be unwise and anticlimactic to delay their baptisms unnecessarily. However, they are not usually baptized immediately, after they have made such a commitment. Commitment to a baptismal date becomes a goal for the investigator to work towards; and they are usually not baptized until all the discussions are given, and the expectations and requirements of the Church are properly explained to them, such as keeping the word of wisdom, paying tithing, regular attendance to the Church, keeping the law of chastity etc; and a commitment is obtained from them that they would abide by them. Also, if they have committed serious sins (if they are living in an unmarried relationship with someone for example), they are not baptized until they have properly repented and put the matter right (in the example given above, they would be required to get married or end the relationship, before they can be baptized).

amgid

amgid,

I don’t know if this is church-wide (or just common sense) but it was suggested to me, as a matter of course, that I visit during a local service and that would be a ‘requirement’ of being baptised, as would following the WoW.

The latter - I would have thought - would have led the two terrific young men who were ‘my’ missionaries to have concluded that any date setting was not really appropriate: I know that I had at least two small racks of wine in the kitchen and likely 3-4 chilling in the fridge at any one time and both young men were allowed, yea, even urged to visit the fridge and drink as much juice, Gatorade, Kool-Aid, bottled water, etc., as they could hold down.

Those numerous trips were also where my ‘dirty little LDS secret’ was found - the quantities of Jell-O that I make and keep on hand. I love Jell-O and eat (easily) two quarts a day (sometimes as a full meal) and I was told of how popular Jell-O is not only in the state of Utah but throughout the whole of the LDS culture (at least in the U.S.). I actually believe that the youngest Elder believed that my penchant for Jell-O was a clear sign from God that I was already under preparation to join the LDS church!

To get back to the subject, though - my boys were very upfront with me about what would be expected, as well as the questions which would be asked (by the ‘baptismal scrutinizer’? I don’t recall the actual title) before baptism. When I explained that I drank two glasses of red wine per evening under my cardiologists advise they were fairly certain that this would be permissible (but, as I never actually arrived at the point where scrutiny was necessary, I have no idea what the outcome would have been).

So - just an off-the-cuff question: I know that JS and the Zion stores sold alcohol for medical purposes: today, are those who have heart conditions in which alcohol is thought to be an advisable course of medical treatment allowed to drink that portion prescribed by physicians and still receive baptism (or, more importantly, a temple recommend)?

With luck, you’ll see this question here - if not, I think I’ll post it in a small thread as I would be interested to know the church’s position.

 

[catholic-rcia]

The First Christians baptized infants because the first Christians have always done so. This practice was never challenged until the Middle Ages.

“Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” (Luke 18:16). Some say that only an adult can make a conscious decision to be baptized. So what happens to the children who die before they have a chance to make this decision? We must remember that Salvation is a gift from God, and all are capable of receiving this gift,

For the promise is for you and your children (Acts 2:38,39)

The remission of sins for an adult is a treasure included in Baptism, but sinning is not a requirement for Baptism, it is a fact of our fallen nature. From the writings of the first Christians and from Scripture we find that the first Christians were baptized as adults to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit, because the church was just being formed. These adults who were first baptized began to baptize their own children at a very early age to bring them the same free gift of Salvation, the Holy Spirit that they had received as adults. "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you shall be saved, you and your household . . . and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household. (Acts 16:15a) "

It was the obligation of these parents to raise their children in the Christian faith, teaching them the many treasures that Christ had gifted them. You will be hard pressed to find in the early church writings an early Christian who had not been baptized as a child. There are no writings of early Christians who were born into Christian families who at an age of reason made the decision to be baptized into Christ, to be born again, because they already were being raised in the faith. It was and is only those who did not know of Christ, who found Christ at a later age, who were called to the water and made the choice to renounce their accumulated sin, to enter into the community of Christians through the Great Sacrament of Baptism, to join in the Sacrament of Confession, forgiveness and reconciliation, for the lifelong battle over sin while being embraced by Christ.

Baptism is not just a testimony in the soul of an adult who has come to believe in the saving power of Christ, but is the means by which we clothe ourselves in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For an infant, it is the receiving of the Holiest of Spirits, a blanket of security covered with the communion of saints in the One Body of Christ (Romans 6:4) (Galatians 3:27)

Peter said, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38) “For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him”

After these first Christians were baptized, they naturally passed this saving Grace on to their first-born, second-born and so on. This baptism of infants was not for conscious sin, the remission of sins committed since their birth, because they had not yet consciously sinned. But it was for the receiving of the Holy Spirit for the remission of original sin, that which we are all born with and by which we are afflicted, the why and reason for needing our Savior. As you ponder Scripture about Baptism, try to find where baptism is restricted only to adults. Where do we find the so-called “Age of Reason as a degree for receiving Baptism in the Scriptures "? Either the gift of salvation is freely given to those who hear the Shepherd’s voice and follow, or it is not. Is this gift earned through our sin? Or is this gift given, because of original sin, to all who accept this gift? And what about those who are mentally ill who cannot make decisions on their own, is not the receiving of the Spirit put forth to transform them, as well? Do we have to be smart enough to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit at Baptism? What father or mother does not give the gift of life to his or her child before an age of reason? What conditions can we as mere creatures place on the special gift of life, the special gift of baptism? A life in Christ.

Continued____

 

[catholic-rcia]

“Now they were bringing even infants to him that he might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’” (Luke 18:15–16).

(Acts 16:15). “the same hour of the night . . . he was baptized, with all his family” (Acts 16:33) “I did baptize also the household of Stephanas” (1 Cor. 1:16).

What is the interpretation of “whole families were baptized?” For a Christian who studies the early Church Fathers’ writings, and has come to know the connection between original sin and conscious sin, this interpretation includes everyone in the household, including infants.

Jesus said that no one can enter heaven unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5). The first Christians took this literally and in their hearts gave their children the best gift that a parent could give: Christ in them, and a Christian family to raise them in Christ.

Again: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 19:14).

If a child is born into a Christian home, he or she is baptized to receive the Holy Spirit and to be taught the faith by his or her parents along with the community of Christ, the Church. An adult who is not born into a Christian home would be baptized naturally as an adult to accept the same faith that a child raised in a Christian home had already received. Baptism was not administered to bring them into a certain Christian sect; it was administered to bring them into a life of Christ, as there was only one Christian faith. Since the Reformation, we now have over 2500 different sects, each interpreting Baptism in their own light, in their own way, in a way that makes sense to them. The Church’s mission has always been to protect the teachings of Christ, handed down to the Apostles and, in turn, to teach others. Through earnest study, one can learn these teachings because they go back to Christ himself in unbroken succession and are documented.

If you belong to one of the several sects that claim that only through baptism one is saved, but do not baptize infants, then the question must be: Are children who die before baptism saved? If your answer is, yes, than you are coming to an understanding of infant baptism and of our Lord’s Mercy and love. If your answer is, no, with no understanding of infant baptism, then the question would be: Who is this God you have come to worship; is he a just and merciful God?

Common Sense

This is common sense, as we have a kind, just, and merciful God. Be careful of the Law that has been planted in your soul, for whose Law is it and from where did it come? How harsh can it be, if it is with and in God?

God Bless
www.catholic-rcia.com

Again: “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God”(Luke 18:16).
Augustine:
For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin. (Enchiridion; ch. 43)

 

[paul_barlow]

catholic-rcia:

Again: "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the

kingdom of God"(Luke 18:16).
Augustine:
For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin. (Enchiridion; ch. 43)

no you have the scriptures now study them where does it say children are damned if they were not baptised. where in scripture does it say to baptise children. please show me how christ would condem a child for some act that it could not do. i think your posters need to study your doctrine a bit deeper. christ indeed blessed the children but he did not baptise them . in fact christ did not baptise. His job was to save the world and teach of his father. it was his aposles with proper authority from christ who baptised the people. A CHILD CANNOT DIE IN SIN FOR THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED SIN. thus is the kingdom likened unto children.

 

[Tmaque]

1. false doctrine they are check your teachings.
2. how can an infant chose to follow christ. were does it say to do it. what your ecf putting or changing the teachings of the aposles. were exactly does it say to do it.
3. the only person who can help you is jesus christ not his mum. where in scripture is it preformed.

Paul, the onus is on you to show me where OUR tradition is wrong. You’re telling me to believe on blind faith the declarations of a suspect prophet. I have writings and traditions thousands of years old that disagree with your prophet. If you want me to consider that JS may have been right please give something objective to grasp.

1. I’m NOT wrong. YOU ARE. I don’t need to check anything, if you doubt me you can read the Catechism. Here’s a link.
   scborromeo.org/ccc/para/819.htm
2. Circumcision was a “sign and seal of the faith” just as baptism is. Circumcisions were performed on the 8th day after birth. Baptism replaced circumcision. Where does it say in scripture that children must wait until the age of reason to be baptized? St.Paul tells us that through Adam ALL have sinned(Romans 5:12)…that’s ALL…that means EVERYONE, even babies.
3. Paul, you don’t ask others to pray for you? How very odd. Most LDS I know pray for others. In fact there is a temple “prayer list,” consisting of the names of the sick, the suffering, the doubting, or others who devout Mormons believe would benefit from the prayers of the faithful. What were you saying about Jesus’ “Mum” not being able to help you through prayer or supplication to God? If that’s the case then why a prayer list? Who better to plead to God for us than those already in heaven?

 

[Chris-WA]

amgid:

Yes, it is a policy of the Church to commit an investigator to set a date for baptism early on, after the first couple of discussions. This is because some investigators gain a testimony of the Church early on in the teaching process, and it would be unwise and anticlimactic to delay their baptisms unnecessarily.

Why? Wouldn’t you want them to know what they were getting into before making such a commitment first? If they have a testimony early on, wouldn’t further education only increase that testimony before asking them to take the plunge? After all, we’re talking about the most important decision a person can make in their entire life.

The truth is that it’s a pressure tactic. By asking the individual to make a commitment so early on, that person feels bad if they don’t follow up after learning more. They don’t want to back out because they don’t want to disappoint the missionaries after agreeing to baptism.

It bothered me the first time I went through. I remember that feeling very well. It felt like I was being pressured into something I barely understood. I imagine this might work on someone with no previous religious training in Christianity since they would have nothing to compare it to. When more interesting things came up in later discussions, I started asking tough questions that the missionaries weren’t prepared for. It was obvious that they were uncomfortable when my questions didn’t fit into their neatly prepared presentation.

Perhaps some former LDS missionaries could expound upon this.

 

[Tmaque]

Chris-WA:

Why? Wouldn’t you want them to know what they were getting into before making such a commitment first? If they have a testimony early on, wouldn’t further education only increase that testimony before asking them to take the plunge? After all, we’re talking about the most important decision a person can make in their entire life.

The truth is that it’s a pressure tactic. By asking the individual to make a commitment so early on, now that person feels bad if they don’t follow up after learning more. They don’t want to back out because they don’t want to disappoint the missionaries after agreeing to baptism.

Perhaps some former LDS missionaries could expound upon this.

On my mission there was definitely a “close the sale” approach from the leadership. Baptisms were the goal and for some missionaries it was all about the “stats”. I can’t speak to the approach of LDS missions in the church today. But, I’m sure there remains a huge difference between the LDS and Catholic approaches to conversion.

I was struck by the absolute patience, and absolute respect for my personal spiritual journey as I went through RCIA. There were no expectations and zero pressure. A person needs “spiritual room” to discern the truth, decide what they really believe, and if they want to accept the commitments that come with baptism. Just knowing that someone is “trying” to convert you adds pressure, and pressure clouds judgement. Catholics believe that only the Holy Spirit can convert. We are only there to answer questions and be a guide when requested.

 

[majick275]

paul barlow:

no you have the scriptures now study them where does it say children are damned if they were not baptised. where in scripture does it say to baptise children. please show me how christ would condem a child for some act that it could not do. i think your posters need to study your doctrine a bit deeper. christ indeed blessed the children but he did not baptise them . in fact christ did not baptise. His job was to save the world and teach of his father. it was his aposles with proper authority from christ who baptised the people. A CHILD CANNOT DIE IN SIN FOR THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED SIN. thus is the kingdom likened unto children.

Have you read the book of Acts? Whole families were baptized. Corinthians… same thing. The Bible does make it clear that baptism replaced circumcision. You might want to look at the Gospel of John where Jesus tells us that no one can enter heaven without baptism. That coupled with his words in Matthew about letting the children come to him are informative. (lest there be the mistaken thought that these were children old enought to be baptized we have the gospel of Luke that specifies that they even brought infants to him)

A reading of Romans 6:3 seems to indicate that members of Christian families had all been baptized. (regardless of age) Where in the Bible do you see age restrictions on baptism?

 

[ben_dy]

paul barlow:

am i burning speaking to all you apostates. so the 12 million mormons are thick brain dead. we excesise no faith. thats an intresting statement from a bunch of people who seem to have lost there sense.

Paul,

I don’t believe that anyone has said that LDS members do not practice their faith - while I will not speak for all Catholics I will say that where I have run into problems with LDS beliefs is simply that the beliefs of what I would consider the answers to very important questions of doctrine is not the same for each LDS member as is so evident by the inability of various LDS members, here and on primary sources for LDS doctrinal studies, to reach consensus on doctrinal questions and answers. But in no way do I think for a minute that each and every member of the LDS church fails to exercise the faith which they hold to be true.
paul barlow:

you all joined a church with more confused doctrine than the other churchs put together. were are all the simple truths in your teachings. please give me a detailed explanation on what your church teaches. please show me were the virgin mary became so important in your churchs teaching was it peter james or john who taught to pray to her and then lets look at your teaching on baptism of children you dare to claim a child is in hell without baptism you do not teach that which christ taught.

Although I have found it impossible to find a comprehensive list of what LDS members teach as a whole, a clear and concise teaching of Catholic doctrines and teachings can be found here

• there is an excellent search engine so if you’re looking for the teaching of the Church on any given doctrine you can use the search engine for fast and efficient help.

If you could do me the favor of offering a website which offers “detailed explanation on what your church teaches” I would be very much obliged as I have been unable to find such a website - or even a book (if not too costly) either from my own investigations or from LDS members.
paul barlow:

we at least baptise our members we don’t except everybody’s baptism.

Likewise, we baptize our members and neither do we accept everyones baptism when coming from a different faith, Note that we do not baptize whom have already been legitimately baptized, however - only those who were baptized in a faith in which the single Godhead of the Trinity has been taught. If someone does not know if he or she has every been baptized or if there is doubt of the validity of any previous baptism the new member will enter the Church through a baptism which is popularly called ‘conditional baptism’.
paul barlow:

oh it is so sad to see so many confused and misguided people gathered together. may be i should cast you all out.

Paul - remember that while you may see us as “confused and misguided” there are a great number more who think the same of those in the LDS church: indeed, to my surprise, I have seemed to find more ‘anti-Mormon’ websites addressed to 8-12 million members than I have ‘anti-Catholic’ websites addressed to over one billion Catholics.

I’m not certain what you would do to “cast you all out”, exactly, but we (meaning the one, holy, and Apostolic Church) have survived all manner of persecution by men and, as Christ promised, “the gates of Hell”, even, have not been able to prevail against us!
paul barlow:

learn your faith and when you have learnt that then learn the one you have denied and when you have done that come and mock us.

Paul, most of us (and I would include you, presumably, within the group) use our time wisely so that we may, continually, have a deeper understanding of our faith. Having “learned” my faith, and have learned what I have been able of the LDS faith, I find no need to “mock” your faith - only to occasionally point out that which I find the most grievous doctrine - but when I do so I don’t mean to “mock” your faith, only to point out what I see as error and inconsistency. And LDS members do the same with the faith of others. We are, really, on common ground, when we have attended to the needs of our own faith, studied that of others, and come to out respective conclusions.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

paul barlow:

no you have the scriptures now study them where does it say children are damned if they were not baptised. where in scripture does it say to baptise children. please show me how christ would condem a child for some act that it could not do. i think your posters need to study your doctrine a bit deeper. christ indeed blessed the children but he did not baptise them . in fact christ did not baptise. His job was to save the world and teach of his father. it was his aposles with proper authority from christ who baptised the people. A CHILD CANNOT DIE IN SIN FOR THEY HAVE NOT COMMITTED SIN. thus is the kingdom likened unto children.

Paul;
This is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) says about children who die without baptism:

**VI. THE NECESSITY OF BAPTISM **
1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation.60 He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them.61 Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.62 The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.

1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.

1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.

1260 "Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: "Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,"64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.

60 Cf. Jn 3:5.
61 Cf. Mt 28:19-20; cf. Council of Trent (1547) DS 1618; LG 14; AG 5.
62 Cf. Mk 16:16.
63 GS 22 § 5; cf. LG 16; AG 7.
64 Mk 10 14; cf. 1 Tim 2:4.

The Catholic Church has never taught that unbaptized infants were “damned.” The Church teaches that baptism is necessary for salvation - giving rise to a concern that unbaptized infants may be unable to enter into Heaven but would instead be consigned to “limbo” - i.e. somewhere other than Heaven. It is a small distinction, but one with great theological implications. God does not damn the innocent.

The necessity of baptism arises from the recognition of original sin. Because the LDS church does not hold to that doctrine, I can understand why baptism is withheld until a later age. But if full consent is required for an effective baptism, then the instruction that one receives before becoming baptised should be complete and unabridged. That seems impossible for the LDS church to accomplish if it does not make the Temple ceremonies known to those seeking or contemplating entry to the Church.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

I see that another thread has been started regarding infant baptism. Please take further discussion of that, to that thread.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=79985

Thanks!

 

[amgid]

ben_dy:

I don’t know if this is church-wide (or just common sense) but it was suggested to me, as a matter of course, that I visit during a local service and that would be a ‘requirement’ of being baptised, as would following the WoW.

Yes, that is a “requirement,” or kind of. You are expected to attend Church for a time before you are baptized.

The latter - I would have thought - would have led the two terrific young men who were ‘my’ missionaries to have concluded that any date setting was not really appropriate: I know that I had at least two small racks of wine in the kitchen and likely 3-4 chilling in the fridge at any one time and both young men were allowed, yea, even urged to visit the fridge and drink as much juice, Gatorade, Kool-Aid, bottled water, etc., as they could hold down.

The whole idea of “setting a date” for baptism is to encourage the investigator to give up any “bad habits” he might have, such as drinking and smoking, before that date arrives. It sets a worthy goal for the investigator to work towards.

Those numerous trips were also where my ‘dirty little LDS secret’ was found - the quantities of Jell-O that I make and keep on hand. I love Jell-O and eat (easily) two quarts a day (sometimes as a full meal) and I was told of how popular Jell-O is not only in the state of Utah but throughout the whole of the LDS culture (at least in the U.S.). I actually believe that the youngest Elder believed that my penchant for Jell-O was a clear sign from God that I was already under preparation to join the LDS church!

Our missionaries are an inspired bunch. If that is what they told you, you had better believe it!

To get back to the subject, though - my boys were very upfront with me about what would be expected, as well as the questions which would be asked (by the ‘baptismal scrutinizer’? I don’t recall the actual title) before baptism. When I explained that I drank two glasses of red wine per evening under my cardiologists advise they were fairly certain that this would be permissible (but, as I never actually arrived at the point where scrutiny was necessary, I have no idea what the outcome would have been).

I couldn’t tell you either!

So - just an off-the-cuff question: I know that JS and the Zion stores sold alcohol for medical purposes: …

The second part is irrelevant.

… today, are those who have heart conditions in which alcohol is thought to be an advisable course of medical treatment allowed to drink that portion prescribed by physicians and still receive baptism (or, more importantly, a temple recommend)?

That is a question about which I am not in a position to comment. If you ever did seriously decide to be baptized into the LDS Church, that is an issue that you will have to resolve by consultation with your local priesthood leaders, such as with your bishop, mission president, and stake president. If necessary, these have the authority to consult with the General Authorities to obtain inspired counsel. But neither I nor anybody else on this forum would be in a position to give you further direction on that subject.

amgid

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Why? Wouldn’t you want them to know what they were getting into before making such a commitment first?

Why indeed. Have you not read the scriptures, how Philip baptized the Ethiopian eunuch at the first intimation of a testimony?

Acts 8:

35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.

36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?

37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.

39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.In the early days of Christianity, there were thousands of converts who were baptized at the first expression of belief, without any further fuss.

If they have a testimony early on, wouldn’t further education only increase that testimony before asking them to take the plunge? After all, we’re talking about the most important decision a person can make in their entire life.

You obviously didn’t read my original post carefully enough. Go and read it again to find the answer to you question.

The truth is that it’s a pressure tactic. …

If that is what you believe, then we have nothing further to discuss.

amgid

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

This is very interesting. First of all, as I haven’t read the whole thread, sorry if I repeat something that has already been mentioned. Secondly, from some of the responses given by Beccaboo it seems like she has made her decision and is unwilling to change her mind. I hope that’s not true. Generally, learning more should be a positive thing. If you feel disillusioned then work with it; think, do what you know you’re supposed to do, and be patient. Often people are too lazy to try. Some may think, “Well, it was just easier before,” and so go back.

I’m going to assume that’s not you though. I vented in a similar way here in the Apologetics forum. Look for a thread called ‘Question.’ I recently came back from my mission to Mexico, and let’s just say that most Catholics there are not the best examples in terms of religion. My opinion of Catholics before my mission was generally good. There are many good Catholics that I have met here in the States, yet by the time I was a year into my mission my opinion of the RCC was no longer the same. I came here originally in order to talk about my frustration with this. My goal wasn’t to bash Catholics, but to better understand the way things are, and why there are these differences; why what I was considered okay I then considered horrible. I got some good responses there and I now better understand the situation. I would suggest that you take the same approach. Don’t just vent, have a person. Try to understand the complexities. Needless to say, many Mormons have seen the same things you have. So why do they stick around, paying tithing and so on? Well, it’s not always because they don’t care. I’ve read anti-Mormon stuff, I’ve had bad experiences with fellow missionaries and so on; I am very familiar with the doctrine and practice; my sister is inactive, almost completely turned away to intellectualism and maybe atheism and so it would be easy for me to do so also, yet I haven’t backed away. Since I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt, you should do the same for me. Things just aren’t black and white. Satan makes sure of that. So, you have to sift through the **** to get to the gold.

Let’s help you do that then. First, I would recommend reading some of the comments on the thread I mentioned above. My experience was similar to yours in many ways. Maybe you can find some good insights there. As for your more specific concerns…

I have been reading this forum for a few days now and I feel safe venting here, so bear with me please. I have lived in a neighborhood with a heavy concentration of Mormon’s for many years. They were friends and associates and I marveled at their lifestyles and demeanors. I felt drawn to them and they appeared to be nothing but welcoming and accepting.

So one of a few things changed:

1. Them.
2. Your perception of them. Maybe you got to know them better.
3. Your attitude towards them.

My husband wasn’t interested, but that was OK. I was promised that he’d come around.

Who promised you that? I’ve never promised something like that to anyone and I never will except maybe by prophecy… I’m sorry if you felt promised that that was so.

*Jesus being married and having children.

Absolutely not doctrine. Do some speculate it? Yes. I consider it a possibility though I doubt it. Anyway, no one is required to believe it.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

**not to worry about my husband’s non-member status because I would marry a “worthy” Mormon in the after-life and he would take me to my heavanly reward,

Probably a poorly-given answer to a concern you brought up. This goes in the speculation pile. There is no official doctrine like that. What was expressed comes from the notion that everyone has an equal chance of happiness. True concept badly applied. Unfortunately there is no official answer to your concern except to have faith and hope and to perservere. That’s not such a foreign concept to Christianity in general.

***men becoming gods of their own planets,

This has been expressed so, and some (maybe more than some in some places) LDS believe it as stated. It’s a delicate subject. Can men become like God is? Yes. That is doctrine. That doesn’t mean, though that He ceases to be our one God. Basically He gave everything to Christ and we can also inherit all things, just as Jesus did. Again, not a foreign concept and easily found within the Bible. Careful how you interpret this.

****women only having token titles of authority in the church,

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this. Could you elaborate?

*****patriarchal blessing that totally freaked me out because this man was supposed to be blessed with revelation about my spiritual future and past and I think he gave me someone else’s blessing because he had another one to do that same night,

Can’t say too much there without details, which you probably shouldn’t give. All I can tell you is that I love my patriarchal blessing. Definitely inspired. I have met a few members who were also not so impressed with theirs, usually converts, actually. I don’t know why that is, but it happens. Remember that many read the Bible and consider it useless garbage, obviously non-appliccable to our day and so on. I didn’t appreciate mine at first. It took years. Just be careful there. Read it with a very open mind and heart.

******God having a wife

Speculation. Next.

*******you can’t enter the temple if you don’t pay your 10% of your income admission, drink tea or coffee, etc etc.

This should be part of the missionary lessons. It’s pretty basic. They may have mentioned, “In order to enter the temple you have to talk with the proper priesthood leader and be worthy to enter,” or something along those lines. But then, if you were baptized then you were doing all that stuff anyway, right? It shouldn’t have been a huge deal.

People gave their “testimonies” all the time and they are all the same and spoken in a robotic tone that I found disturbing. One of the missionaries referred to the Catholic church as the “abomination of the world” and the Pope as the “anti-christ”. I was told that every other church is a lie and the mormon church is the only salvation and wasn’t I lucky!!!

Oh yes, I’ve heard that kind of thing before. Yes, it is somewhat common, and neither is it right. Just a question: are you in Utah? Just remember that we are all at different spiritual levels. If you hear a missionary speak that way, call him out. I’d do it, especially if there were new members or investigators present.

listen to church approved music

I think you mean, stuff that doesn’t distance us from the Spirit. I’m sure any good Christian would readily agree with that.

I’m not stupid and this is a common complaint from ex-mo’s so it’s obviously happening.

I don’t disagree. The members aren’t perfect and too often they’re nowhere close to it. Some are a little fanatical and closed-minded; maybe you’ve seen some on the net. However, in my experience that isn’t very common. The most intelligent people I have ever met have been LDS. This is, of course, mainly judging between school, a few odd jobs, and church, to be fair. This is why I’d like to know where it is you live. Utah has a certain reputation of being a little less scholarly and a little more closed off to the rest of the world, although that’s not all-exclusive.

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

If you question ANYTHING you are told that “these things will be revealed at the appropriate time”.

Depends what it is you’re questioning. Certain things have not been revealed, and while we may speculate and declare our speculations as truth, the answer, “we don’t know yet,” is actually much more politically and doctrinally correct. So careful not to complain too much. They make something up, you don’t like it; they tell you they don’t know, you still don’t like it. You have to realize that you can’t demand answers of God: he reveals what we are ready for. You can’t demand answers of people either: they’re just not bright enough to figure it all out. Neither can you demand for answers given to fit your logic or preproposed ideals. What all people should do is search, and then decide what the truth is and live by it, not to try to create it.

You are also told that if you don’t agree with anything you are calling JS a liar and the church a fraud. Some much for the “free agency” they keep telling you that you have!

I understand that you’re venting, but in order to discuss things you have to be more specific. If I decide to be Catholic should I complain about the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary because it doesn’t fit with my thinking and what to me is very obvious scriptural evidence? I can, which is why I would still have free will, but it would simply be incorrect to declare myself Catholic and deny that doctrine at the same time. So it depends what doctrine it is you’re not in agreement with. Do you think the great apostasy didn’t happen, for example? Well, I think I illustrated my point above.

I have read the responses from a couple of church members here that act like they don’t know what people are talking about and they deny and outright ignore the question.

I have seen that here with a few Catholics. Anyway, while these do exist there are also some excellent and intelligent LDS here and elsewhere. I hope, at any rate, that you’re not thinking this of me. I’m doing my best.

It makes me want to scream!! What bothers me more than anything is that I’m out but my head is so messed up I am obsessed with going to forums of the apologetics and confronting them but they are so blind and just keep saying “where’s your proof” yet when they are offered proof and they ignore it and call you a liar because what you gave them is not proof. They don’t give any proof to the contrary because they say they don’t have to or that it’s already been done and they aren’t going to do it again.

Can’t comment too much here as I haven’t seen any of it… What apologetics do you mean? Have you gone to FAIR or what? I like that board.

I have been reading this forum for a few days now and I feel safe venting here, so bear with me please. I have lived in a neighborhood with a heavy concentration of Mormon’s for many years. They were friends and associates and I marveled at their lifestyles and demeanors. I felt drawn to them and they appeared to be nothing but welcoming and accepting.

So one of a few things changed:

1. Them.
2. Your perception of them. Maybe you got to know them better.
3. Your attitude towards them.

My husband wasn’t interested, but that was OK. I was promised that he’d come around.

Who promised you that? I’ve never promised something like that to anyone and I never will except maybe by prophecy… I’m sorry if you felt promised that that was so.

I just hope a mormon reads this and recognizes their behavior and maybe saves themselves. It is such a dangerous organization that I don’t feel like they should be allowed to be an option for people.Thank you for this forum. God bless you all and pray for the mormon’s and the recovering mormons because we need it more than you know.

Wow.

So, are you actually an ex-Mormon or are you just not participating in the Church in any way anymore? Are you going to be Catholic now? What kinds of changes will there be?

Remember, I’m with you, not against you.

 

[majick275]

I have a few comments here.

I think eternal progression has been clearly defined as LDS doctrine and requires that :
God was once a man with his own God, God does in fact have a wife (and probably wives), Jesus is the literal son of god in the flesh and would have to be married at some point so that he could have eternal increase and finally that those LDS who achieve the highest level of exaltation will become Gods just like ours. (although he will still be OUR God)

I also think the LDS would be better served by a lengthier more detailed “conversion” process similar to Catholic RCIA. That way you wouldn’t have people learning that they don’t agree with the doctrine AFTER they are baptized.

 

[E.E.N.S]

beccaboo:

you people are the best!! I hate to be such a whiner but I think I found a great place to do it. I think I just really want to understand how I ever got into that mess and why I’m so messed up after such a relatively short time. It’s very odd.

My [old] best friend and my brother went through the same thing you did…you are in my prayers. (I am a Catholic convert by the way.)

 

[Chris_Jodrey]

majick275:

I have a few comments here.

I think eternal progression has been clearly defined as LDS doctrine and requires that :
God was once a man with his own God, God does in fact have a wife (and probably wives), Jesus is the literal son of god in the flesh and would have to be married at some point so that he could have eternal increase and finally that those LDS who achieve the highest level of exaltation will become Gods just like ours. (although he will still be OUR God)

I also think the LDS would be better served by a lengthier more detailed “conversion” process similar to Catholic RCIA. That way you wouldn’t have people learning that they don’t agree with the doctrine AFTER they are baptized.

Well, if you’ve found the doctrine clearly expounded in the Standard Works then you’re right; however, I have not seen it there. It is true that many LDS believe most of what you have said (except for the part about God having many wives – that is not generally accepted). The point though, is that this is not doctrine. What may seem logical to you and those LDS simply may not be the case. Remember, God knows better than any of us, we can’t comprehend what he comprehendeth. So, until there is revelation on the subject, all of that is speculation. Might be true, might not.

You miss the point with the conversion time theory. The idea is not to judge in detail everything everything you can, and when all is acceptable take the leap of ‘faith’. That’s the world’s way. God’s way is: learn the truth through the Spirit, take the leap of faith, then trust him; if that is followed then there should be no confusion, then or later. When circumcision was no longer required, as explained by the apostles, not all the Jews were accepting of it. I’m sure some apostasized. It wasn’t logical on many grounds to those that had believed in it their whole lives. But, the decision should have already been made: they had accepted those apostles as the Lord’s chosen leaders on earth. Don’t pretend it’s any different in Catholicism. If the pope was to declare a change in practice, or explain differently a scripture or doctrine, all good intelligent Catholics would justify it rationally – not because that’s the way it is, but because they believe in the pope, and want to believe what he declares as truth, even though it is difficult at first. LDS do the same thing, as do all in all religions, and there’s really nothing wrong with it, except that the principle can sometimes be pushed too far.

amgid gave a good passage demonstrating this idea. There are others, too. Look it up. Did the Jews scrutinize the apostles’ teachings before deciding to believe that the Messiah had come? Remember that when Jesus gave his famous discourse on eating his flesh and drinking his blood that many turned away. True doctrines may be very different from what the world believes is true. Now, obviously Jesus hadn’t given them a full explanation before they all decided to follow him, which is why these felt disillusioned and went away. Big whoopie. Their fault, not Christ’s. To anyone not Christian, the Christ story is just a silly fairy tale. It’s craziness. Most will read your post and decide that 1) it is LDS doctrine and 2) it is weird and stupid and maybe even disturbing (kind of like canibalism). (This is why the antis have so much success; it’s all in the presentation.) So be careful in judging doctrine. Do it delicately.

Personally, whenever an ex-member or a hostile inactive (and I’ve met more than a few) tells me they are so because of weird teachings they just found out about I always take it with a grain of salt. It’s always more complex than that. Usually apathy, social problems, or other issues start the person on the path of trying to justify their departure, and so, that is the reason they give; not that they refuse to forgive some member, or that they were offended by a leader, or that they don’t want to keep the Church rules, but rather that the Church is to blame, for psychotic doctrine that the other members are brainwashed enough to accept blindly or ignorant enough of it that it makes no difference to them; so the intellectually inspired decide to get out while they can, before they are brainwashed entirely. Yes, I’ve heard it many times and I’m sure I will later on too.